Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Majick 06-14-06, 02:13 AM	Has anyone heard of a way to make an Assassin character turn good? I was thinking something like Redeemed/Emancipated Assassin. Still get the Death Attack and all that but no longer has to be evil, kinda uses his abilities for death dealing for a more goodly cause. Anyone heard anything like this before? :confused:
mtgoracle 06-14-06, 02:14 AM	There's something similiar in the book of exalted deeds. Or you could just houserule it. People seem so against that these days.
buddy4031 06-14-06, 02:16 AM	in my campains you'd be an exalted assasin. in other words, you keep all your ability's and what not, but every assasin is going to try and kill you.
shadow mage 06-14-06, 02:18 AM	Or role play that the character genuinely seeks to repent for what they've done... create a story... no feats/skills/etc. necessary... Dungeon masters are always more willing to listen to the player who comes up with a creative way to alter alignment rather than do so through rule-shaking/number-crunching. Comes across as less standoffish and more cooperative. -Shadow Mage
belthazzar1113 06-14-06, 02:28 AM	personally i think its silly. i want to be able to study someone and kill them in cold blood, and i want to be able to use poision to cause suffering and death, and i would like to still ahve my selection of evil assasin spells... but i want to be good. Cold blooded murder and good alignment don't mix. Useing poision is an evil act. doesn't matter who you are murdering, and who you are making to suffer. Is it better to murder a guy who cheated on his wife or a guy who didn't? does it matter? murder is murder. It really doesn't matter who your targets are, your killing people for money. if an assasin goes after mob bosses does that make him good? what if he is getting paid by other mob bosses, does that make him evil? what if the assasins poision kills a criminal, does that make him good? or do the minutes of burning agony and suffering the man experiances make the assasin more evil? its not the target that determines the morality of the act, its the act itself. Some people would argue with moral certainty of any act. but cold blooded murder of someone for payment is quite simply an evil act. if you want to play a good aligned assasin, then stick with rogue or with the exalted slayer from the book of exhalted deeds. they don't use death attack but they use ravages and gain sneak attack and other slayer / assasin qualities. but as far as i am concerned the assasin is not, and will not ever be, good aligned.
Sunrider 06-14-06, 02:57 AM	The 'Assassin' PrC is a specific PrC designed for a specific organisation in a specific campaign setting whose members all happen to be evil (mainly due to the entry requirements). An 'assassin' need not have any levels in the Assassin PrC at all. A stealthy ranger can make a very effective assassin. So can a bard, rogue or monk. A multi-classed fighter can also be effective. Indeed, many of the most effective 'assassins' don't have a single level of the Assassin PrC. And, personally, I don't like the spellcasting flavour of the PrC anyway. Really, death attack isn't such a big deal - at higher levels, its DC is a joke to most monsters anyway. And killing from the shadows/through sneaky, surreptitious methods isn't evil. In some cultures, it may be considered dishonourable; in others, maybe not. Killing someone is certainly no exalted act but even paladins get away with plenty of that - it's *who* you kill and *why* you kill them that makes you evil. Killing a wanted murderer in ambush, rather than capturing them and dragging them before the authorities? That's chaotic good. Secret agents working for a government or military? Probably lawful neutral, but it depends on the alignment of the government or organisation they work for. Bounty-hunting for profit? Depends on whether they accept all bounties, or only certain ones, and the reasons for their work. They could be anything from LG to CE. In any case, if you want to take away the Evil requirement (and get rid of the 'kill someone for no other reason other than to join the Assassins' guild' requirement), it doesn't unbalance anything.
shadow mage 06-14-06, 03:06 AM	No offense belthazzar1113, but I don't think belittling an idea is necessary. Even if it is the idea of fulfilling an out-of-character desire for normally incompatable in-game mechanics (such as, in this case, a DMG Assassin PrC with a good alignment). Role playing such a thing is perfectly acceptable. If he actually changes his ways, does not murder for personal gain, and uses his skills to promote goodly ideals. Poison use is not inherently evil, especially since there is at least one poison that puts targets to sleep. Stealth/sneak-related skills are not bad or evil or even dishonorable if it comes down to it. Heck, with the exception of poison, even the spell list is decidedly neutral (magic circle against good can come in handy if/when overzealous goodly characters misinterpret the redeemed ex-assassin's motives), and use of spells like deep slumber and sleep can be used to avoid unnecessary death, just as detect poison can be used to save an individual from deadly poisons. The actual assassination of an individual would probably be avoided unless it becomes a matter of killing one to save many, many more. All of these fall within the descriptions of good aligned characters as described in core rules. However. Attempting to continue the assassin trade would not make for a good-aligned assassin. At best they would be neutral. 1) If you are asking from a more role-play standard... An assassin who is in fact still recieving personal gain and living his lifestyle as he has been is not a good-aligned character (changing targets does not make him good, simply less evil). If the assassin is actually trying to change his ways and become a true ex-assassin (see above for an exampel), then yes, a good-aligned assassin is possible. More was discussed on this here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=633863&page=1&pp=30) in the "Good Assassin" thread. 2) If you are asking from a purely mechanical viewpoint how and what can make an assassin good-aligned, the C.O. Forums (http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=339) are your best bet for information. That's what they're good at, let 'em run with it and avoid the moral debate. -Shadow Mage
ManinBlaq 06-14-06, 03:16 AM	personally i think its silly. i want to be able to study someone and kill them in cold blood, and i want to be able to use poision to cause suffering and death, and i would like to still ahve my selection of evil assasin spells... but i want to be good. If by studying someone and slaying them in a single precise stroke spared my fellow companions of risking their life and limb ... then it's not necessarily an evil act. Likewise, if applying poison to a blade that incompacitated them in a single clean strike, you have saved not only yourself and your party of harm .. but that person as well. How is poison inherently more evil than bludgeoning them to death or unconciousness with large metallic instruments? If the willingness to use poison makes you evil, then so does the willingness to use 'any' weapon against another living being. Poison is like any other tool. Ironically, in an argument of hippy love and human rights - the death attack ability and poisons that cause sleep and paralysis are the some of the most 'humane' abilities in D&D. Cold blooded murder and good alignment don't mix. Useing poision is an evil act. doesn't matter who you are murdering, and who you are making to suffer. Is it better to murder a guy who cheated on his wife or a guy who didn't? does it matter? murder is murder. It really doesn't matter who your targets are, your killing people for money. A 'good' assassin wouldn't be killing people for money. He would be cleansing the world of creatures that have been condemed by divine or societal law. ... or do the minutes of burning agony and suffering the man experiances make the assasin more evil? So ... every wizard/sorcerer who casts scorching ray or fireball is inately evil as well? its not the target that determines the morality of the act, its the act itself. Unfortunately, the world is far more grey than this ... it is not just the act, but the motivation behind it. According to your rant .. 99% of every D&D adventuring archetype is evil. Yes, an assassin who slays for money is evil - while I would argue that an assassin working for the church of pelor who is charged to slay an evil necromancer is not. I'll also quote Chun - most famous shian-ju master to the emporer, "Professional assassination is the highest form of public service."
Flay Crimsonwind 06-14-06, 03:18 AM	Dudes, you need to see Leon the Proffessional. REALLY, there is no good way to make an assassin. Morals and the way someone acts differ greatly in society today, and it would no doubt have been the same in the past or in fantasy realms. Someone doesn't necessarily adhere all that strongly to their moral code, as it is a fickle and easily broken thing. To place the assassin as an evil character, I see where they are coming from, but it doesn't necessarily work. Nothing in this system for SIMPLE management for someone's personality (which isn't simple) will be defining. Talk to your DM, because if you just call it on a rule, the DM can still mess you up if he doesn't agree, so just cut to the chase and talk with the DM. Personally, it's more chaotic than evil, but others disagree. So don't be it. Take something else that would suit you better.
belthazzar1113 06-14-06, 05:41 AM	Poison use is not inherently evil, especially since there is at least one poison that puts targets to sleep. How is poison inherently more evil than bludgeoning them to death or unconciousness with large metallic instruments? book of exhalted deeds, page 34 and i quote -- "Useing poision that deals ability damage is an evil act" they go on to state that the use of drow poison is perfectly acceptable because it inflicts no pain and simply puts the target to sleep. But when one discusses poison without clarification its not an unreasonable assumption to think of the ability damageing poisons that make up the vast vast majority of the poision list. as far as this being less evil than useing weapons to kill someone. Poision offers no opponent to fight. One's own body is being turned against them and they have no defense against this. They can not struggle to defend themselves, there is no reasoning with poision, there is no talking it down or explaining your side of things. Poision kills, and it kills painfully. Thats all it does, and it does so without bothering to care who you are or what your story is. Heck, with the exception of poison, even the spell list is decidedly neutral BoVD: angry ache, black bag (torture equipment), sacrifical skill, masochism, sadism, stop heart Libris mortis: blade of pain and fear, vampire fangs. Complete series: Spectral weapon, shadowform, snipers eye, snipers shot, heart ripper, cursed blade. spell compendium: dead end, ebon eyes, fell the greatest foe, phantom foe, spider poison, vulnerability as you can see, though the PHB lacked a good selection of evil spells the assasin spell list has been more than doubled, and between one third and half of the assasins spells are evil in nature. The PHB made quite sure to leave out most of the really nasty spells and really evil ones. But in every book where assasins get new spells most if not all of the spells they get are evil in nature. around half the spells are dealing with stealth and the other half are the most evil and vile of spells you can get your hands on to kill your foe as sure as possible. The actual assassination of an individual would probably be avoided unless it becomes a matter of killing one to save many, many more. assasins don't get to pick assignments. They are beholden to their guild and contract, disobediance to the guild would result in an entire guild of assasins coming after you. And let us not forget, being EVIL and commiting an evil act is required for entry into the assasin class. if you later decide you want to redeem and be good, then your looking at Ex-Assasin levels. I would be kind and allow those to be tranfered to rogue levels, but thats just me. If by studying someone and slaying them in a single precise stroke spared my fellow companions of risking their life and limb ... then it's not necessarily an evil act. read the description of death attack. The target must not be threatened by you. they must not know you are about to kill them, if they were threatening you and your friend they would most certainly be aware of your presnce and not be subject to the death attack. This ability is one of the major things that makes this class require evil. Its the ability to look at someone in cold blood and calmly carry out murder. This isn't defending yourself, this isn't defensind your companions, and whatever moral justification you can get after the fact doesn't change the fact that you stood next to someone and considered long and hard the best and surest way to end a life without them knowing you were ever there. Its not rage, its not panic, its cold calculated murder. This is how the class works. A 'good' assassin wouldn't be killing people for money. He would be cleansing the world of creatures that have been condemed by divine or societal law. then the "good" assasin would not be part of the assasin PrC, they would either be a slayer from the BoED, or they would be a monk or rogue or ranger, or whatever other class you want to term "assasin". So ... every wizard/sorcerer who casts scorching ray or fireball is inately evil as well? Thats a good philisophical question. One that i have debated with friends time and time again. Is there ever a justification for the use of say, dominate person. At the most extream this could be considered a form of rape as you litterally force the targets body to perform whatever acts you wish. At the other end this could be considered a humane way of controlling an opponent without hurting them. But does the mental trauma from being rendered so utterly helpless really justify the use of the spell? The same as with fireball. It can be likened to a grenade of the modern times. Most people wouldn't say a grenade is evil, but even as recenly as yesterday grenades have been proven to kill civilians as readaly as enemy combatents. Is there every really a justification for that level of wonton destruction? In a great deal of fantasy literature and even in some suggested setting of dnd, the average peasent fears and distrusts wizards. They have great power at their fingertips and it would take only a small thing to get them to misuse that power. The same way any of us would be nervous if we saw someone carrying a shotgun down the street. They might have a licence and be allowed to carry it, but thats not going to change that uncomfortable feeling we have. Does that mean every guy with a shotgun (or by extention every wizard) is inherently evil? no, it means they have more power than an average person normally has, and that means they can misuse that power whenever they choose. There is a difference in moral aspect in dnd that doesn't exist in the real world. In dnd good and evil can be nailed down and definied with things like detect evil or your average paladin. Certain creatures are not morally nutral, such as demons and devils, and vampires and ghouls. These things are fodder for destruction by even the most exhalted of heroes because we know these things are not moral beings, they are incarnations of evil. So is casting a fireball into a room full of demons evil? not hardly (and not effective) -- but is casting a fireball at a mob of commoners in a riot evil? thats harder to judge. Mabey a fireball in the face will scatter the mob and save lives that would otherwize be lost putting the riot down.. mabey its just moral juggling to justify a fireball to the face of someone throwing beer bottles at you. Those things are events that depend more on context and result, than on wether fireball is evil. The assain is different though. death attack isn't ever going to be a defensive action. its never going to be something you do in the heat of combat. Its not something that you rely on to save life and limb. This ability is the essense of cold blooded killing distilled down into its mechanical essentials. Pick a target, study a target, choose your moment, and strike when they are vunerable. Its not about battle or being fair, its not about ridding the world of evil, its about a single moment in time when your looking a sentient being dead on and steeling yourself to expunge a life from the world. Its making a concious choice to kill without direct provocation. I don't see a way to describe or rewrite death attack to be anything but an evil act. I don't think belittling an idea is necessary. I am not belittling the idea. I am saying that the idea you can dress up the essense of evil in a nice suit and tie and call it good is silly. its an opinion. I can put party hats and clown shoes on a balor but its not going to make him warm and cuddly. There isn't really a way to change death attack to be anything BUT evil. and that assain PrC is really only unique in that it grants death attack and poison. I covered poison with offical publication, but i hope i explained these views on death attack so they are understood.
Sunrider 06-14-06, 06:48 AM	I tend to switch off as soon as anyone starts using BoED and BoVD as 'evidence' for alignment-based arguments. Frankly, those books are so full of contradictions (both within themselves, and with other books) that they're near-useless for resolving alignment-related issues, or even for defining alignment. According to BoED, pretty much anything that isn't completely holy and exalted is evil; the converse is true for the BoVD (although the latter is more a 'Book of Sadism' than a 'Book of Evil' - too much emphasis on blood and gore, without addressing other, more subtle forms of evil, which can be even more vile). The only thing you can really garner from the 'poisons that deal ability damage are evil' statement is that using such poisons is not an exalted act. Even then, the book turns around and gives us ravages which do the same thing, except, unlike poisons, are specifically said to cause great suffering in their victim. Then there's the Couatl - a LG creature which uses poison, even when it has a choice not to use it (it doesn't have to if it doesn't want) and the intellectual capacity to make that choice.
WayneTheGame 06-14-06, 06:50 AM	I believe the class you want is in the Book of Exalted Deeds and is called the.. Slayer of Domiel I think. Essentially a good assassin, because as we all know killing for money is bad, killing someone because they are eeeeevil is good. :rolleyes:
belthazzar1113 06-14-06, 07:06 AM	Even then, the book turns around and gives us ravages which do the same thing, except, unlike poisons, are specifically said to cause great suffering in their victim. just a quick aside since i have been awake 30 hours... ravages affect only evil targets. they are not morally neutral. the suffering and pain they cause is based on how corrrupt and evil the affected creature is. Ravages feast on evil. thats why good and even neutral people arn't affected by the effects. just those commited to evil. just a thought.
Sunrider 06-14-06, 07:08 AM	This ability is the essense of cold blooded killing distilled down into its mechanical essentials. Pick a target, study a target, choose your moment, and strike when they are vunerable. Its not about battle or being fair, its not about ridding the world of evil, its about a single moment in time when your looking a sentient being dead on and steeling yourself to expunge a life from the world. Its making a concious choice to kill without direct provocation. I don't see a way to describe or rewrite death attack to be anything but an evil act. So, in your opinion, the assassin who infiltrates a BBEG's (who really is bad and evil) stronghold, hides in the rafters above his private quarters, then kills him with a death attack is evil?. What about the rogue who does the same thing but, instead of using a Death Attack, uses CDG (with bonus SA damage) to kill the BBEG, sleeping in his bedroom? What if the rogue poured poison into the BBEG's drink instead? What about the monk who infiltrates, finds the BBEG and uses the Freezing the Lifeblood-CDG combo? I certainly don't see these as evil actions. Depending on your point of view, it's not even cowardly - would a coward sneak around behind enemy lines, single-handedly infiltrating a BBEG's stronghold in order to conduct an assassination attempt to end his reign of terror, when capture is both a distinct possibility and certain to lead to either indentured servitude or a gruesome, painful death (or both)? Sounds a lot braver than the 'fearless' Paladin charging into battle on the front line, with thousands of allies behind him or her. Killing someone without provocation is evil. A tyrant who's been terrorising the countryside, forcing millions into poverty, etc. has done plenty to provoke such action. It may not be direct provocation against the assassin (although, again, it may be - depends on backstory), but it's provocation enough. Good people generally don't attack without provocation, but the provocation need not be direct provocation - if you consider attacking without direct provocation to be evil, then it would be evil for a paladin to Smite and kill a wanted murderer (after all, the murderer hasn't done anything against the paladin), for an adventuring party to attack and topple an evil baron whose people are starving due to his actions, but who hasn't actually hurt the party itself or those close to them, etc. I'd personally say that it's a greater evil to just stand back and let the baron continue terrorising and starving his people when you have the power to intervene, than to attack the baron and end his tyranny. It may not be the lawful solution, but it's probably a good one. Attacking without provocation is generally unwarranted (whether it's actually evil depends on a host of other factors), but requiring direct provocation completely cripples the party, reducing it to reactive, rather than proactive, action (apart from going out there and simply telling people to be nice to each other...), and reactive to a very limited set of things at that (only to direct attacks on party members or close friends/relatives). In any case, quite a few non-evil PrCs have Death Attack as a class feature. Even some exalted PrCs, I believe. Same goes for poison use. So there goes the 'death attack is evil' theory...
Sunrider 06-14-06, 07:18 AM	just a quick aside since i have been awake 30 hours... ravages affect only evil targets. they are not morally neutral. the suffering and pain they cause is based on how corrrupt and evil the affected creature is. Ravages feast on evil. thats why good and even neutral people arn't affected by the effects. just those commited to evil. just a thought. Unlike poisons, they are specifically said to cause extreme pain and suffering. Whether the victim is Demogorgon, or just a greedy innkeeper, it still causes pain and suffering. If causing pain and suffering is evil, then so's hitting someone with a sword (even wooden swords hurt). Poisons may or may not be (depending on whether they cause pain or not), while ravages certainly would be (since they are specifically said to inflict agony on their targets) - just because you're attacking an evil creature doesn't automatically make you good. If, on the other hand, causing pain in itself isn't evil, then the rules for ravages actually work, poison isn't evil and adventurers can safely draw their swords without turning evil. It's not the tool that's evil - it's the intent for which the tool is used. N.B. This reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons, where Moe puts his face in the holy water font and, subsequently, complains, 'It burns, it burns!'. Is Reverend Lovejoy secretly an evil-hearted fiend, for making such a vile substance?
heretic888 06-14-06, 09:50 AM	Cold blooded murder and good alignment don't mix. Useing poision is an evil act. doesn't matter who you are murdering, and who you are making to suffer. Is it better to murder a guy who cheated on his wife or a guy who didn't? does it matter? murder is murder. It really doesn't matter who your targets are, your killing people for money. "Using poison" and "killing people for money" are not the same thing. As a point of clarification, the Ninja class in Complete Adventurer gains Poison Use very early on as one of its class features. Yet, its alignment restrictions are "any", not "any evil". if an assasin goes after mob bosses does that make him good? what if he is getting paid by other mob bosses, does that make him evil? what if the assasins poision kills a criminal, does that make him good? or do the minutes of burning agony and suffering the man experiances make the assasin more evil? its not the target that determines the morality of the act, its the act itself. By that reasoning, all adventurers that have ever existed in the world of Dungeons & Dragons are, without exception, evil because they have killed other sentient beings. Sorry, but no dice. Even in the supposedly "black 'n white" world of D&D, the overall context of an action determines its morality. The action itself does not. That means you have to take things such as intention, motivation, circumstances, and methodology into account. That being said, I would say that a person that kills another person for no reason than money or status in a deliberately painful way is probably pretty damn evil in D&D. Laterz.
DarknessEternal 06-14-06, 09:58 AM	Poison use is not evil. The PHB tells us so. Look at the descriptors on the Poison spell. Do you see [Evil]?
lukelightning 06-14-06, 10:05 AM	People forget that assassins in D&D (and most other contexts) are people who kill people for money. Not for rooting out evil or saving the world, but because someone wants someone dead and the assassin is the way to do it. That's Evil, no ifs ands or buts. If you want a secret "dark stalker" good guy who kills bad guys in sneaky ways, there are plenty of options ranging from rogue to shadowdancer to some PrC from the Book of Exhalted deeds, etc. That being said, there is no real reason an assassin can't change alignment from evil to good... they have to be evil to become an assassin but there is no penalty for switching alignments (like paladins get). I'd require an atonement; not necessarily a magical atonement spell but remember that you have committed one or more murders, and I'd say you would have to come clean somehow regarding those murders, atone with the victim's family, or something like that. Plus the evil assassin organization that trained him would be less than thrilled and would probably try to take you out (not really a complication, just a sort of side-quest thing). Also I'd say that you couldn't continue gaining assassin levels unless you're evil.
DarknessEternal 06-14-06, 10:39 AM	That being said, there is no real reason an assassin can't change alignment from evil to good... they have to be evil to become an assassin but there is no penalty for switching alignments (like paladins get). There's a substantial penalty. Assassins (the PrC) that become non-evil lose all of the class features of the Assassin class since an evil alignment is a prerequisite for the class.
Sunrider 06-14-06, 10:50 AM	I find the argument largely irrelevant anyway, since the Assassin PrC isn't even particularly good at its job... Assassination isn't just about the killing blow - it's just as much about getting in and out of there alive and avoiding detection (or pinning it on someone else), so that no-one can send bounty-hunters after you. I can think of many other builds (both mundane and magic) which are, overall, more effective at assassination (not necessarily death attacks), are better at other things and don't have alignment restrictions. Rogue 20, for one.
shadow mage 06-14-06, 11:05 AM	book of exhalted deeds, page 34 and i quote -- "Useing poision that deals ability damage is an evil act" they go on to state that the use of drow poison is perfectly acceptable because it inflicts no pain and simply puts the target to sleep. But when one discusses poison without clarification its not an unreasonable assumption to think of the ability damageing poisons that make up the vast vast majority of the poision list. as far as this being less evil than useing weapons to kill someone. Poision offers no opponent to fight. One's own body is being turned against them and they have no defense against this. They can not struggle to defend themselves, there is no reasoning with poision, there is no talking it down or explaining your side of things. Poision kills, and it kills painfully. Thats all it does, and it does so without bothering to care who you are or what your story is. There was a very large thread about this a long time ago (can't find it to link it, but it was in the Prestige Classes are of these forums) where it was determined that poison use is no different between attacking an enemy flat-footed. It cannot be evil as you describe, else all instances of it would be evil, and one or two poisons would not be an exception to the rule. There is no indication of the poison killing painfully, as well, unless it specifically says so in it's description... (like ravages...). Further, do not use examples from splat books. They're not core rules. Use the DMG and PHB to define good and evil acts, not noncore books emphasising one alignment or another. BoVD: angry ache, black bag (torture equipment), sacrifical skill, masochism, sadism, stop heart Libris mortis: blade of pain and fear, vampire fangs. Complete series: Spectral weapon, shadowform, snipers eye, snipers shot, heart ripper, cursed blade. spell compendium: dead end, ebon eyes, fell the greatest foe, phantom foe, spider poison, vulnerability as you can see, though the PHB lacked a good selection of evil spells the assasin spell list has been more than doubled, and between one third and half of the assasins spells are evil in nature. The PHB made quite sure to leave out most of the really nasty spells and really evil ones. But in every book where assasins get new spells most if not all of the spells they get are evil in nature. around half the spells are dealing with stealth and the other half are the most evil and vile of spells you can get your hands on to kill your foe as sure as possible. Once again, I don't argue from splat books, as I don't have several (most) of them. The only rules that are meant to be fairly standardized amongst games are those from the core rulebooks. And, in the core rulebooks, there is only one outright evil spell in the core rulebooks for assassins, and only based on its description, not technical rules regarding alignment bend (because, truthfully, spells are not evil unless they have the [Evil] descriptor... which poison does not...). assasins don't get to pick assignments. They are beholden to their guild and contract, disobediance to the guild would result in an entire guild of assasins coming after you. And let us not forget, being EVIL and commiting an evil act is required for entry into the assasin class. if you later decide you want to redeem and be good, then your looking at Ex-Assasin levels. I would be kind and allow those to be tranfered to rogue levels, but thats just me. Yes, some assassins get to pick assignments. Not all assassins are part of assassin guilds, nor are they all bound by some form of contract. Your view of the assassin, even as described in the DMG, is very narrow in that it does not recognize the potential for "self-employed" assassins or loosely-organized groups. Also, bear in mind that there is no mention for what occurs when you fail to qualify for this prestige class. It does not say you lose class abilities, and technically it does not even say you can't continue to take levels in the class (double negatives...). That would be something that had to be houseruled. Regardless, failing to qualify for the Assassin PrC does not mean you lose the abilities of the class, especially if it does not say so explicitly (as many do, even in the core rulebooks). read the description of death attack. The target must not be threatened by you. they must not know you are about to kill them, if they were threatening you and your friend they would most certainly be aware of your presnce and not be subject to the death attack. This ability is one of the major things that makes this class require evil. Its the ability to look at someone in cold blood and calmly carry out murder. This isn't defending yourself, this isn't defensind your companions, and whatever moral justification you can get after the fact doesn't change the fact that you stood next to someone and considered long and hard the best and surest way to end a life without them knowing you were ever there. Its not rage, its not panic, its cold calculated murder. This is how the class works. Mmm, using an example used in the other thread I linked, it's cold, calculated evil for a repentant assassin (or ex-assassin) to sit on a rooftop and take down the crazed warrior who was charging down a bunch of small children...? No, it's not evil, is it. Like any other weapon, it can be used for evil, but is not inherently evil; it's no different from a sneak attack that takes a few rounds longer to engage, and is not a magical ability dependant on evil to power it. There's a substantial penalty. Assassins (the PrC) that become non-evil lose all of the class features of the Assassin class since an evil alignment is a prerequisite for the class. Show me where it says that please. ;) Beer comin' your way if you can prove it using the core rulebooks. -Shadow Mage
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-14-06, 12:12 PM	You don't lose class abilities for becoming non-evil. Even if one sentence hidden within the "heat dangers" section of the DMG implies you do (I doubt it) and everyone agrees to go by that sentence's ruling, here's my reasoning for why everyone would be crazy: Sneak attack: rogues get it, and they aren't evil. It represents your skill at hitting vulnerable spots. Death attack: although rogues don't get it, it still represents skill at hitting vulnerable spots. So it's really like sneak attack. Poison use: "Assassins are trained in the use of poison..." Trained. As in, you practice not cutting yourself when you're coating a weapon with poison. Regardless of whether poison's evil, this ability is not (as you can use it to apply ravages and afflictions, which apparently aren't evil). Uncanny dodge/improved: ha ha. Evil? No. Saves against poison: This helps you resist things that would normally kill or at least hurt you. It's like SR, DR, armor, or even hit points. Oh, and another quote: "Assassins train with poisons of all types and slowly grow more and more resistant to their effects." Again, training is the key word. As someone said (forget what his name was), it doesn't rely on evil to fuel it. Spells: even if you only leaned spells with the evil descriptor while you were evil, you don't have to use them. You have the potential to cause huge amounts of suffering, but you don't have to. A paladin has the potential to cause huge amounts of suffering, running around slaughtering townsfolk (with the same sword he used to kill that demon the other day, if that makes a difference), but do paladins usually do that? No. Or you could just say that assassins can't be good. Of couse, that would be ridiculous, as none of their abilities, aside from spells that they are in no way required to cast, requires evil alignment to use, unless you say that a change of heart makes you sluggish (no uncanny dodge), clumsy (poison use), and inaccurate (sneak attack, death attack). I'd also like to point out that rogue levels give you sneak attack too, but you wouldn't lose those for an alignment change. Of course, those come from a different source, which is training to hit people in vulnerable spots rather than training to hit people in vulnerable spots for money. And, of course, how much gold you're going to get for something affects how accurately you strike, which is why rogues can attack enemies for zero gold and still be able to use sneak atta... I seem to have reasoned you into a corner.
Fuzzy_Logic 06-14-06, 12:27 PM	Look, it depends on what you think the role of a PrC is. mechanically, the Assassins class could be used to create a good character. however, many people prefer to use the flavor text for a PrC as well. there cannot be a good assassin--it is a contradiction in terms. you COUDl have a good Assassin, as long as that chaarcter did not actually work as an assassin. it all depends on whether you use PrCs to give flavor to the world and its orgnaizations or to give players mechanical options. on a final note, if ravages are specifically called out as being really painful, that makes them pretty damn evil, IMHO. even if they only hurt evil people, good is supposed ot have compassion and respect for all life. sure, they'll kill you if they have to, but with a tool ntoed for it's painfulness? not if they can help it.
Kanachi 06-14-06, 01:40 PM	I have to say i find some of the areguements reguarding the unwaving evil of assassins very weak. Any character can and commonly will suprise and kill an enemy with for thought and cunning, an ambush, sniping attack or use of poison is not for me inherantly evil. For example does anyone watch 24? The character Jack Bower will perform some very extream actions including both mental and physical torture, the slaying of a co-worker (in order to save thousands of lives) and yet he is not "Evil". Even though the actions he performs are not good, he does so for the greater good and therefor must be judged differently. It is possible for an assassin to act for the greater good and even have the good of the world in mind, but i would however say that like Jack Bower they will never truely be "good" because of the lengths they are willing to go in order to follow this path. Such characters are in fact neutral. Bare in mind also that being Good is flawed as there are always certain situation where goodness and true morality are not the solution and actions have to be taken (genrally by neutrals) to solve the situation. I would therefor allow a neutral assassin but not a good one.
Nephlite 06-14-06, 02:01 PM	I tend to switch off as soon as anyone starts using BoED and BoVD as 'evidence' for alignment-based arguments. Frankly, those books are so full of contradictions (both within themselves, and with other books) that they're near-useless for resolving alignment-related issues, or even for defining alignment. According to BoED, pretty much anything that isn't completely holy and exalted is evil; the converse is true for the BoVD (although the latter is more a 'Book of Sadism' than a 'Book of Evil' - too much emphasis on blood and gore, without addressing other, more subtle forms of evil, which can be even more vile). One should never speak of the Book of Vile Darkness till it is reprinted in 3.5. Currently it is a 3.0 only book. It is off the subject since we are dicussing 3.5 not 3.0. Conversely, Book of Exalted Deeds is 3.5. Though, it makes no sense about poison.
lukelightning 06-14-06, 02:51 PM	An assassin is not a commando or a secret agent. An assassin is a murderer for hire, who kills for profit. That is evil, not neutral.
Kanachi 06-14-06, 03:06 PM	An assassin is not a commando or a secret agent. An assassin is a murderer for hire, who kills for profit. That is evil, not neutral. Not true... one mans commando/secret agent IS another mans assassin just as a soldure can be by some considered a terrorist. Its a matter of perspective, intent action and countless other vairiables that ultimatly define the nature of who or what someone is or symbolises. Not all assassins kill for profit in coin... some may even act as they do for no self gain and instead attempt to follow the path of upholding the greater good. Your perspective here is narrow and based on mechanics rather than roleplaying possibility or logic. Remember rules can be bent or broken in D&D as long as there is a strong case for doing so.. you need to understand that circumstances can push people to extream lengths in order to achieve the results goodness requires. If a bomb is going to go off in 2 hour and you have the only person who knows where it is in front of you the path of goodness will not win the day, such situations will require a neutral character to in essance do the good characters dirty work. Jack bower represents such a character and you can see that walking such a path is not easy and leaves him as a fractured and damaged individual. I would agree that most assassins would be evil, but i believe that some who act for the greater good could be Neutral... I restate however that anyone willing to take extream actions such as these even for the greater good can at best only be neutral as they have taken a path that goodness cant. alot of people here seem to be overlooking the ability for a character to be neutral... Grey areas are neutral areas. So basicly... I disagree
belthazzar1113 06-14-06, 03:49 PM	So, in your opinion, the assassin who infiltrates a BBEG's (who really is bad and evil) stronghold, hides in the rafters above his private quarters, then kills him with a death attack is evil?. What about the rogue who does the same thing but, instead of using a Death Attack, uses CDG (with bonus SA damage) to kill the BBEG, sleeping in his bedroom? What if the rogue poured poison into the BBEG's drink instead? What about the monk who infiltrates, finds the BBEG and uses the Freezing the Lifeblood-CDG combo? Yes those are evil actions. Sneaking up on someone in their sleep and killing them is evil no matter how you cut it. There is a great speech i heard from my old ethics professor about wether its right or wrong to murder someone in their sleep. If a woman is beaten by her husband, and beaten severely, repeatedly and daily. If she is in immenent fear for her life, even if her husband says "I will kill you the moment i wake up from my nap" and she sneaks into his room and kills him with a hammer. is this evil or not? the answer is that yes its evil, but its excusable evil. In out land we make allowances for "the lesser of two evils". You can acknowldge that while an act is evil it serves a greater purpose, but its still an evil act. And even acting for that greater purpose you are commiting evil. A rogue who sneaks into a lair and kills someone with a sneak attack commited an evil act. The class itself isn't evil because sneak attack isn't exclusivly about killing people in cold blood. Its used for capitilizing on any distraction in combat to attack a vital area. A monk who sneaks into a strong hold for the same reason is yes, commiting and evil act for a greater good. That doesn't change the fact its an evil act. Here is a better question for you. Would a paladin or a knight be able to sneak into someones home, take out a knife and kill them in their sleep if they knew that person was beating their children? would they lose paladin abilities? would they be breaking the knights code? well in one case definetly yes, the knight broke the code. in the other case of the paladin, it depends on how strict you are about your interpretation of what a paladin can and can not do. I belive that yes thats an act that violates the paladins code. It certainly violates the exhalted code and the knights code. So is it an evil act? yes. Does it serve a greater good? probly. What people fail to realize is that i am stating a case for death attack being different from these other abilities. Sneak attack is something that you do in a single round. by reflex or in the heat of the moment if you need to. A smite attack is the personification of rightous wraith thats done in a single blow. A coupe-de-grace attack is still a single round action that is usally done in the heat of lethal combat to deal with downed foes when a healer is present, or to deal with regenerating or fast healing opponents. Death attack has three rounds that you ahve to study your target. Three rounds is a long time. Its long enough to let what your doing really sink in and make sure that your commited to this. its enough time for rage to cool and for this to be cold blooded murder. Its enough time that you have to stand and watch your targets motions, have everything in you ready to take a life, and then do it at the perfect moment betraying the basic trust that you are not there to hurt them. You have to be close and essentially lie with your presence. project a safe vibe so they don't know you are a threat, then wait for the perfect moment to betray that trust and coldly kill another life. What part of that sounds even remotely good? In any case, quite a few non-evil PrCs have Death Attack as a class feature. Even some exalted PrCs, I believe. i have looked and so far i haven't found anywhere else that grants a death attack like this. Specific examples would be very much appreciated. Especially exhalted PrCs. then it would be evil for a paladin to Smite and kill a wanted murderer assuming that was a human murderer that murdered other humans. And your example was that the paladin snuck up and used a smite from behind... I will tell you this right now. the smite would flat out not work in my games. A paladin could and should be able to take the murderer in for trial and justice rather than commiting back ally vigilanty justice. Is it evil? its certainly grey. It is wrong? according to the paladin code as i see it, yes. these specific examples are great at proving grey areas. But they are missing the point. This is about the assasin. specifically about their death attack. This ability can't be used defensivly, this can't be used in the heat of combat, and it can't be describes as anything but murder. People site alot of examples saying "by your definition all of dnd is evil" from certain perspectives yes it is. America's expansion into the "wild west" was a wholesale slaughter of native populations and an abuse of the natural world. They arn't considered evil, but pioneers who forged out a new country. But does it change the fact they slaughtered thousands and thousands of innocent people for land and monetary gain? DND has an advantage in that it can delclair entire races EVIL and immoral without hesitation. We kill devils because they are devils and they are evil. We kill orcs because they are orcs and we think they are evil. Well not all orcs are evil. plenty of half orcs are player characters and not evil, and even some orc tribes would be composed of and led by non evil people. But most games tend to ignore that moral issue by just assuming "its an orc, its evil" But we arn't talking about genral trends, and we arn't talking about games that ignore the moral question. This was a discussion specifically about morality and the idea of changing an assasin PrC away from evil. You dont' get to ignore morality when that is the topic. You have to consider these things and yes from this perpective alot of DND "adventures" would be horribly evil and reviled in history. but we ignore that idea and don't consider it because its a game and its not a big deal. Right up untill you want to start tinkering with alignment and saying "well this doesn't HAVE to be evil" and coming up with all kinds of specific examples and moral justifications. You can morally justify just about anything at all given enough time, that doesn't mean its right. I can justify being a disciple of mestophilies and selling my soul for dark power, for a good reason. That doesn't mean i would ever be not evil and not tainted and corrupted. assasins are the same way. you can justify the death attack in just about anyway you want, thats not going to change the fact that its an evil ability. Unlike poisons, they are specifically said to cause extreme pain and suffering. If, on the other hand, causing pain in itself isn't evil, then the rules for ravages actually work, poison isn't evil and adventurers can safely draw their swords without turning evil. the land of moral justifications is bountiful it seems. first lets deal with ravages being "evil" ravages turn the evil and corruption of a creature against itself. specifically quoted... "[ravages are] magical traumas that turn the moral corruption of evil creatures into physical corruption that wracks their bodies" This is a magical form of powdered justice. Unlike a posion which would kill a baby as sure as a blackguard, ravages can only affect those who hold evil in their hearts. They are justice personified as they can't harm you if you have done no harm. They can only seek out and hurt those who seek out and hurt others. Even then they can't catch everything. Neutral characters can certain do evil acts, but ravages won't touch them. Its only ones that are evil and embrace it that ravages can affect. those who are unrepentent and corrupt are the only ones that are affected. The main difference btween ravages and posions? a poision is indiscriment and painful without cause or intent; a ravage is discriminating and seeks only corrupt evil individuals to affect and is only painful in porportion to the pain you have given out into the world. Ravages are justice and retribution. as far as them causeing pain... lets go ahead and deal with this "causeing pain is evil" argument. alot of people have brought up that swords (even wooden ones) would cause pain, and that killing with a sword isn't an evil act so why should poision be evil. The answer is in the origonal quote. i will highlight for emphasis. book of exhalted deeds page 34, "Useing poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent."its the undue suffering thats whats open to interpretation. Is killing someone with a sword causing undue suffering? you swing you hit, they die. thats about as clean as it gets in the dnd world. But a poison is chipping away the life of a victem for a full minute. they take their inital damage but then for ten rounds that poison is going to burn through them and they are going to know it. thats a full minute of torment and its where poison crosses the line to evil. Indiscriminent pain when more humane methods are avalible is evil. There isn't an example of ability damage poison thats humane or acceptable. Because anywhere you could use poison you could also just use a subdual sneak attack to knock out a target in one blow. Anywhere you could use poison to kill a foe you could use a sword and cause less pain and suffering killing them in a single round. The same goes for a fireball spell or a scorching ray, those are instant effects that can simply vaporize a target as opposed to poision which draws out this suffering over time. Show me where it says that please. Beer comin' your way if you can prove it using the core rulebooks. bring me a beer. Every class that has an alingment requirment in the PHB has a Ex-class section. This means that if your class has a code or alignment requirment and you violate that code or lose that alignment you lose the abilities of that class. Check it out. bards, barbarians, paladins, monks all have alignment restictions and lose their class features if they change alignment; clerics and druids have a code and lose their class abilities for violating that code, paladins have both. Assasins must be evil and if they lost their evil alignment they would lose their class abilities the same as every single other class in the PHB. I'd also like to point out that rogue levels give you sneak attack too, but you wouldn't lose those for an alignment change rogues dont' have an alignment requirment, assasins do. Violating any alignment requirment cause that class to give up class features. Look at every single class in the PHB that has an alignment requirment. Watchdog_of_Hades You don't lose class abilities for becoming non-evil. you lose class abilities for violating every other alignment restiction in dnd... a beter question would be why DON"T you think this applies to the assasin? whats making this class so special that its immune from the alignment violation? I seem to have reasoned you into a corner. i don't see a corner here. You bring up some classes and reasons why you shouldn't lose abilities because you change alignment... but then your ignoring the other classes that lose trained abilities for alignment violation. Monks, bards, barbarians all lose class abilities that you would define as "trained" when they violate their alignment restrictions. Just because another class gets the same ability without an alignment restriction doesn't mean you don't lose them if you violate your class restictions. Fighters can take two weapon fighting and do this in heavy armor. rangers get two weapon fighting as well but lose that ability if they were heavy armor. Same feats, same abilities, but you lose them for violating certain restrictions. Rogues get sneak attack and have no alignment restiction, assasins get sneak attack but have an alignment restiction. If you violate your assasin alignment then you lose sneak attack as well as everything else. As i stated before i would allow those Ex-assasin levels to convert into rogue levels because i think they are very similar, but thats my own house rule. Your view of the assassin, even as described in the DMG, is very narrow in that it does not recognize the potential for "self-employed" assassins self employed assasins wouldn't be part of the guild and thus wouldn't be part of the assasin PrC which is a organization based PrC. They would be high level rogues, or ninjas or whatever else and call themselves assasins. There is a difference between a job title and a PrC. I tend to switch off as soon as anyone starts using BoED and BoVD as 'evidence' for alignment-based arguments. Further, do not use examples from splat books. They're not core rules. Use the DMG and PHB to define good and evil acts, not noncore books emphasising one alignment or another. I will use any non setting specific material that includes the mention of assasins because thats what we are talking about. If you want o disregard anything that is offical material that might damage your argument you are of course free to go ahead and do so. Just like i am free to laugh at you for what amounts to sticking your fingers in your ears and humming whenever anything that you don't agree with is said. the idea of "if its not core its wrong" is flat out stupid. There is a reason there are more books after core. Core doesn't cover everything. You want a reason from the core book. ASSASIN: ALINGMENT: EVIL. end of sotry if you want to take core as gossple. assasins are evil, end of story. now if you want to talk about ideas, but you only want to talk about your specific little ideas and ignore ANYTHING else that might conflict with those poorly worded moral justification, well then why do you even bother asking others? just do something backwards and hope no one calls you on it.
simon_tage 06-14-06, 04:04 PM	If my player could show me a good aligned god of murder or assassins I might allow it. All the ones I know of are evil.
Kanachi 06-14-06, 04:15 PM	That fact is that your argueing about mechanics when the core rule beyond all others is that mechanics can be bent or broken if just role playing needs are met.. there are and will always be exceptions and simply stating the rules by the book without looking around the problem is flawed. Mechanical roleplay is bad roleplay where i come from, but its your choice how you choose to play and i wish you luck with it. lol
Kobold_Avenger 06-14-06, 04:15 PM	There is no good reason to rule assassins as evil only.. unless the special requirements important to you... A lot of PrCs story requirements are what make them evil when they really shouldn't be. I think the story requirements a stupid.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-14-06, 04:34 PM	but then your ignoring the other classes that lose trained abilities for alignment violation. Monks, bards, barbarians all lose class abilities that you would define as "trained" when they violate their alignment restrictions. Monks and Bards don't lose class features for changing alignment. Barbarians only lose their trademark, Rage, which is not trained. Before you make a bigger ass out of yourself, note that Dishonorable =/= Evil and that Sneaky =/= Evil either. You're talking like Leon Kass, whose egocentric personal truths are that what he finds distasteful is evil. I'll also add that dishonor is not Evil, it's more Chaotic. And if someone is physically stronger than you, you can't level the playing field with poison without being considered a fiend by belthazzar1113? Oh, come on!
Kobold_Avenger 06-14-06, 04:46 PM	The bard and monk dont lose any abilities from changing alignment. They just cant continue advancing as that class. Cleric lose their abilities because their god stop granting them. Barbs lose their rage abilities but everthing else.
heretic888 06-14-06, 06:07 PM	the land of moral justifications is bountiful it seems. Indeed. For example, a certain poster on this thread is appealing to a fanciful moral absolutism that, as with all moral absolutisms, is informed solely on the values and mores of the society he finds himself. That such moral absolutisms are almost always illogical, hypocritical, or incoherent is beside the point, as they are a priori metaphysics that require no justification. They are simply true because the aforementioned poster says they are. Yes, the land of moral justifications is bountiful indeed. Laterz.
Kanachi 06-14-06, 06:30 PM	:confused: i suddenly feel very stupid. lol
shadow mage 06-14-06, 06:55 PM	bring me a beer. Every class that has an alingment requirment in the PHB has a Ex-class section. This means that if your class has a code or alignment requirment and you violate that code or lose that alignment you lose the abilities of that class. Check it out. bards, barbarians, paladins, monks all have alignment restictions and lose their class features if they change alignment; clerics and druids have a code and lose their class abilities for violating that code, paladins have both. Assasins must be evil and if they lost their evil alignment they would lose their class abilities the same as every single other class in the PHB. Funny you bring that up, because that is exactly why assassins lose nothing for no longer meeting the prerequisite of the prestige class. Other classes with alignment restrictions specifically mention whether or not they lose class features (paladins do, for example, but monks do not). The Assassin PrC mentions nothing about ex-assassins. Not. A. Thing. In that respect, the core rules are very explicit in whether or not you keep or lose class features if you no longer meet that class/prestige-class's prerequisites. Though, if you wanted to define the term prerequisite... Prestige classes offer a new form of multiclassing. Unlike the basic classes, characters must meet Requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class. The rules for level advancement apply to this system, meaning the first step of advancement is always choosing a class. If a character does not meet the Requirements for a prestige class before that first step, that character cannot take the first level of that prestige class. I don't think I need to bold the relevant parts. There is no mention, whatsoever, that one must continue to meet the prerequisites of a prestige class to even continue taking levels in it, unless the prestige class specifically says otherwise. No beer for anyone yet. ;) -Shadow Mage
belthazzar1113 06-14-06, 07:04 PM	The Assassin PrC mentions nothing about ex-assassins. Not. A. Thing. In that respect, the core rules are very explicit in whether or not you keep or lose class features if you no longer meet that class/prestige-class's prerequisites. very true. and when the DMG was published the assasin was, at the time, considered to be an NPC option rather than a PC option. the assumption being that dnd players would naturally play Good alinged characters and not be cold blooded killers. this debate really is pointless though. you can break or bend any rule you want. I wouldn't stand for it in my games and i belive i have expressed y opinions on the matter very throughly. I haven't seen one single argument to convince me that assasins are anything other than cold blooded evil killers. If you want to make a new PrC that is assasin like but allows to be good alinged feel free, but it would never make it into any game i would be involved with. the name assasin should be reason enough to require evil alignment. its an ASSASIN, thats not a good or even nutral profession. If you want to make a "cleaner" or a special operative or somesuch that gets the same abilities but its non good or even any alignment at all feel free. I disagree with the matter entirely, and can't see granting evil abilities to lawful good characters. I would no more grant death attack to good characters than i would let a good character cast unholy blight. they are in the same catigory of moral certainty.
Yanagita Kunio 06-14-06, 07:15 PM	Apparently, killing in cold blood is unimpeachably evil. Make sure your character is properly frothing-at-the-mouth upset before trying to Death Attack anything, and you're in the clear. PS the closest thing in a splatbook to a "good assassin" thematically is the Slayer of Domiel PrC is the Book of Exalted Deeds, although it doesn't get a Death Attack CF, just a rather odd Death Touch ability. The first paragraph descriptive block includes one of the saddest pieces of semiotic misfire ever. Better thematic PrCs for a stealthy character that uses their skills for good would be: Nightsong Enforcer, Shadowbane Inquisitor/Stalker, Vigilante [Complete Adventurer] None have a Death Attack, but this class feature is traded a moment's peace from Alignment discussions. For the love of Milanese linguistic philosopher: Majescule-A Assassin refers to a formal organization whose operation and rituals predicate the PrC of the same title. Capital-A Assassins are capital-E Evil in the game context because they accept money for killing and have an intensely dumb and unnecessary hazing ritual...just this side of "You're eeevil...then eat this puppy!" Miniscule-a assassin refers to the larger conceptual role of "one who assassinates." Denotationally, assassinate is to attack from or using surprise or deception. Intent and renumeration aren't a part of the denotational picture or the word's origin/etymology: their attachment to the concept is secondary and recent relative to the usage of the word [thanks, mob flicks]. In-game lower-case-a assassins do not necessarily have an alignment without ascertaining their motive, their target, and their expectations of personal gain. To get biblical, Judith doing for Holofernes is an excellent literary example of a "Good" assassination. Repeat after me: All Assassins are assassins. Not all assassins are Assassins.
Kanachi 06-14-06, 07:29 PM	another issue i have with your arguement is that the morality of sniping is basicly the same as that of death strike (infact possibly worse).. yet any character of any alinement can in fact perform this action. Is it evil? no, its simply not honourable. I'm sure most ranged weapon using characters have at some point attempted a sniping attack... surely you would not make this an Evil only action within your games?!
shadow mage 06-14-06, 07:36 PM	Read this thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=633863&page=1&pp=30), especially the last two pages, then tell me that there is no way an assassin could ever be anything but wholly evil. With a straight face. -Shadow Mage
Vestigial_Thumb 06-14-06, 07:49 PM	this debate really is pointless though. you can break or bend any rule you want. I wouldn't stand for it in my games and i belive i have expressed y opinions on the matter very throughly. You mean that you don't houserule and just obey the rules utterly and as written? I haven't seen one single argument to convince me that assasins are anything other than cold blooded evil killers. Assassin. There are four S'es. I'll bite. The fact that the PrC is called Assassin doesn't mean that it always assassinates. Just like Rogues won't always be rogues. Just because the Assassin can kill something "in cold blood", as you so aptly referred to it, doesn't mean he will. And almost none (if any) of the Assassin's spells are evil. Sneaky isn't evil. Dishonorable isn't evil. If you want to make a new PrC that is assasin like but allows to be good alinged feel free, but it would never make it into any game i would be involved with. Don't you mean any game you DMed. the name assasin should be reason enough to require evil alignment. its an ASSASIN, thats not a good or even nutral profession. Just because you don't think something is good, doesn't mean it cannot, ever, be good. Read my previous post, where I copared your morality and your skills at logic to those of Leon Kass. Your word is not law. And if you keep insisting on that assassinating is evil in your opinion, and therefore in general, it qualifies as trolling. I disagree with the matter entirely, and can't see granting evil abilities to lawful good characters. I would no more grant death attack to good characters than i would let a good character cast unholy blight. They are not evil. Sneaky, but not evil. they are in the same catigory according to my moral opinion. I fixed that sentence. And have you heard of grammar? The first letter in every sentence should be a capital letter, and it would also be nice if you made the first letter in the names of races, classes (inlcuding prestige classes), feats, skills and any important concepts that are part of the discussion capital letters. And try to argue according to normal definitions. Don't assume you're right first and use that "truth" to prove that you're right.
Nephlite 06-14-06, 07:54 PM	If my player could show me a good aligned god of murder or assassins I might allow it. All the ones I know of are evil. Slayer of Domiel is a good aligned Assassin in Book of Exalted Deed a 3.5 book.
belthazzar1113 06-14-06, 11:33 PM	You mean that you don't houserule and just obey the rules utterly and as written? i mean i don't open up a can of worms by getting into alignment debates. death attack is evil, so unless your evil you don't get it. I houserule and change what i want, but i belive things should actually make some sort of sense. I don't give wizards bastard sword prof because i think bastard swords are cool. it makes no sense. the same reason that paladins can't dip assasin and get death attack. because its against any level of common sense. The fact that the PrC is called Assassin doesn't mean that it always assassinates. sure, and i play wizards to be a theif, and clerics are druids, and arcane tricksters are guild mages, and ur-priests are bards. your argument is that "just because my entire class anf focus center around a single thing that doesn't mean thats what i do." then you shouldn't be an assasin should you! Don't you mean any game you DMed. no i mean any game i am involved in. stupid things like this are basically licence to throw any sembalence of common sense or reason out the window. if i wanted that style of game i would sit down with paranoia and have a blast doing toally random things. When i sit down to dnd there are certain things that should be a given. evil abilities for evil people, good abilities for good people, and none of this "if i can rationilize it i can have it" stuff. I have played that game and i can rationilize anything if i wanted to, but just because you can create some thin argument to support you doesn't mean its right. stupid things like this either don't make it in the game or i take it as licence to break the game utterly and completely if i don't just get up and walk. Good aligned assasin? sure why not. I am going to go ahead and play a good aligned thrall herd and sacrifice town after town. hey i am immortal and they are dying for a higher purpose... mine. thats not evil from where i sit. after all, they are all dying anyway. its easy to break a game and things like this only encourage it. Just because you don't think something is good, doesn't mean it cannot, ever, be good this isn't real life, this is dnd. moral certainty exists. Demons are always evil. Devils are always evil. Angels are always good. Paladins are good, blackguards are evil. Assasins are evil, monks are lawful. Barbarians are chaotic and druids are part neutral. This is how it is in dnd. Moral certainty and fixed alignment are part of the game. If you can't handle that, or you can't deal with moral certainty then you are free to whine and moan and complain all you want, but that doesn't change how the game is set up. I said it before and i will say it again. Your certainly free to screw with that, but its foolish. A good assasin is like a a good blackguard. they don't exist. And have you heard of grammar? The first letter in every sentence should be a capital letter, and it would also be nice if you made the first letter in the names of races, classes (inlcuding prestige classes), feats, skills and any important concepts that are part of the discussion capital letters. thank you grammar natzi. this isn't school, this isn't regard repository, this is a web board. if i don't feel like spending more time trying to correct myself then i won't. Besides, with comments like yours being the norm, you don't deserve any more of my time than it takes to jot down these words. being rude isn't the best way to get your point across. the only reason i do it is because it seems to be the only way to get through your arrogence and selfish certainty. Read this thread, especially the last two pages, then tell me that there is no way an assassin could ever be anything but wholly evil. there is no way an assassin could ever be anything but evil. Assassin, alignment requirement:Evil. that should sum up any sort of argument that you want to have. another issue i have with your arguement is that the morality of sniping is basicly the same as that of death strike not following that line of thought. A sniper uses skill to attack at range. A sniping attack can be good or evil. death attack doesn't follow the same logic or rules. You can make a case that ANY attack with intent to kill is an evil act, but then your getting into moral quandrys best left in an exhalted game or ethics class. Death attack is a very clear example of an evil ability that stands head and shoulders above the rest. This is something that i think should be abundantly clear. yet somehow people want to say that cold blooded murder is a good thing. Alot of future defense attorneys in the room. Apparently, killing in cold blood is unimpeachably evil. i am sad that this remark is sarcastic... it shows a moral weakness that i find disturbing... yes, cold blooded murder is unimpeachably evil... exactly when would you say cold blooded murder is rightous and good? If you want to know what I HAVE allowed... see my next post.
Dnjscott 06-14-06, 11:58 PM	It's worth reiterating that the Ninja base class is heavily dependent upon poison (and, indeed, is better with poisons than the assassin), that the BOED has a class explicitly called a holy assassin, and that the Darkhunter (CW) and Shadowlord (Unapprochable East) both gain a death attack without being evil (shadowlord is any nongood, darkhunter has no restriction).
belthazzar1113 06-15-06, 12:07 AM	The Good assassin. Name changed to protect the innocent. This was made to show that you can have a "good" assasin, but not with the current evil PrC. It gives up most of the evil abilities in exchange for more fitting assasin styled abilities. and for the flexible alignment. I have ommited the fluff since thats world specific for my game. I apologize for the poor quality of the table, i am not sure how to get the spacing quite right. Hit Die: d6 Requirments: To qualify for the good assassin, a character must fulfill all of the following criteria. Alignment: any Skills: disguise 4 ranks, hide 8 ranks, move silently 8 ranks, search 4 ranks. Abilities: Sneak attack +1d6 or higher. Special: must have fulfilled an elinimation contract for no other reason than to recive training from the "good" assasins. This can be through killing the target, capturing the target, or otherwize eleiminating the threat. Class Skills The assassin's class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Balance (Dex), Bluff (Cha), Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Decipher Script (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Disable Device (Int), Disguise (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Forgery (Int), Gather Information (Cha), Hide (Dex), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Listen (Wis), Move Silently (Dex), Open Lock (Dex), Search (Int), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Spot (Wis), Swim (Str), Tumble (Dex), Use Magic Device (Cha), and Use Rope (Dex). Skill Points at Each Level: 4 + Int modifier. BAB F R W 1st +0 +0 +2 +0 Sneak attack +1d6, Crippling attack, track, spells 0 — — — 2nd +1 +0 +3 +0 +1 disguise, uncanny dodge 1 — — — 3rd +2 +1 +3 +1 Sneak attack +2d6 2 0 — — 4th +3 +1 +4 +1 +2 disguise, skill focus (disguise) 3 1 — — 5th +3 +1 +4 +1 Improved uncanny dodge, sneak attack +3d6 3 2 0 — 6th +4 +2 +5 +2 +3 disguise 3 3 1 — 7th +5 +2 +5 +2 Sneak attack +4d6 3 3 2 0 8th +6 +2 +6 +2 +4 disguise, hide in plain sight 3 3 3 1 9th +6 +3 +6 +3 Sneak attack +5d6 3 3 3 2 10th +7 +3 +7 +3 +5 disguise 3 3 3 3 Class Features All of the following are Class Features of the assassin prestige class. Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Assassins are proficient with the crossbow (hand, light, or heavy), dagger (any type), dart, rapier, sap, shortbow (normal and composite), and short sword. Assassins are proficient with light armor but not with shields. Sneak Attack: This is exactly like the rogue ability of the same name. The extra damage dealt increases by +1d6 every other level (2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th). If an assassin gets a sneak attack bonus from another source the bonuses on damage stack. Track: The assassin learns to find their mark no matter where they have fled. They gain the track feat, but use their search skill rather than wilderness survival to track their opponent. Crippling Attack: If an assassin studies his victim for 3 rounds and then makes a sneak attack with a melee weapon that successfully deals damage, the sneak attack has the additional effect of possibly paralyzing target. While studying the victim, the assassin can undertake other actions so long as his attention stays focused on the target and the target does not detect the assassin or recognize the assassin as an enemy. If the victim of such an attack fails a Fortitude save (DC 10 + the assassin's class level + the assassin's Int modifier) the victim is rendered helpless and unable to act for 1d6 rounds plus 1 round per level of the assassin. If the victim’s saving throw succeeds, the attack is just a normal sneak attack. Once the assassin has completed the 3 rounds of study, he must make the Crippling attack within the next 3 rounds. If a Cripple attack is attempted and fails (the victim makes her save) or if the assassin does not launch the attack within 3 rounds of completing the study, 3 new rounds of study are required before he can attempt another such attack. Spells: Beginning at 1st level, an assassin gains the ability to cast a number of arcane spells. To cast a spell, an assassin must have an Intelligence score of at least 10 + the spell’s level, so an assassin with an Intelligence of 10 or lower cannot cast these spells. Assassin bonus spells are based on Intelligence, and saving throws against these spells have a DC of 10 + spell level + the assassin's Intelligence bonus. When the assassin gets 0 spells per day of a given spell level he gains only the bonus spells he would be entitled to based on his Intelligence score for that spell level. The assassin's spell list appears below. An assassin casts spells just as a bard does. Upon reaching 6th level, at every even-numbered level after that (8th and 10th), an assassin can choose to learn a new spell in place of one he already knows. The new spell's level must be the same as that of the spell being exchanged, and it must be at least two levels lower than the highest-level assassin spell the assassin can cast. An assassin may swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that he gains new spells known for that level. Disguise: An assassin learns to blend into the background and is able to make themselves forgetable. THe assassin gets the listed bonus to disguise checks whenever they are attempting to change their appearence without impersonating a specific individual. Uncanny Dodge (Ex): Starting at 2nd level, an assassin retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) regardless of being caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. (He still loses any Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized.) If a character gains uncanny dodge from a second class the character automatically gains improved uncanny dodge (see below). Improved Uncanny Dodge (Ex): At 5th level, an assassin can no longer be flanked, since he can react to opponents on opposite sides of him as easily as he can react to a single attacker. This defense denies rogues the ability to use flank attacks to sneak attack the assassin. The exception to this defense is that a rogue at least four levels higher than the assassin can flank him (and thus sneak attack him). If a character gains uncanny dodge (see above) from a second class the character automatically gains improved uncanny dodge, and the levels from those classes stack to determine the minimum rogue level required to flank the character. Hide in Plain Sight (Su): At 8th level, an assassin can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as he is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, an assassin can hide himself from view in the open without having anything to actually hide behind. He cannot, however, hide in his own shadow. Level 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2 — — — 2nd 3 — — — 3rd 3 2 — — 4th 4 3 — — 5th 4 3 2 — 6th 4 4 3 — 7th 4 4 3 2 8th 4 4 4 3 9th 4 4 4 3 10th 4 4 4 4 Assassin Spell List Assassins choose their spells from the following list: 1st Level: disguise self, detect poison, feather fall, ghost sound, jump, sleep, true strike, dispell ward, deep breath, wall of smoke, distract, serene visage, accelerated movment, silent portal. 2nd Level: alter self, cat’s grace, darkness, fox’s cunning, illusory script, invisibility, pass without trace, spider climb, undetectable alignment, surefooted stride. 3rd Level: deep slumber, deeper darkness, false life, misdirection, nondetection, spiderskin, find the gap, wraith strike. 4th Level: clairaudience/clairvoyance, dimension door, freedom of movement, glibness, greater invisibility, locate creature, modify memory, shadow phase, vunerability.
belthazzar1113 06-15-06, 12:27 AM	the BOED has a class explicitly called a holy assassin, and that the Darkhunter (CW) and Shadowlord (Unapprochable East) both gain a death attack without being evil (shadowlord is any nongood, darkhunter has no restriction) first, i learned a long long time ago to flat out ban anything from Forgotten realms. most of the realms material is frought with loopholes and setting specific material ment to be balanced by other things in the world. I don't pay any attention to setting specific things, most especially the realms. PunPun comes from FR, if that doesn't tell you why i ignore it i don't know what will. the darkhunter on the other hand is a good example. Personally i would say their death attack only applies unerground and to things with underdark as one of their listed enviroments. But thats just from reading what the class is supposed to be about. Death attack seems almost an afterthought to the class. Its rather disturbing to me that one of the most powerful abilities in the dnd universe was simply tacked on to a class like that. But then every class can't be a winner. I have never had anyone interested in that class, so its never come up. But thats how i would change that class to make it slightly more sane. as far as the holy assassin, i looked but i saw no such classs in the BoED, there is the slayer class, but they don't get death attack. so i don't know who you are referring to there.
Dnjscott 06-15-06, 12:42 AM	... the darkhunter on the other hand is a good example. Personally i would say their death attack only applies unerground and to things with underdark as one of their listed enviroments. ... as far as the holy assassin, i looked but i saw no such classs in the BoED, there is the slayer class, but they don't get death attack. so i don't know who you are referring to there. 1. Huh. I'm not sure how someone could know how to assassinate things underground but not above, and that seems like an awfully deep cut in the name of flavor, but, on the other hand, I actually do agree that it seems kinda random. So, I'm torn. Regardless, it's a fairly mainstream book, and it's d-attack without being evil. 2. No, the Slayer doesn't have death attack. But, it does explicitly say that they are assassins, albeit good ones (the comparison is made in the text). Here's what we have in the SRD on assassins... 1st +0 +0 +2 +0 Sneak attack +1d6, death attack, poison use, spells 0 — — 2nd +1 +0 +3 +0 +1 save against poison, uncanny dodge 1 — — — 3rd +2 +1 +3 +1 Sneak attack +2d6 2 0 — — 4th +3 +1 +4 +1 +2 save against poison 3 1 — — 5th +3 +1 +4 +1 Improved uncanny dodge, sneak attack +3d6 3 2 0 — 6th +4 +2 +5 +2 +3 save against poison 3 3 1 — 7th +5 +2 +5 +2 Sneak attack +4d6 3 3 2 0 8th +6 +2 +6 +2 +4 save against poison, hide in plain sight 3 3 3 1 9th +6 +3 +6 +3 Sneak attack +5d6 3 3 3 2 10th +7 +3 +7 +3 +5 save against poison Sneak attack? Rogue. Death Attack? Darkhunter. Poison use? Ninja. Uncanny Dodge? Rogue. Hide in Plain Sight? Shadowdancer. Leaves you with a big bonus to save against poison, which no class pops explicitly into mind, though Celestials get a bonus against it so it can't be too bad. You combine that with the Slayer's entry saying "sometimes the skill set of an assassin is required for more noble purposes" and that they are "when the need arises--assassins who serve the cause of law and good", I think WOTC is really weakening the argument that the assassin has to be evil. Well, I think the assassin as written is evil, due especially to the murder someone just to get certified, but it doesn't have to be, I don't think. Though, the spell list has gotten weirder with each splatbook and with the BOED. Hmm. Maybe sub the Slayer list? Kind of a gyp though, since they don't get new spells like the Assassin does.
belthazzar1113 06-15-06, 01:04 AM	I'm not sure how someone could know how to assassinate things underground but not above, and that seems like an awfully deep cut in the name of flavor, but, on the other hand, I actually do agree that it seems kinda random. So, I'm torn. The same way a ranger might know how to fight dragons without knowing how to kill giant lizards. the same way you might know how to use a forest to your advantage, but not know how to use a city street. Creature, and terrain speclizations are not uncommon in the dnd world. as far as this being "proof positive" that death attack isn't evil, even you admit to being torn on the class, and that it somehow seems wrong. Thats your innate common sense trying to break through your argumentitive nature. don't fight it, just let reason take over. I don't think its a particularly harsh cut in the name of flavor, Darkhunters seem to be underground combat specilists, and i think most of their abilities reflect this, death attack seems very very random to just grab at the end. No, the Slayer doesn't have death attack. But, it does explicitly say that they are assassins, albeit good ones this only reenforces my point. They are assasins, and they don't get death attack. There is a reason for this and i know you can draw the line and make the connection here. I think the assassin as written is evil, due especially to the murder someone just to get certified if you take a peek at my above post you can see where i agree with you. Its possible to have a good aligned slayer or stalker sytle class, just not with poison, evil spells, and death attack.
Yanagita Kunio 06-15-06, 01:10 AM	belthazzar1113, Part of your reaction may be that I've editted my post since I first put it up, so I'm just going to go with--I was making an off-color joke...look at paragraphs one and two together. The line about "moral weakness?" Highly uncalled for, ad hominem, and far too much stick for the depth and weight of the conversation. Also...doesn't it strike you as hyperbolic to draw such a grand inference? Far as I'm concerned, you win the thread. I'm not going to play "Because I Said So" or its corellary game, " Authoritarian [micturating] Contest." Behold the awe and terror of a guy with a reallly dumb-looking platypus-thing as his avatar ignoring you. To the OP -- sorry. Hope the PrC references help somewhat.
Dnjscott 06-15-06, 01:12 AM	. as far as this being "proof positive" that death attack isn't evil, even you admit to being torn on the class, and that it somehow seems wrong. Thats your innate common sense trying to break through your argumentitive nature. don't fight it, just let reason take over. Don't be ridiculous--if you won't accept the fact that non-evil classes can have the same class feature being proof that those class features aren't evil, then you won't accept anything. Your counter-argument of 'common sense' and hating FR doesn't prove anything at all but your own preference. Also, even if you limited the Darkhunter to using the ability underground (which still seems strange, and none of the counter-examples you mentioned are particularly similar) then what could that possibly have to do with alignment restrictions? It's only evil to death attack surface dwellers? That makes even less sense than arbitrarily saying aimed shots are evil...
Dnjscott 06-15-06, 01:22 AM	And I'm also out--I lack the time or inclination to argue houserules. Just note that the concept of being an assassin and all of it's abilities can be found in non-evil classes. Ciao...
Ashok_Lal 06-15-06, 01:56 AM	belthazzar1113 i'm going against every one else & say that you are 100% right!!!! With every one elses ideas i'm making a CN paladin! all i have to do is come up with some lame story and BINGO!
belthazzar1113 06-15-06, 02:21 AM	Also, even if you limited the Darkhunter to using the ability underground (which still seems strange, and none of the counter-examples you mentioned are particularly similar) then what could that possibly have to do with alignment restrictions? the same thing a knights code has to do with alignment restictions. Its a code of conduct similar to what alignment is ment to impose. There is another class that got a death attack ability. It was an elf only PrC that specilized in hunting orcs. they got a death attack against orcs only and i was fine with that. It showed specilized knowldge in how to kill a race enemy. the point i have been trying to make and that i have not yet heard contriverted to satisfaction is that death attack is an evil act. Darkhunter definitly has it, But its already been admitted that it seems random and strange. can't be helped though, its out there, but for my money i don't think anyone would every take it, just because its a very very weak death attack and seem to be cherrypicked as a lazy cherry for the class. rather than have a unique or interesting ability it seems they just stole death attack and said "close enough" mabey your ok with that, but i know it makes me feel uneasy. Don't be ridiculous--if you won't accept the fact that non-evil classes can have the same class feature being proof that those class features aren't evil, then you won't accept anything. Your counter-argument of 'common sense' and hating FR doesn't prove anything at all but your own preference. the personal attacks are getting old. Yes, a non evil class has death attack, two if you include the one my friend reminded me about. And darkhunter seems off and strange and like it doesn't fit. death attack really isn't something that should be given out as a cherry like that. If you don't agree then we can reach an impass and thats that. and if arguing common sense is a mistake, then i think that says more about your wishing to rules lawer and justify away whatever mechanical advantage you want to gain rather than any preference on my part. As far as the reamls go... well they have been full of loopholes since i started looking, and if you don't belive me head over to the CO boards and start looking around. Most of the things that get really broken come from some realms expansion. That most certainly is a preference and its not one i am ashamed to admit. as for the rest of it, i was out the moment i put up the "good assasin, so far i have just been responding to other attacks to my person or questions to my comments.
Ghostwheel 06-15-06, 04:06 AM	...easily solved from page 24 of the PHB, and page 180 of the DMG. In short form, ex-assassins would retain BAB and Saves, but nothing else, from the Assassin PrC. That is what the books say, regardless of any given opinion.
Sunrider 06-15-06, 06:55 AM	Belthazzar et al.: Just so that we have a coherent argument to rebut, would you care to explain the following? As in, elaborate on them with logical arguments that are subject to contention. 'It just is' isn't an argument. a) What exactly makes Death Attack per se (as opposed to certain uses of Death Attack) always evil? b) What exactly makes poison use per se (as opposed to certain uses of poison) always evil? c) What makes using Death Attack or poison more evil in any given situation than simply sticking a sword through someone's gut, setting them on fire with a spell or dissolving them with Melf's Acid Arrow? d) What is it about assassination that makes it inherently evil in all situations? Evil as in evil, not just dishonourable (in some cultural contexts). Assassination as in the targeted killing of an individual, for whatever purpose (not necessarily financial gain, since, clearly, killing someone for no reason other than money is an evil act). Summarise your arguments regarding these points in a concise, logical fashion. Until you can clear up your point of view, there's little to argue about, since there seems to be very little coherence in your arguments. Note that I'm not arguing that death attacks, poison or assassination are necessarily good acts - I'm arguing that, as actions, they don't have an alignment per se (not even neutral) and that it's the purpose for which, and the circumstances under which, it is carried out that determines whether a particular death attack, assassination or use of poison is a good, evil, chaotic or lawful act.
Witch 06-15-06, 07:24 AM	My view on the morality of assassination: "Thou shalt not kill." But sometimes killing is necessary. This should not happen eagerly, but with sorrow, and only when the event is strictly required. I see too many people either defend extreme relativism or extreme absolutism here. The solution is that in a world like ours, or the world of D&D, neither makes sense. In an ideal world, any of the two would work. In our world, the answer lies in between.
simon_tage 06-15-06, 07:47 AM	Slayer of Domiel is a good aligned Assassin in Book of Exalted Deed a 3.5 book. Ok, who is Domiel? What are his spheres of control?
Witch 06-15-06, 07:54 AM	Ok, who is Domiel? What are his spheres of control? Domiel is one of the Celestial Hebdomad. He's not a God.
simon_tage 06-15-06, 08:00 AM	Domiel is one of the Celestial Hebdomad. He's not a God. Ok, so now I am back to my first task. Show me a god of Murder or Assassins that is not evil. (and to keep it specific not a god of Death but of one of the above.)
Witch 06-15-06, 08:08 AM	Why do you need one? Assassination is not a -goal- for Good gods. It's a last means. You don't put last means in your portfolio.
Sunrider 06-15-06, 08:21 AM	Why do you need one? Assassination is not a -goal- for Good gods. It's a last means. You don't put last means in your portfolio. It's not a goal, but not necessarily the last means either. If it comes down to assassinating a BBEG (thereby killing no innocents) or allowing a showdown between a Good army and the BBEG's army (no doubt consisting largely of innocent recruits) which would result in the deaths of thousands of innocents (and the possible survival, or even victory, of the BBEG), I'd say that assassination is the far better option... provided you can pull it off. After all, sitting back and doing nothing simply hands victory to the BBEG. The assassin sneaking in risks no life but her own, and kills no-one but the BBEG and possibly a few members of his inner circle (who are hardly innocent themselves), saving thousands of lives, yet some people consider her evil. The paladin leading the charge on the battlefield against the BBEG's army slaughters foes - largely innocent conscripts - left, right and centre, risking the lives of thousands of innocents on both sides, yet is considered by some to be good for these deeds. Doesn't make any sense at all... assassination may not be an 'exalted' solution (very few things are; in any case, 'vile' and 'exalted' are pretty much unplayable stereotypes anyway), but, in many cases, still a good one.
Witch 06-15-06, 08:23 AM	I may have worded it wrongly. What I meant is, if they assassinate someone, they will a) not do so frivolously b) regret the fact that they had to c) do so with the least required pain There's probably more factors, though.
simon_tage 06-15-06, 09:13 AM	Why do you need one? Assassination is not a -goal- for Good gods. It's a last means. You don't put last means in your portfolio. Because if the god of Assassins or the god of murder is evil then I consider murder and assassination evil. If a world has some mixed up good god of Assassins then I would say you could have a good assassin on that world. I don't know how other people DM but I have the gods (being the ultimate authority on generally everythng) decide what's what.
Witch 06-15-06, 09:19 AM	Because if the god of Assassins or the god of murder is evil then I consider murder and assassination evil. If a world has some mixed up good god of Assassins then I would say you could have a good assassin on that world. I don't know how other people DM but I have the gods (being the ultimate authority on generally everythng) decide what's what. So wait. Umberlee is the Goddess of Waves. She is Chaotic Evil. So Waves are evil? You cannot imagine how irrational that sounds.
heretic888 06-15-06, 09:27 AM	if you take a peek at my above post you can see where i agree with you. Its possible to have a good aligned slayer or stalker sytle class, just not with poison, evil spells, and death attack. Except that the CV Ninja gets Poison Use and there is absolutely nothing at all stopping it from taking a good alignment. Death Attack I'm uncertain of, but I agree on the point about spells with the [evil] descriptor. I mean, that one's pretty obvious. Latertz.
Witch 06-15-06, 09:41 AM	"Yeah, because a good assassin would never use poison. He would use ravages, which basically function the same as poisons, but they're not evil, they just inflict horrible pain on evil creatures. But poison, yeah, that's evil." Not targeted at anyone specific. Just pointing out that forbidding poison use while allowing ravages is retarded.
Mith_The_Godling 06-15-06, 09:43 AM	just because someone thinks they are good does not make them good. Good is a set term. Those Dark cops onthe edge who commits evil acts in the name of what they call good does not make them good. It makes them evil.
simon_tage 06-15-06, 11:18 AM	So wait. Umberlee is the Goddess of Waves. She is Chaotic Evil. So Waves are evil? You cannot imagine how irrational that sounds. No, what I am saying is that the god of an action determines the nature of that action. Most gods of destruction are chaotic, most gods of protection are lawful, most gods of love are good, most gods of murder are evil. The alignment of the god of footstools is irrelevant as it is a thing and not an act.
Witch 06-15-06, 11:22 AM	Okay, let's call Umberlee the Goddess of "creating waves". That's an action. Umberlee is evil. So creating waves is evil?
Sunrider 06-15-06, 11:54 AM	Murder for the sake of murder is evil. Most gods of murder, assassination, etc. (e.g. Bhaal) seek to promote murder and (violent) death for its own sake, rather than for any other cause. As a result, such gods are evil. Same goes for anyone who murders simply because they seek pleasure in killing. But someone who murders by casting a fireball into a crowd is just as evil as someone who murders by sneaking around and using death attacks. Bhaal doesn't particularly care how you murder people, so long as you do. Assassination, however, can't be seen merely as an act of murder. It can also be an act of retribution (Lawful - Inevitables are the epitome of this), an act of war (Lawful, e.g. Red Knight, or Chaotic, e.g. Tempus), an act of protection (Good). Essentially, assassination, like war or diplomacy, is a tool. Tools can be used for good or evil. Attacking a BBEG with an army? That's generally a good act (provided your motives for bringing down the BBEG are good). Using diplomacy and political manoeuvrings to put yourself in a position of total power? Hitler did that. Emperor Palpatine did that. Definitely evil. Assassinating Hitler? That would be a good act (provided your motives are good, and you aren't just seeking to take his place on the throne). In the end, it's not what the action is that makes it evil - actions, after all, are non-sentient entities and have no alignment. It's why the action is carried out that makes a particular act good, evil, chaotic or lawful. Sure, some good actions may be considered 'playing with fire', but they're still good (kind of like using the Dark Side - the power may be tempting, but it's not inherently evil. More chaotic than anything, but it can also be used to lawful ends). Without this kind of leeway, campaigns end up being very black-and-white - everything ends up with alignment-based tags that essentially say, "kill this", "don't kill this", "do this and you're good", "drink this and you go to hell", etc. Not much of a game for anyone past the age of 10, capable of reasoned thinking... If you're playing an Exalted or Vile campaign, things may be different, but they're hardly typical - in an Exalted campaign, pretty much everything that's not Exalted is evil, while in a Vile campaign, pretty much everything that's not Vile is good...
shadow mage 06-15-06, 11:59 AM	The same way a ranger might know how to fight dragons without knowing how to kill giant lizards. the same way you might know how to use a forest to your advantage, but not know how to use a city street. Creature, and terrain speclizations are not uncommon in the dnd world. Besides the fact that those examples are unrelated. A better example would have been "you know how to death attack a dragon below ground, but on the surface that very same dragon cannot be death attacked." Sounds silly to me. :rolleyes: as far as this being "proof positive" that death attack isn't evil, even you admit to being torn on the class, and that it somehow seems wrong. Thats your innate common sense trying to break through your argumentitive nature. don't fight it, just let reason take over. Not be be offensive or anything, but this sounds a lot like preaching to me. Hard to argue with somebody who's telling you what common sense and reason is when they've shown an amazing lack of both. And I can prove that. this only reenforces my point. They are assasins, and they don't get death attack. There is a reason for this and i know you can draw the line and make the connection here. So, being as familiar as you are with the slayer of Domiel, then, have you read death touch? There is no save. There is no chance. Similarly, they recieve that and sneak attack up to +5d6. Unlike death attack, which can only be used if the target does not register you as hostile, sneak attack works any time Dexterity bonus would be denied. Read the abilities themselves, tell me the differences in use, then we can draw connections. if you take a peek at my above post you can see where i agree with you. Its possible to have a good aligned slayer or stalker sytle class, just not with poison, evil spells, and death attack. Poison use = not evil. Poison use has no alignment. Evil spells, sure, how many of those are there in the core assassin spell list (ignoring the numerous splat books because, believe it or not, they were not made with balance compared to core rulebooks in mind)? Further, prove to me that an extraordinary ability has an alignment. You're dead set on it being evil, so prove it, using the rules. the personal attacks are getting old. Yes, a non evil class has death attack, two if you include the one my friend reminded me about. And darkhunter seems off and strange and like it doesn't fit. death attack really isn't something that should be given out as a cherry like that. If you don't agree then we can reach an impass and thats that. and if arguing common sense is a mistake, then i think that says more about your wishing to rules lawer and justify away whatever mechanical advantage you want to gain rather than any preference on my part. Ignoring the fact that it wasn't by definition a personal attack (any more than one person quoting another to pull examples from their own argument, for instance), even if it "doesn't seem right to you" the fact remains that they are non-evil classes with death attack that are not necessarily either assassins or getting paid for their use of death attack. Your personal views regarding whether a class or prestige class "makes sense" are not absolute, they are opinions that not everyone may share. ...easily solved from page 24 of the PHB, and page 180 of the DMG. In short form, ex-assassins would retain BAB and Saves, but nothing else, from the Assassin PrC. That is what the books say, regardless of any given opinion. Incorrect interpretation. If, for some reason, a character is forced to give up a class, these are the rules for what happens. Unless otherwise noted in the class description, an ex-member of a class retains any weapon and armor proficiencies he or she has gained. This explains how to interpret an "ex-member" section if it is included. In fact, on page 23... Following the general class description comes game rule information. Not all of the following categories apply to every class. With every one elses ideas i'm making a CN paladin! all i have to do is come up with some lame story and BINGO! Please, by all means astound us with your deductive reasoning. This should be entertaining. Because if the god of Assassins or the god of murder is evil then I consider murder and assassination evil. If a world has some mixed up good god of Assassins then I would say you could have a good assassin on that world. Well, by that logic War and Law are evil as well, as they are portfolio's of Hextor. Shadows must be evil too, as they are under Mask's realm of influence. Shall I delve into Eberron as well and hit three birds with a stone? just because someone thinks they are good does not make them good. Good is a set term. Those Dark cops onthe edge who commits evil acts in the name of what they call good does not make them good. It makes them evil. Is this trolling? I'm hestitant to answer, 'cause I think that's trolling... Bhaal doesn't particularly care how you murder people, so long as you do. Didn't care. He's dead in the realms. :tantrum: -Shadow Mage
simon_tage 06-15-06, 12:47 PM	I guess I will just stop arguing. No assassination has ever been a good act. It may have been done for a good cause but it is not a good act and therefor, in my book, is and will always be evil. And yes, that would make creating waves evil if she was in fact the goddess of creating waves. Just like if Bane was also the god of petting kittens it would make that an evil act too.
Witch 06-15-06, 12:56 PM	I guess I will just stop arguing. No assassination has ever been a good act. It may have been done for a good cause but it is not a good act and therefor, in my book, is and will always be evil. It might not be a good thing, but it will be a necessary thing sometimes. Good people will wield it too, or evil will "win". And yes, that would make creating waves evil if she was in fact the goddess of creating waves. Just like if Bane was also the god of petting kittens it would make that an evil act too. That's retarded. Seriously, that is the lowest conception of morality I have ever seen. Even Leon Kass does better.
simon_tage 06-15-06, 01:12 PM	That's retarded. Seriously, that is the lowest conception of morality I have ever seen. Even Leon Kass does better. My point only was that if there were gods that physically walked the world and that these gods had portfolios that defined their influence that any acts falling under their influence would coincide with their personal beliefs. If I am the god of trickery and I am CG then I would assume that people would try and deceive others for amusement or for minor advantage without causing any real harm. Those who did would not have my protection and would have to look to the god of deception (CE) or the god of betrayal (LE). I find that real world morality does NOT work in a world where the divine dictate whose souls go where and what the afterlife is and what IS good or evil. I just a few years ago played a character that was an assassin that worked for the greater good. He wanted everyone to be free to live in peace and took it upon himself to help achieve that goal. He was Lawful Evil working for a good goal. The fact that he was trying to help others was good but the methods he used were not.
heretic888 06-15-06, 01:13 PM	Murder for the sake of murder is evil. Most gods of murder, assassination, etc. (e.g. Bhaal) seek to promote murder and (violent) death for its own sake, rather than for any other cause. As a result, such gods are evil. Same goes for anyone who murders simply because they seek pleasure in killing. But someone who murders by casting a fireball into a crowd is just as evil as someone who murders by sneaking around and using death attacks. Bhaal doesn't particularly care how you murder people, so long as you do. Assassination, however, can't be seen merely as an act of murder. It can also be an act of retribution (Lawful - Inevitables are the epitome of this), an act of war (Lawful, e.g. Red Knight, or Chaotic, e.g. Tempus), an act of protection (Good). Essentially, assassination, like war or diplomacy, is a tool. Tools can be used for good or evil. Attacking a BBEG with an army? That's generally a good act (provided your motives for bringing down the BBEG are good). Using diplomacy and political manoeuvrings to put yourself in a position of total power? Hitler did that. Emperor Palpatine did that. Definitely evil. Assassinating Hitler? That would be a good act (provided your motives are good, and you aren't just seeking to take his place on the throne). In the end, it's not what the action is that makes it evil - actions, after all, are non-sentient entities and have no alignment. It's why the action is carried out that makes a particular act good, evil, chaotic or lawful. Sure, some good actions may be considered 'playing with fire', but they're still good (kind of like using the Dark Side - the power may be tempting, but it's not inherently evil. More chaotic than anything, but it can also be used to lawful ends). Without this kind of leeway, campaigns end up being very black-and-white - everything ends up with alignment-based tags that essentially say, "kill this", "don't kill this", "do this and you're good", "drink this and you go to hell", etc. Not much of a game for anyone past the age of 10, capable of reasoned thinking... Well said. The only thing I would add is that while intention and motivation is a very significant factor to take into account when evaluating morality and alignment, it is not the only factor. Some people have very good (or bad) intentions, but don't follow through with them. Or, conversely, sometimes people have good intentions but behave in such a way that needlessly endangers others. And, in some cases, people may have good intentions but are put in very difficult circumstances. Point being, neither the action nor the intention in and of itself determines alignment here. It is a combination of several factors, which is why most games don't delve too deeply in the mechanics (as opposed to the roleplaying) of alignment. Laterz.
heretic888 06-15-06, 01:20 PM	I guess I will just stop arguing. No assassination has ever been a good act. It may have been done for a good cause but it is not a good act and therefor, in my book, is and will always be evil. No, actions do not have alignments --- except in the noted exceptions of channeling negative supernatural energy or using spells with the [evil] descriptor. However, when it comes to mundane actions and behaviors, alignment need not apply. Characters have alignments and such alignment is determined based upon the context in which our characters behave themselves. And yes, that would make creating waves evil if she was in fact the goddess of creating waves. Just like if Bane was also the god of petting kittens it would make that an evil act too. No offense, but I'm going to have to agree with Witch here. This argument is pretty absurd. Laterz.
Sunrider 06-15-06, 01:29 PM	My point only was that if there were gods that physically walked the world and that these gods had portfolios that defined their influence that any acts falling under their influence would coincide with their personal beliefs. If I am the god of trickery and I am CG then I would assume that people would try and deceive others for amusement or for minor advantage without causing any real harm. Those who did would not have my protection and would have to look to the god of deception (CE) or the god of betrayal (LE). I find that real world morality does NOT work in a world where the divine dictate whose souls go where and what the afterlife is and what IS good or evil. I just a few years ago played a character that was an assassin that worked for the greater good. He wanted everyone to be free to live in peace and took it upon himself to help achieve that goal. He was Lawful Evil working for a good goal. The fact that he was trying to help others was good but the methods he used were not. Obviously you and I are playing very different games - seems like gods in your world are much more meddlesome than gods in most standard campaign settings. Take Mystra as an example. NG god of magic. She controls and maintains the Weave, which is required for all spellcasting (except that conducted via the Shadow Weave, which falls under Shar's control). Maintaining the fabric of the Weave and promoting the development and use of magic are her prime concerns. She also happens to be NG. By your logic, Mystra would deny use of the Weave to all evil spellcasters (which is well within her power), forcing them to rely on the Shadow Weave. Now, flip through a few FR sourcebooks. Look at the stat blocks of all the evil spellcasters (there are plenty). How many are Shadow Weave users? Relatively few. Most of them rely on the Weave, provided and maintained by Mystra, even though they may be of an alignment diametrically opposite to her. Mystra does not deny them spells. By the same token, casting spells isn't a Good act, even though the goddess of magic is Good. Naturally, this logic can be extended to portfolios other than Magic - I'm just using it as an example. Does Tempus (CN god of war and battle) deny his power to Lawful militaries? Does the Red Knight (LN goddess of military strategy) deny her power to Chaotic guerilla leaders? The answers are no and no.
simon_tage 06-15-06, 01:38 PM	To Sunrider: yes, we must be playing different games. To the OP: Has anyone heard of a way to make an Assassin character turn good? I was thinking something like Redeemed/Emancipated Assassin. Still get the Death Attack and all that but no longer has to be evil, kinda uses his abilities for death dealing for a more goodly cause. Anyone heard anything like this before? :confused: no, there is not, not that I have ever heard of.
Sunrider 06-15-06, 01:39 PM	No, actions do not have alignments --- except in the noted exceptions of channeling negative supernatural energy or using spells with the [evil] descriptor. However, when it comes to mundane actions and behaviors, alignment need not apply. Characters have alignments and such alignment is determined based upon the context in which our characters behave themselves. I would even argue that spells with alignment descriptors don't necessarily carry the alignment burden that many people place upon them - rather, the [Good], [Evil], [Chaotic] and [Lawful] descriptors simply describe how spells with certain descriptors interact with each other, with other magical effects and with the world around them. In other words, exactly like the [Fire], [Sonic], [Earth], [Death] and other other descriptors. Casting Fire spells doesn't turn you into a fire elemental and casting Death spells doesn't kill you. Separate the mechanics (descriptors) from the fluff (character alignment changes). Casting [Good] spells isn't always a Good act, while casting [Evil] spells isn't always an Evil act. Devils and Demons use Protection from Evil all the time in the Blood War. Are these Good acts? Obviously not. In one of the FR novels, Cadderly called a Balor from the Abyss (an [Evil] spell) in order to interrogate him and later defeat him. Clearly not an Evil act, despite the spell descriptor. As I said elsewhere, if you start throwing fluff into a gearbox, all you end up with is an empty bag of cotton wool and a broken gearbox. Leave mechanics and description separate - this goes for weapons, fighting styles, spell descriptions, class names, everything. Anything else is just shoehorning characters and limiting your game.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-15-06, 01:54 PM	i mean i don't open up a can of worms by getting into alignment debates. death attack is evil, so unless your evil you don't get it. How naive can you be? "Death Attack is evil"... NO! Death Attack is unaligned and sneaky. Get that into your head! sure, and i play wizards to be a theif, and clerics are druids, and arcane tricksters are guild mages, and ur-priests are bards. your argument is that "just because my entire class anf focus center around a single thing that doesn't mean thats what i do." then you shouldn't be an assasin should you! Why not? Death Attack isn't evil, so you could use it for something else. It's a valid argument. no i mean any game i am involved in. stupid things like this are basically licence to throw any sembalence of common sense or reason out the window. It's a role-playing requirement. Role-playing requirments are "limitations that aren't really limitations." It wouldn't imbalance anything to let that slip. if i wanted that style of game i would sit down with paranoia and have a blast doing toally random things. When i sit down to dnd there are certain things that should be a given. evil abilities for evil people, good abilities for good people, and none of this "if i can rationilize it i can have it" stuff. "Evil abilities for evil people" would be like the Smite Good ability of the Blackguard, not the Assassin's Death Attack. I have played that game and i can rationilize anything if i wanted to, but just because you can create some thin argument to support you doesn't mean its right. It doesn't make you right either, no matter how thick your argument is. And for the record, your argument is sentimental, absolutist, self-righteous and very, very thin. You haven't supported anything, but I have a feeling that your players will kill you eventually. stupid things like this either don't make it in the game or i take it as licence to break the game utterly and completely if i don't just get up and walk. No. Good aligned assasin? sure why not. I am going to go ahead and play a good aligned thrall herd and sacrifice town after town. hey i am immortal and they are dying for a higher purpose... mine. thats not evil from where i sit. after all, they are all dying anyway. its easy to break a game and things like this only encourage it. You're *****ing about the Thrallherd too? What is it about the Thrallherd that makes him work so different from the Leadership feat? Is it the empathetic attraction that you can't control? Or the fact that those individuals are actually willing to die for you (it's not mind-control) this isn't real life, this is dnd. moral certainty exists. Demons are always evil. Devils are always evil. Angels are always good. Paladins are good, blackguards are evil. Assasins are not always evil, monks are lawful. Barbarians are chaotic and druids are part neutral. This is how it is in dnd. Moral certainty and fixed alignment are part of the game. Yes, I know they are, but they are not in real life. I wasn't arguing according to real life, though. If you can't handle that, or you can't deal with moral certainty then you are free to whine and moan and complain all you want, but that doesn't change how the game is set up. You're the one who's thin-skinned. You may not know, but I do have a thick skin, and the people down at the Mature Boards (some of them, anyways) can testify to that, so don't assume I'm a sissy like you. I said it before and i will say it again. Your certainly free to screw with that, but its foolish. A good assasin is like a a good blackguard. they don't exist. Juvenile. thank you grammar natzi.this isn't school, this isn't regard repository, this is a web board. No, but this is a message board, not a chat room. Try to make your posts more readable, if only to make people like you more. And I'm not a grammar nazi. Your posts are just so bad (in a grammatic sense) that it's an annoyance to read them. if i don't feel like spending more time trying to correct myself then i won't. Fine. I'm not forcing you. being rude isn't the best way to get your point across. the only reason i do it is because it seems to be the only way to get through your arrogence and selfish certainty. That would be you who is arrogant and self-righteous. Besides, with comments like yours being the norm, you don't deserve any more of my time than it takes to jot down these words. Q.E.D. there is no way an assassin could ever be anything but evil. Assassin, alignment requirement:Evil. that should sum up any sort of argument that you want to have. My argument is that it would not be imbalancing for the Assassin to be evil.
Nephlite 06-15-06, 03:14 PM	Ok, who is Domiel? What are his spheres of control? Domiel is a paragon Archon. He needs not Spheres of influence because you get a spell list not a domain from his prc. From the Book. Celestrial paragons function independently of the deities standing with powers in their own right. They have own followers and agendas that may or may not coincide wirh goals of deities of like alingment. Short of Dieties, they are the most powerful creatures of good in existance. And he has a Death Touch: close enough to a death attack. Even better don't have to study opoonent.
Kobold_Avenger 06-15-06, 03:33 PM	Balzeebul was an Arcon and hes evil, erniyes were angels and they are evil. Blackguards are simply the evil version of paladins.
Dnjscott 06-15-06, 04:12 PM	Okay, I said I was done, but I just found this and it's too perfect-- The Imakari Vengeance Taker from Underdark targets people for 'vengeance' (not assassination :rolleyes: ) They get a Rangerly-bonus against their chosen target, poison use, Death Attack, Sneak Attack +5D6 over ten levels, advance arcane casting by five levels (avoiding the sometimes stinky Assassin spells) and have other stuff besides. Rogue BAB, good Reflex and Will, and some neat seeking abilities. Personally, if you wanted to avoid the fight, this guy'd probably do fine as an 'Assassin'. Plus, its proof that switching the flavor text is enough to keep nearly all abiltiies--you'll need to take the first level of Shadowdancer, but you'll survive. He's any lawful, so he can be LG! Wee! Oh, and add Justice of Weald and Woe to the list--Death ATtack, Poison Use, Hide in PLain Sight, hell, they even get immunity to poison, making them better with poisons than the assassin. No alignment requirements. It also mentions that they sometimes assassinate human rulers, making them the second possible LG assassin after the Slayer, which is in the BOED, so it's supposed to not only be good, but exalted good (third if you count the Vengeance Taker, though I suppose that's 'Vengeance, not assassination' :rolleyes: )
Dnjscott 06-15-06, 04:47 PM	Oh, and p.s., the Chaotic Neutral Paladin is the Anarch, Holy Warrior of Chaos. It can Detect and Smite Law, has the companion as a Paladin, and some other neat stuff. Check Dragon 310. :P
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-15-06, 05:25 PM	I think people might be misunderstanding. We aren't talking about assassins in the term "killing for money." We're talking about the set of abilities compiled into a PrC called "The assassin." Moving on... *arguments about how assassins should lose class abilities for changing alignment just because other PrC's do* We aren't talking about barbarians, paladins, etc. We're talking about assassins. Take out your DMG and flip to pages 180 and 181. Tell me whether you see an "ex-assassins" section. And concerning about how killing someone is an evil act; so, the now-widow in your story about the wife-beater who gets killed in his sleep. Say a paladin casts Holy Smite near her. Does the widow get fried because she didn't want to die, so she killed the person who was going to kill her? If so, then I reiterate that everyone with a sword must be evil. Just because something is an evil act doesn't automatically make that person a fiend who revels in the suffering of others. How about this example? An evil guy is travelling with the party of good guys. He has been forced to make the party think he's a generous, caring paladin-type. He wants to stay incognito, so when he passes a beggar, the evil guy gives the poor person a few gold pieces. Now he's good, right? He just commited a good act, even if it was in pursuit of an evil cause (betraying the party). Alternatively, he's not good, because the action was in pursuit of and evil cause and so the goodness doesn't matter. In that case, since the end justifies/condemns the means, someone with the assassin PrC who death attacks an evil tyrant to end his reign of terror isn't evil, because he was pursuing a good cause. If he's good, then every single farmer who's defended his land against an orcish invasion is evil because he's taken a life. Every guard who's been forced to kill a mass murderer is evil because he's killed someone. This turns D&D inside out, because all damaging spells would be evil, since they're used to kill things. Thus, Holy Smite is evil. But wait! Holy smite only affects evil things! According to your theories regarding ravages and afflictions, it isn't evil because it only affects evil things! If we assume you can't be wrong, that leads us to conclude that... The guy is evil. The end justifies/condemns the means. Thus, you can have a good person with the "assassin" PrC. However, you've also said that that, too, is impossible. I call that a corner. Actually, I call that an enclosed figure of fallibility with you inside. *something to the effect that death attack is evil because you have time to think your actions through* The PC's are running through the dungeon, killing monsters, finding their ways through mazes, etc. When do they not have time to think through their plan to kill the BBEG?
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-15-06, 05:52 PM	this isn't real life, this is dnd. moral certainty exists. Demons are always evil. Devils are always evil. Angels are always good. Paladins are good, blackguards are evil. Assasins are evil, monks are lawful. Barbarians are chaotic and druids are part neutral. This is how it is in dnd. Moral certainty and fixed alignment are part of the game. We kill orcs because they are orcs and we think they are evil. Well not all orcs are evil. plenty of half orcs are player characters and not evil, and even some orc tribes would be composed of and led by non evil people. Uh... okay. Moral certainty exists. These people always have this alignment. Except for orcs. You can't make generalizations about them. They're special. Edit: PunPun comes from FR, if that doesn't tell you why i ignore it i don't know what will. Don't forget to outlaw the Vancian magic system too. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6796321&postcount=1)
heretic888 06-15-06, 05:54 PM	I would even argue that spells with alignment descriptors don't necessarily carry the alignment burden that many people place upon them - rather, the [Good], [Evil], [Chaotic] and [Lawful] descriptors simply describe how spells with certain descriptors interact with each other, with other magical effects and with the world around them. In other words, exactly like the [Fire], [Sonic], [Earth], [Death] and other other descriptors. Casting Fire spells doesn't turn you into a fire elemental and casting Death spells doesn't kill you. Separate the mechanics (descriptors) from the fluff (character alignment changes). Casting [Good] spells isn't always a Good act, while casting [Evil] spells isn't always an Evil act. Devils and Demons use Protection from Evil all the time in the Blood War. Are these Good acts? Obviously not. In one of the FR novels, Cadderly called a Balor from the Abyss (an [Evil] spell) in order to interrogate him and later defeat him. Clearly not an Evil act, despite the spell descriptor. As I said elsewhere, if you start throwing fluff into a gearbox, all you end up with is an empty bag of cotton wool and a broken gearbox. Leave mechanics and description separate - this goes for weapons, fighting styles, spell descriptions, class names, everything. Anything else is just shoehorning characters and limiting your game. Well, I have to admit that you make a compelling argument here. I may have to rethink this matter. . .
heretic888 06-15-06, 06:06 PM	Uh... okay. Moral certainty exists. These people always have this alignment. Except for orcs. You can't make generalizations about them. They're special. Heh. :P That's one of the major flaws of absolutisms of any kind (moral or otherwise), whether we're talking about real life or fantasy. All you have to do is to provide one exception to the rule and the entire foundation comes crumbling down. By its very nature, absolutism is not the sturdiest foundation to build a fantasy world with. One of the first things that I was taught in my first class in college (a speech class, I believe) is to avoid using qualifiers like "always", "only", and "never". They're so difficult to prove and so easy to rebuke. Laterz.
Witch 06-15-06, 06:09 PM	Oh, I myself use words such as "always" and "never" all the time. It gets tedious to say "extremely probable, 99.9999% of the time" all the time.
Ciradin 06-15-06, 06:19 PM	Ummmmmmm... There is a way for a good aligned character to become an assassin. The character just needs to change his/her alignment to any evil, kill a random guy, gain a level as an assassin, and then score a "atone" spell off the local cleric and change his/her alingment back to what it was. Since assassins have no "moral code" that prevents them from gaining more levels after they change alignment, you're good to go. And if you're in a particularly good mood you can spring for the guy you killed to be ressurected. Oh yeah- on the "assassins don't have to be evil" note, just so ya know, the Dark Hunter PrC (a person skilled in tracking and killing mosters in the Underdark) from Complete Warrior has the death attack extraordinary ability. Now question whether it could be evil if a PrC with no alignment restictions has it.
belthazzar1113 06-15-06, 06:48 PM	I am going to try and start with the most logical and well thought out and presented arugments and then move onto the stupid juvenile crap at the end.... Separate the mechanics (descriptors) from the fluff (character alignment changes). Casting [Good] spells isn't always a Good act, while casting [Evil] spells isn't always an Evil act. Devils and Demons use Protection from Evil all the time in the Blood War. Are these Good acts? Obviously not. In one of the FR novels, Cadderly called a Balor from the Abyss (an [Evil] spell) in order to interrogate him and later defeat him. Clearly not an Evil act, despite the spell descriptor. a logical point, but i disagree with some of this. I think that [evil] spells when cast yes are always evil. The spells that carry the evil descriptor are tainting to cast, they are some of the most horrible spells you can use that directly snuff out life, or torment souls or commit what would be the dnd equivelent of a "mortal sin" for lack of a better term. The use of these spells is never condoned by any but evil creatures looking for any road to power. The same usally applies to [good] spells. spells that carry that desciptor are impossible to use for evil. They are genrally spells that protect or defend life. And if you look at whats truely good (and by this i mean the highest standards of the good alignment) then defending life, no matter how vile the life, is still a good act. The highest standards of good will hold that any evil can be redeemed and all life is worth saving. So spells that carry this [good] descriptor will be the spells that can't be used for evil and must always preserve life and goodness. as far as using an evil spell for a good purpose i refer to my earlyer statements about the lesser of two evils. Useing an [evil] spell is an evil act even if its done in the persuit of a higher good. The lesser of two evils is still, nonetheless, evil. This is perfectly acceptable for neutral characters or even for good characters to do occassionally, but when you start talking about really good characters like paladins or any exhalted characters then it becomes unacceptable. This is also one of the reasons that i am so against the good aligned assasin. While occasionally useing an evil spell might be acceptable for a good character, especially if situations are dire, I think having the entire focus of your class be based around evil abilities is too much of a stretch for a good character. No, actions do not have alignments --- except in the noted exceptions of channeling negative supernatural energy or using spells with the [evil] descriptor. However, when it comes to mundane actions and behaviors, alignment need not apply. I wish i could come up with a better answer to why this is wrong, but I have already tried logic, passion and reason, and none of them have worked. Certain actions are evil. certain actions do indeed carry an alignment. You noted two that are specifically spelled out because those actions are ALWAYS evil. There are others that are always considered to be evil that are not spelled out. Death attack is one such ability. For example, shooting someone in the head point blank with a heavy crossbow is an evil act. I can't think of a single instance where this is going to be a good act, but the act doesn't specifically spell out as "this is always evil". Sneak attack on the other hand, isn't always evil. Soemtimes is just a combat style, sometimes its an opportunistic strike, sometimes its murder. It can run the gambit from good to evil. Death attack can't. Its always based on betrayal, lies and calculated murder. Its an evil act. You are free to play in games with a more loose alignment system than others. your free to completly disregard all alignments and just do whatever you want and whatever you can justify. Thats fine, you can change the game however you want to, but when you do that there are alot of things that just stop making sense. Paladins that sneak up and kill people in their sleep but justify it away as "they were evil", assasins that are LG and use a holy avenger to make death attacks because they "work for a higher good", blackguards that are really good guys just "misunderstood". Its a crazy world and your free to play there, but its not somewhere that makes sense. If you start mucking about with fundamentally obvious things then everything is up for grabs to be changed into whatever you want, and that throws any sort of structure or expectation of continuity or realisum right out the window. It might not be a good thing, but it will be a necessary thing sometimes. Good people will wield it too, or evil will "win". this was addressed in the book of exhalted deeds. It was a very interesting thing to read. Talking about why good does NOT use things like poision and assasination and other evil tactics. It says that when you cast a spell with an evil descriptor, or use the tools and tactics of evil that a part of you is tainted and corrupted. It puts a stain on you no matter how much you want to justify it away, deep down you know you did something evil. And that adds to the fundamental balance of good and evil in the universe. and who is to say that wasn't evil's real goal in the situation? to drive an otherwize good person to commit an evil act. To plant a seed in them to taint them, or to make someone that would otherwize respect them lose respect and faith in them for their evil act. Good can and does stand up to evil without using evil spells and evil tactics. Thats the point of good and evil, you can be good and not use any evil tactics and still win. You can be evil and seek nothing but power and still lose. So saying that "you have to be a little evil sometimes just to get by" is the motto of the true nutral character that belives nothing is pure, and nothing is absolute. Besides the fact that those examples are unrelated. A better example would have been "you know how to death attack a dragon below ground, but on the surface that very same dragon cannot be death attacked." Sounds silly to me. actually its saying you know how to take advantage of the weakness of a dragon that LIVES underground and kill it, but a dragon that LIVES on the surface and in the air behaves differently and you don't have the training to deal with that. Its saying that you ahve studied the habits and reactions of creatures that live beneath the earth thier whole life and know how to predict their movments and reactions well enough to land a deathblow on them. But that creatures who live underwater, or in the sky, or in flame, or even on the surface will react differently and defend themselves differently and you can't predict that well enough to know exactly how to land a deadly single strike. I don't think that sounds silly at all, it sounds like its making sense for the class. So, being as familiar as you are with the slayer of Domiel, then, have you read death touch? There is no save. There is no chance. Similarly, they recieve that and sneak attack up to +5d6. Unlike death attack, which can only be used if the target does not register you as hostile, sneak attack works any time Dexterity bonus would be denied. Read the abilities themselves, tell me the differences in use, then we can draw connections. the SoD death touch works only on evil creatures. That gives it a moral context very very different from death attack which is indiscrimenent. I think that alone proves its not evil despite not allowing a save or "not giving a chance" to the target. Sneak attack again has been talked about many times, and its not just about murder. Some sneak attacks would be an evil act, some wouldn't. which is why that ability doesn't carry an alignment in and of itself. each action would have to be judged on its own. Unlike death attack which can never be anything but an evil act. The only single time that a death attack could ever be considered not evil is when its used as a paralisis attack... which i am very surpized no one has actually brought up yet. This to me is why death attack wasn't given the [evil] descriptor. Beacause the ability can be used to make a paralisis attack the entire thing can't be called evil. And before people start jumping up and down in joy thinking that I have reversed my feild, i would like to say that all of my statements stand as it applies to the death attack use of death attack. All of my arguments have been towards useing the death option of death attack rather than the paralisis option. And in my own slayer offering the assasin gives up the death option and the poision for the paralisis option and incresed proficency with tracking down and getting close to their target. Thats the way to make the assassin [good], not to just remove the alignment descriptions and say whatever. Incorrect interpretation. whew, glad we got that cleared up. thanks shadowmage for your insightful and detailed reasoning. we are all glad to get this settled since you don't agree with us its obviously wrong. /sarcasum off. Not targeted at anyone specific. Just pointing out that forbidding poison use while allowing ravages is retarded. ravages have a moral context. They don't cause any more suffering to the target than the target has caused to the world. Look at the actual desciptions of what the ravages do and you will see that they are magical punishments for evil acts. as far as people saying poision isn't evil, i think my good friend said it best over lunch today. "poision itself isn't evil. USEING poision is evil. Poision is just a thing, something natural that some animals produce to feed or to defend themselves from predators. Humans useing poision is evil since we know what it does, we know how bad it hurts and how horrible the use of it is, but we do it anyway. Thats not just bad thats choosing to do bad things which is evil." How naive can you be? "Death Attack is evil"... NO! Death Attack is unaligned and sneaky. Get that into your head! your interpretation differs from mine. Slay living is an evil spell, death attack is the same sort of thing, and i consider it an evil act. Its really as simple as that. If you want to argue like a child and say "its my way cause i said so" then your not really worth considering. Death Attack isn't evil, so you could use it for something else you can't use death attack defensivly, you can't use death attack when your ambushed, you can't use death attack to bake cookies, you can't use death attack for anything but calculated murder. Your argument makes no sense. It's a role-playing requirement. Role-playing requirments are "limitations that aren't really limitations." It wouldn't imbalance anything to let that slip. its attitudes like that that turn dnd into nothing more than a complicated game of chess. DnD is a role playing game. If you want to ignore all alignments and anything resmbeling a story and just playing strictly by the numbers then your better off getting Half-Life, or Call of Duty and fragging things on a FPS. Or you can go play DDO and have your dice fix without having to worry about pesky things like character and story. I find that attitude very sad, and I am sorry you miss out on so much of what i consider the best parts of the game. You haven't supported anything, but I have a feeling that your players will kill you eventually. actually i have asked everyone i can find that plays dnd about this debate and they have all agreed with me. Everyone in my two groups, everyone at the local games store, and a few of the more far flung friends i have around the states that i used to know. I haven't found anyone who would come right out and say "death attack is a good aligned ability" or even "using death attack isn't evil" only here on the boards have i found anyone to argue with something that I consider pretty obvious. What is it about the Thrallherd that makes him work so different from the Leadership feat? first i have played thrallherds and i love them. I think they are great fun, and i have a blast playing them. its off topic but to answer your question, the fact that you can sacrifice as many of your followers as you want, get each and ever single one of them killed in any stupid way you want and take zero penelty on getting new followers makes it a very different feel from the leadership feat. You can set up camp, tie a follower to a stake, roast him alive, use one to practice your sword skills to make sure you keep in practice, have another one carry the dead bodies a ways from camp to attact a few predators, then have a small gang of them attack the wolves and bears that come to feed to get you meat to eat and pelts to sell... oh and when you wake up after sleeping all the ones you killed or sent to their deaths will have automatically replaced themselves without complaint or work. You don't have to feed the followers, you can march them around naked and starving till they die and you will just get new followers who willingly submitt to the same abuse. I think that might make my point, but if you really want me to go on I certainly can. Vampire allys, ghoul compaions, monster feeding, trap detection, ect ect ect... just let me know when you get the hint. I said it before and i will say it again. Your certainly free to screw with that, but its foolish. A good assasin is like a a good blackguard. they don't exist. Juvenile. actually its the point. ignoring it won't make it go away or be any less true.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-15-06, 07:40 PM	your interpretation differs from mine. Slay living is an evil spell, death attack is the same sort of thing, and i consider it an evil act. Strange. RAW, which you seem to be so fond of referring to, states differently, namely that Death Attack is unaligned. Its really as simple as that. If you want to argue like a child and say "its my way cause i said so" then your not really worth considering. You're the one who's arguing the "because I said so" argument. Look at what you said in the first quote. That's exactly what you're accusing me of, and you have yet to support that ad hominem of yours. you can't use death attack defensivly, you can't use death attack when your ambushed, you can't use death attack to bake cookies, you can't use death attack for anything but calculated murder. Your argument makes no sense. Murder in D&D is unaligned. At least by your apparent definition of murder. its attitudes like that that turn dnd into nothing more than a complicated game of chess. How does changing a single alignment requirment make D&D just "a complicated game of chess"? If Assassins don't have any explicitly evil abilities, then they can be whatever alignment they want to (according to houserule). DnD is a role playing game. Yes, and role-playing games are about escaping reality, not enforcing principles on people who just want to have fun. If you want to ignore all alignments and anything resmbeling a story and just playing strictly by the numbers then your better off getting Half-Life, or Call of Duty and fragging things on a FPS. Or you can go play DDO and have your dice fix without having to worry about pesky things like character and story. Hyperbole alert! I find that attitude very sad, and I am sorry you miss out on so much of what i consider the best parts of the game. I'm actually all for bending rules so everyone at my table can have fun. I just take great care to tune up the encounters, too. That sentence was also pathetically arrogant and patronizing. It borderlines on flaming. actually i have asked everyone i can find that plays dnd about this debate and they have all agreed with me. Everyone in my two groups, everyone at the local games store, and a few of the more far flung friends i have around the states that i used to know. I haven't found anyone who would come right out and say "death attack is a good aligned ability" or even "using death attack isn't evil" only here on the boards have i found anyone to argue with something that I consider pretty obvious. Are you an idiot? Just because they didn't blatantly state that it isn't evil doesn't make it evil. That's one of the biggest fallacies I've seen in my days. first i have played thrallherds and i love them. I think they are great fun, and i have a blast playing them. its off topic but to answer your question, the fact that you can sacrifice as many of your followers as you want, get each and ever single one of them killed in any stupid way you want and take zero penelty on getting new followers makes it a very different feel from the leadership feat. You can set up camp, tie a follower to a stake, roast him alive, use one to practice your sword skills to make sure you keep in practice, have another one carry the dead bodies a ways from camp to attact a few predators, then have a small gang of them attack the wolves and bears that come to feed to get you meat to eat and pelts to sell... oh and when you wake up after sleeping all the ones you killed or sent to their deaths will have automatically replaced themselves without complaint or work. You don't have to feed the followers, you can march them around naked and starving till they die and you will just get new followers who willingly submitt to the same abuse. And if you're good aligned, you won't do any of those things. I think that might make my point, but if you really want me to go on I certainly can. Vampire allys, ghoul compaions, monster feeding, trap detection, ect ect ect... just let me know when you get the hint. Blink Dogs, Angels, Unicorns, diplomatic missions. I could also go on. Just because you're negative, doesn't mean you're right. actually its the point. ignoring it won't make it go away or be any less true. That point sucks. It's juvenile, and I'm surprised you didn't see that before. You're comparing apples and oranges. Blackguards are divine champions of evil, while Assassins are pesky little bastards that have a tendency to kill for money. Both would be considered evil according to D&D morality, but Assassins are different in that they are not required to act evilly.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-15-06, 07:47 PM	Now can anyone tell me who (you don't have to choose between me and belthazzar) has done the best job at supporting their case?
Kobold_Avenger 06-15-06, 08:23 PM	Wow.. no one has flamed me for my comments... And Belthazzar... are you saying that your could torture all you wanted if you used tortures that only harmed evil creatures? Oh and ravages can kill good(well at least neutral) creatures. You use it on tiefling thats pregnent, the trauma she suffers kills her baby. Boom! You've killed a baby with something that only harms 'evil' creatures.
Nephlite 06-15-06, 09:47 PM	Murder in D&D is unaligned. At least by your apparent definition of murder. He is just confusing murder and killing. Murder is by definition evil. Killing is neutral. The intension makes it good. Murder is evil killing. Death Attack can be Killing or murder.
belthazzar1113 06-15-06, 09:48 PM	And Belthazzar... are you saying that your could torture all you wanted if you used tortures that only harmed evil creatures legitimate question. the definition of torture is to cause pain, suffering or degredation for the purpose of gaining compliance. Irregardless of who you do this too this falls under the "always evil" catigory. Is this in RAW? i don't know, i don't care. This makes sense, and this is how I see it. Strange. RAW, which you seem to be so fond of referring to, states differently, namely that Death Attack is unaligned. I was not refering to RAW. I was refering to common sense. apparently i was mistaken in doing so. Death knell is evil. It slays a helpless creature that can't defend itself. Death attack is attempting to slay a creature that can't defend itself because 1) you have presented no threat, and 2) its flatfooted and can't act. if you must have a spell with an evil descriptor there you go. I am firm in my belief that there are plenty of spells that don't have the [evil] descriptor but are none the less always evil to cast. Its not RAW, and i don't think it has to be. Alignment peneltys or punishments arn't RAW either. Just by having an alignment doesn't mean you have to follow it. Its up to a DMs discression to determine what is and is not good, evil, lawful, chaotic or neutral. This is my interpretation of the rules, that you are so slanderous and hot tempted about it just shows your own bias. Death attack can never be anything but an evil act. You want to prove it with RAW? there are strong indications. You want to disprove it with RAW? its never explicitly stated. Of course the same thing can be said about shooting a sleeping person point blank in the head with a crossbow. Murder in D&D is unaligned. At least by your apparent definition of murder. i have no idea how you arrived at this leap in logic. But murder, as opposed to self defense, is evil. How you get to this point is really irrelevent to me, but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making large unaccountable leaps in logic to obviously false conclusions and passing them off as legitimate debate. especialy without a sarcastic footnote. How does changing a single alignment requirment make D&D just "a complicated game of chess"? i was refering to a section of comment about role playing restrictions not being real restrictions and you can just ignore them. This would means paladins can be evil, assasins can be good, monks can be chaotic, bards can be lawful, barbarians can be lawful, blackguards can be good, demons can be lawful good, angels can be evil and take vile feats. ect ect. I was not refering to only the assassin debate. Though i think its the small end of a wedge, it wasn't alone in spawning that comment. There is a way for a good aligned character to become an assassin. The character just needs to change his/her alignment to any evil, kill a random guy, gain a level as an assassin, and then score a "atone" spell off the local cleric and change his/her alingment back to what it was. huzza for optimization to get around the rules instead of working with them. You would be a great hit on the CO boards. Why bother even paying lip service to the rule at that point? just ignore it completely and say screw it, i am a lawful good assasin because i want to be and i don't care what the rules say. :rolleyes: Assassins are different in that they are not required to act evilly. an assassin, a class based soley around killing for money, power, and under contractual obligation. belonging to an organization that engages in murder for hire and being required to kill for no reason other than to get in.... but they are not required to act evilly? so you see the flaw in this argument? let me point it out. SPECIAL REQUIRMENT: must kill for no other reason than to join the assassins. see it? that requirment to commit an evil act? oh and Alignment: EVIL might be a requirment that its not just a single evil act you have to commit, but you have to be evil. That sentence was also pathetically arrogant and patronizing. Are you an idiot? Just because you're negative, doesn't mean you're right. You're the one who's arguing the "because I said so" argument. Look at what you said in the first quote. That's exactly what you're accusing me of, and you have yet to support that ad hominem of yours. actually it was honest. I feel sorry for people that don't get the game or who play it like its a video game. To me thats barely getting anything out of what i consider to be an amazingly rich experiance. If you think different or you don't agree, then you can simply ignore the comment rather than calling honesty flaming. If you have an issue and want to continue these personal attacks and disrepectful comments then take it to PMs.
Ryu Katsuragi 06-15-06, 09:51 PM	Boom! You've killed a baby with something that only harms 'evil' creatures. That depends on your view point. Does the character believe that the child inside said evil creature is truely innocent? Or does he believe in what my old R.E. classes taught about Christianity, and the ideal of... 'original sin', I think the term is. 'It is unfortunate that such a being had to die, yet it was the spawn of evil. It had just as little right to be here as it's parent.'
Ryu Katsuragi 06-15-06, 09:55 PM	Death attack is attempting to slay a creature that can't defend itself because 1) you have presented no threat, and 2) its flatfooted and can't act. In my mind, this isn't evil. To your average Paladin, attacking a creature from behind, when it's asleep... I'd say it was more low, shameful and dishonourable. Big difference from being evil.
Kobold_Avenger 06-15-06, 09:59 PM	Torture can also be for punishment, for some twisted science stuff, and for the heck of it.
Kobold_Avenger 06-15-06, 10:02 PM	Ravages are a form of punishment, and since they cause a lot of agnoy could be considered a form of torture. Indeed many poisons kill quite fast
Kobold_Avenger 06-15-06, 10:05 PM	That doesn't work in D&D without going on very slipperly ground.. tiefling are by no means always evil. If that doesn't matter then genocide becomes fine and dandy...
Ryu Katsuragi 06-15-06, 10:11 PM	Problem is, the way I've seen is, 'good' and 'evil' are mindsets. Not actions. Take the Paladin in my previous example. By his reasoning, he is doing good. He is ridding the world of what /he/ thinks is evil, and therefore, will feel no remorse for that action.
belthazzar1113 06-15-06, 10:24 PM	To your average Paladin, attacking a creature from behind, when it's asleep... I'd say it was more low, shameful and dishonourable. Big difference from being evil. then we simply disagree on this, i consider that murder and an evil act. Boom! You've killed a baby with something that only harms 'evil' creatures. Your example used a tiefling. In my opinion assuming the baby was another tiefling or a human then the ravage simply wouldn't work on her. Its not a situation covered by the rules and therefor needs a houserule or a dm judgment call to adjucate the matter. From what i read of ravages they wouldn't hurt an innocent and if that means you can't hurt someone evil because you kill an innocent then thats how they work. We aren't talking about barbarians, paladins, etc. We're talking about assassins. Take out your DMG and flip to pages 180 and 181. Tell me whether you see an "ex-assassins" section. there of course isn't one. As i said before, when the DMG was published i doubt any of the designers thought about adding an ex assassin section to what should have been largely an NPC class. going by the patterns of every other class, i would say the assassin doesn't have some special immunity to its own requirments. RAW doesn't say either way. If you lose the ability to make sneak attacks at all, or if you lose all your ranks in disguise can you still be an assassin? RAW is conflicted and vague on this since its not a situation in most games. There is a debate that can be made either way, hence this thread. I belive i am right and haven't heard anything to convince me i am not. I am more than willing to entertain debate on the issue, but so far its all been the same tripe over and over that doesn't prove or disprove anything. And concerning about how killing someone is an evil act; so, the now-widow in your story about the wife-beater who gets killed in his sleep. Say a paladin casts Holy Smite near her. Does the widow get fried because she didn't want to die, so she killed the person who was going to kill her? If so, then I reiterate that everyone with a sword must be evil. Just because something is an evil act doesn't automatically make that person a fiend who revels in the suffering of others. How about this example? An evil guy is travelling with the party of good guys. He has been forced to make the party think he's a generous, caring paladin-type. He wants to stay incognito, so when he passes a beggar, the evil guy gives the poor person a few gold pieces. Now he's good, right? He just commited a good act, even if it was in pursuit of an evil cause (betraying the party). the first part of this paragraph confused me and i couldn't follow your example. Mabey if you clear it up some i can tell you what i think, but i just can't puzzle out those sentences. as far as everyone with a sword being evil. This is a debate we have today. Does a soldgier at war murder the enemy or are they following orders? is killing every justified. Thats a debate that we still ahve today. Some people take the hardline and say that killing is wrong regardless and others take the far shores and say that killing any enemy in any way is perfectly acceptable since they are the enemy. It hasn't been settled today, and its not going to be settled here, so best to leave that dog alone. as far as your evil guy pretending to be a paladin. He gives a homeless guy some coin to trick the party into thinking he is giving to charity... he is still giving to charity. So its a good act. whats wrong with that? he is pretending to be good. That one single charitable act wouldn't be enough to redeem all of his evil, just like one single minor evil act isn't enough to turn a paladin into a blackguard. If a paladin has a horrible day, gets drunk and boots a kitten he isn't going to wake up in black full plate with an imp writing "dumbas" on his forhead and say "crap i'm a blackguard... whelp, better get going and start eating babies" minor acts of good and evil are commited all the time. the only people that really have to worry about those minor acts of evil are exhalted characters. however on this thread we weren't talking about minor acts of evil, we are talking about a character dedicating a signifigent portion of their time, energy, money, and training solely to the purpose of committing murder. Thats not a "minor" evil act. thats pretty high on the list of bad things to do. The guy is evil. The end justifies/condemns the means. Thus, you can have a good person with the "assassin" PrC. However, you've also said that that, too, is impossible. I call that a corner. Actually, I call that an enclosed figure of fallibility with you inside. this is the big conculsion to your argument? the end justifies the means. This is the high and mighty conclusion you reach to debunk everything thats been said. I would love to be able to find my ethics textbook from a few years ago. There was an entire chapter dedicated to debunking that entire "the end justifies the means" line of reasoning. But since i can't find it i can just give you one quick example of why this is one of the most horrible lines of thinking imaginable. I can go out and kill ten thousand people right now by sticking them all in a freezer and laughing at them as they die. As long as i make sure their organs and tissues are transplanted into more than ten thousand people to save their lives (so ten thousand heart transplants, 10 thousand liver transpants, 20 thousand kidney donations, thousands and thousands of donated blood) then i have done more good than harm. So the ends justify the means. I can kill anyone i want as long as doing it saves one life and benifits at least one other becaus ethen the good outweighs the bad and the ends justify the means. or for example i can take someone that has a compatable heart and liver thats going to be used to save two kids, and then spend a week tormenting them in every perverted saddistic way i can think of or find online all because one of the kids is sick and we have to wait for her to recover before we do the transplant and i will get a kick out of tormenting this person. And since they already know they are going to die it would be cruel to set them free knowing they were going to die and harsh to tell their freinds and family that they had been killed "for the greater good" then send them back only to be taken away again. what about our sacrifices parents? do we make them lose her twice? no that would be unthinkable. better to just chain her in a basement for a week till we are ready. after all it doesn't matter what we do since the ends justify the means. there are hundred of examples both extream and mundane that show what a load of bull flop that line really is. If thats really your big trump card i think you finally lost, both the debate and any respect i might have for you. That level of ignorance and sidways logic is unassalible by any sane argument.
Kobold_Avenger 06-15-06, 10:41 PM	One thing that people seem to be ignoring is that the assassin does not get his power from being evil, he gets it from training.. Since the the Class doesn't state a organization that it belongs 2, i think that the 'You must kill someone for no reason then to join the assassins' requirement might not apply to all groups. now if that requirement was for.. lets say.. a 'Nerull's Scythe' class that had the same exact abilities i would say that it was evil only(it belongs the church of nerull or something).
Ryu Katsuragi 06-15-06, 10:45 PM	One thing that people seem to be ignoring is that the assassin does not get his power from being evil, he gets it from training.. I have to agree with Kobold, here. By what you're saying, about attacking from behind, everyone who has ever used an effective fighting technique is evil. The Rogue's sneak attack, the Assassin's death attack, the Fighter's Improved Critical, the Swashbuckler's Insightful Strike, the 1st level Commoner giving the guy who can't take no a knee to the groin... These skills all rely on taking advantage of your knowledge over 'if I poke here, then it'll do more damage than here'. Those people who are good at using knowledge should be ashamed of themselves...
Kanachi 06-15-06, 10:55 PM	wow i've been away from this thread for a while.. its sure heated in here!! anyway, my point of view still stands on two issues.. 1) Sniping is an act that is used by special forces in the real world today and by characters of all alinements within the game. It is an act that by definition kills a target as swiftly and effectivly as possible, if your shot in the head or throat (or where ever) by a sniper in a way that is fatal or incapasitates you it is obvous that you stand no chance of survival and no chance of fighting back... For me this is identical to death attack both in morality and action (even though the mechanics within game function differently). So is sniping evil? No, its a nessisary action that must be used by special forces and so forth to win the day. Sniping a target saves risk for your own party and spares the chance of alarms being rased allowing you not only to acumplish your task faster but without the need for more killing than is nessisary. 2) I know a character like Jack Bower from the program 24 is not an assassin, yet it has to be acknowlaged that he does act in ways that are not moral (torture, killing and so forth). However so extream are the circumstances that he is placed in that the action he performs while dark are justifiable... For example... if you were next to a nuclear bomb (in a crowded area) and to you knew that there was 30 minutes before it detonated and you had the only man next to you who knew how to disarm it would you torture him in order to extract the information? Torture would be by your deffonition an evil action and it is in most circumstances.. here however i think you will agree that you would be fored to do whatever was nessisary to disarm that bomb even at the expence of your own morality. Is Jack Bower evil? no hes Neutral.. hes a character who does what good cant for goods own protection. I believe that situations can accure that are so extream that actions, even horrible ones, can be justified. Assasination and Torture are two such matters... A good adventure will often have situations like those above that places characters from all alinemends in a situation where they must choose how to act. Good charcter may freeze up under this presure, evil characters may not care however a neutral character has the opertunity to show the strength of the path they tread (which is often the most dangerious and sanity testing of all). Personally i still believe that an assassin can be Neutral but not Good... by walking a line (like the one Jack Bower does) you are sacraficing you own goodness for good itself. You may act for the greater good but you are not good and act in a way that is not the way of a good person... nor however are your actions evil... I think this is both a logical and simple solution to the problem. anyway... I'de love to hear what you think about these 2 issues. Thanks :)
Ryu Katsuragi 06-15-06, 11:00 PM	For example you were next to a nuclear bomb in a crowded area and to you knew that there was 30 minutes before it detonated and you had the only man next to you who knew how to disarm it would you torture him in order to extract the information? Torture would be by your deffonition an evil action and it is in most circumstances.. here however i think you will agree that you would be fored to do whatever was nessisary to disarm that bomb even at the expence of your own morality. I do believe torture is an evil act. In this case, it's still evil. But being neutral, he's accepting the best path - One mans torture, for millions of other peoples lives. 'The lesser of two evils'.
Dnjscott 06-15-06, 11:04 PM	Haha... hey, just scoped out the Consecrated Harrier--requirement to join is that you find and destroy a target chosen by the church, usually a spreader of heresy. It's an individual enemy of the church, which seems to be human, as its defined elsewhere as a heretic or blasephemer or other enemy of the church... So, you kill a person just to join. And it's Any Lawful. :rofl: Sorry, but that terribly amuses me. 'That fellow over there says that Pelor is the god of the Sunset, not the Dawn. Go knock him off for me. Then, and only then, you can be a Consecrated Harrier.' Gee, sounds Lawful Good to me, right?
Kanachi 06-15-06, 11:10 PM	I do believe torture is an evil act. In this case, it's still evil. But being neutral, he's accepting the best path - One mans torture, for millions of other peoples lives. 'The lesser of two evils'. My point exactly! acting for the "greater good" and the whole "the lesser of two evils" arguement IS for me what the neutral alinement is all about. Thats why i believe an assassin could be neutral but not good... your sacraficing your own goodness for good.. thus you are neutral.
Fuzzy_Logic 06-15-06, 11:18 PM	sure, and i play wizards to be a theif, and clerics are druids, and arcane tricksters are guild mages, and ur-priests are bards. your argument is that "just because my entire class anf focus center around a single thing that doesn't mean thats what i do." then you shouldn't be an assasin should you! Um, just so you know, these examples aren't actually as ridiculous as you like them to be. whether by "druid" you mena nature worshipper or celtic tribal shaman, a cleric with nature-themed domains is a fine substitute. wizards can steal thgins eprfectly well if they try. with spells like invisibilty, fly, passwall, and vanish, a wizard cna be an excellent thief. why wouldn't an arcane trickster be a guildmage? guilds need... special operatives sometimes. An if an Ur-priest with ranks in perform went around telling sotires, i'd call him a bard. Finally, you're 100% wrong about it being impossible to use [Good} spells for evil. a seventh levle wizard with domain [good] can cast Holy Smtie to deal 4d8 damage to all vil creatures, 2d8 to all neutrals. fire that into a crowd when trying ot catch a criminal, and, on a good roll, you'll kill plenty of innocent 1st levle neutral commoners. dead. that's evil, if you ask me.
Ryu Katsuragi 06-16-06, 09:00 AM	To be fair though, some of the arguements on this board I find rather lackluster considering the system they're being used in... I mean, I fail to see what makes an Assassin stabbing someone in the back anymore evil than the 'righteous' Paladin slaughtering an entire camp of kobolds and bugbears, steals everything they own... and because they don't follow his god, he's totally justified in doing so, and people love him for it!
serow_#R 06-16-06, 09:12 AM	my DM is ok with it, i'm going to use the assassin PrC in a future PC of mine as a commando PrC replacement. wish me luck! =)
Kanachi 06-16-06, 11:06 AM	does anyone have any opinions on my above two points???
Sunrider 06-16-06, 11:30 AM	does anyone have any opinions on my above two points??? All it means is that rigid alignment not based on motive really doesn't work in a campaign world more complex than an endless series of monster-filled dungeons. It's all well and good in a dungeon-crawl, where it's really just a "kill this" sign written all over monsters but, in a complex, dynamic campaign world, you end up with all manner of circular logic and other ridiculous situations. Even with motive-based alignment (as opposed to the action-based alignment advocated by some), the system still breaks down very easily. I posted this around a month ago in a thread regarding the chaos-law axis, but similar problems are apparent in the good-evil axis as well: The problem with the Law-Chaos axis is that it tries to represent several totally different concepts at the same time: 1) Following a strict code of conduct (e.g. an honour code) (lawful) vs doing what feels right (chaotic) 2) Putting societal pressures (e.g. laws) first (lawful) vs putting individual liberties first (chaotic) 3) Careful planning (lawful) vs impulsive action (chaotic) Given the weight put on 'honour' in certain settings, it may be appropriate to add a fourth axis, honour vs convenience, alongside the first three (i.e. a character may follow a strict code of conduct endorsed by an organisation, perhaps even the government, but this code of conduct is in no way considered 'honourable'). Any individual character is likely to be chaotic on one of these axes, while neutral or lawful in one more or of the others. For example: A tribal barbarian may have a strict honour code (lawful), put the tribe ahead of the individual (lawful) but tend to act impulsively (chaotic). A paladin may follow a strict code of conduct (a personal code, or one endorsed by her knightly order) (lawful), value individual liberties over societal norms and laws (chaotic, and probably good as well) and carefully plan things before going ahead (lawful). Another paladin may have a similar code of conduct (lawful), consider law and security more important than civil liberties (lawful) but charge recklessly into battle when fighting evil (chaotic). (Under the current system, you could say that the first paladin is GOOD-lawful, while the second paladin is good-LAWFUL). An spy or assassin working as a secret agent for a government may have a very strict code of conduct (lawful), value order above liberty (lawful) and carefully plan operations before carrying them out (lawful), but pay absolutely no heed to the traditional norms of 'honour' (chaotic). Another spy working for the same government (for argument's sake, let's make it a government that puts civil liberties above most other things) may follow the same code of conduct (lawful) and carefully plan operations (lawful), but pay absolutely no heed to traditional honour (chaotic) and joined the secret service in order defend the civil liberties of that nation which are under threat by a neighbouring totalitarian state (chaotic). A con-artist or cat-burglar may do whatever feels right in the situation (chaotic) and value liberty above all else (chaotic), but carefully plan operations before carrying them out (lawful). A swashbuckling pirate may take matters of honour very seriously (lawful), but have no time for external laws (chaotic) and have the tendency to 'wing it' rather than carefully plan most operations (chaotic). A monk may have great self-discipline in practicing her art (lawful), but may follow a philosophy that emphasises 'live and let live', espousing personal liberty and a personal search for enlightenment rather than following someone else's dogma (chaotic). She may plan her operations in minute detail and have a very practiced fighting style (lawful), but carries out said operations to advance individual rights in the face of an authoritarian government (chaotic). I'm sure you can all think of more examples, but the point is pretty clear - Law-Chaos tries to represent too many things at the same time, and ends up making a muddle of it as a result. If you take the position, as I prefer, that a character's behaviour defines his or her alignment, most characters - even those that have alignment restrictions - will end up neutral. If you take the position that the alignment written on the character sheet defines a character's behaviour, by choosing either 'lawful' or 'chaotic', you've cut out a lot of possible personalities and behaviours and effectively straight-jacketed the character with a number of different character traits which, in reality, are totally independent of one another. All the more reason to scrap alignment altogether, IMO...
Vestigial_Thumb 06-16-06, 11:46 AM	I was not refering to RAW. I was refering to common sense. You know, common sense ain't that common. My common sense tells me differently. If you want to apply common sense to everything, I can help you with a few spells. Invisibility should also blind the subject, since light needs to hit his eyes for him to see. His eyes are invisible because light doesn't hit them and therefore he is blind. Wall of Force apparently does not stop waves. Sonic damage should therefore penetrate it. The above suggestions on changes for spells is only if you want to apply common sense to everything. Otherwise I was just being funny. apparently i was mistaken in doing so. Death knell is evil. It slays a helpless creature that can't defend itself. According to D&D morality, anyways. And that's really the only thing that matters in this discussion. Death attack is attempting to slay a creature that can't defend itself because 1) you have presented no threat, and 2) its flatfooted and can't act. Dishonorable, but in no way evil. It's not that much unlike saying that Rogues must be nongood, since Sneak Attack works kinda like Death Attack, only it doesn't kill the target. I am firm in my belief that there are plenty of spells that don't have the [evil] descriptor but are none the less always evil to cast. Which spells. Give me an example. Alignment peneltys or punishments arn't RAW either. Just by having an alignment doesn't mean you have to follow it. Its up to a DMs discression to determine what is and is not good, evil, lawful, chaotic or neutral. This was very contrary to what I'd expected you to say... in a good way. This is my interpretation of the rules, that you are so slanderous and hot tempted about it just shows your own bias. It's not like you aren't biased either. It's really hard to stay neutral, you know. Death attack can never be anything but an evil act. That's one of your biases. You want to prove it with RAW? there are strong indications. You want to disprove it with RAW? its never explicitly stated. Common sense should not be used to determine the alignment of actions in D&D. If an action is said to have no alignment in D&D, then you should normally assume that it's unaligned. Exceptions exist, and a lot of them too. Of course the same thing can be said about shooting a sleeping person point blank in the head with a crossbow. If that person was a threat to you, or someone you cared about, I'd consider it acceptable. That's just me, though. i have no idea how you arrived at this leap in logic. You'd be amazed at how I get anywhere. But murder, as opposed to self defense, is evil. Must... not... give... into... temptati.... aarrgh! Prove it. How you get to this point is really irrelevent to me, but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making large unaccountable leaps in logic to obviously false conclusions and passing them off as legitimate debate. especialy without a sarcastic footnote. Well, you kinda clinged to that BoED for a while back there. i was refering to a section of comment about role playing restrictions not being real restrictions and you can just ignore them. I never said all of them. My general rule on how to determine whether a class loses abilities is to find out where they got their powers from. Training: Assassins, Frenzied Berserkers and some others. Monks and Bards also fall into this category (but hey don't have requirements). These classes get their abilities from training and lose selected abilities if the lose feats, skills, BAB requirements, for example. The abilities they lose are based on what requirement they lost. A Frenzied Berserker who loses Power Attack would lose Supreme Cleave and those Power Attack abilities. Taken Power: Ur-Priests, Acolytes of the Skin and Dragon Disciples that take their power from some entity, power or just from withing. They don't lose anything in my books, no matter what requirements they lose. They've already taken the power, so why can't they just keep taking it. Granted Power: Blackguards, Paladins and other classes that are granted their power from some higher power. They lose all their abilities that have to do with divine energies (Divine Grace, Smite Good, etc. etc.). This would means paladins can be evil, assasins can be good, monks can be chaotic, bards can be lawful, barbarians can be lawful, blackguards can be good, demons can be lawful good, angels can be evil and take vile feats. ect ect. I was not refering to only the assassin debate. Though i think its the small end of a wedge, it wasn't alone in spawning that comment. I explained it before, so I just have one thing to say: Hyperbole alert! huzza for optimization to get around the rules instead of working with them. You would be a great hit on the CO boards. Why bother even paying lip service to the rule at that point? just ignore it completely and say screw it, i am a lawful good assasin because i want to be and i don't care what the rules say. :rolleyes: You need to get that stick out of your ass. The rules are changeable. If a requirement doesn't make sense to you (I'd rather it be a roleplaying requirement), remove it. Assassins, as is, work for a guild that is comprised mostly of 'D' students. Why can't a Lawful Good person have the same trained abilities as a Chaotic Evil one? Are you one of those diehard roleplayers who feel sorry for people that don't want their character to suck? 'Cause if you are I direct you to The Stormwind Fallacy (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9165883&postcount=338), which explains how you can still roleplay, even if your character can do mad damage in every single attack, or throw spells that level cities at level 12. an assassin, a class based soley around killing for money, power, and under contractual obligation. belonging to an organization that engages in murder for hire and being required to kill for no reason other than to get in.... but they are not required to act evilly? No, they are not required to act evilly. They act evilly according to D&D morality, because it's wat they're good at and it puts food on the table. so you see the flaw in this argument? No... let me point it out. SPECIAL REQUIRMENT: must kill for no other reason than to join the assassins. see it? that requirment to commit an evil act? oh and Alignment: EVIL might be a requirment that its not just a single evil act you have to commit, but you have to be evil. Those two requirements are easy to erase without iimbalancing the game. There's nothing in the rules that there won't be an Assassin's guild without that requirement, but maybe there are individuals who can say to the Assassins: "Two can play that game". actually it was honest. I feel sorry for people that don't get the game or who play it like its a video game. Well, at least you're not feeling sorry for me then. :) I can both optimize and create effective characters, and when push comes to shove, I could roleplay anyone's grandma under the table. ...Some comments made by belthazzar1113, to which I agreed in general...
simon_tage 06-16-06, 01:29 PM	Has the "meeting class requirements" section been updated in a source book since Complete Warrior?
belthazzar1113 06-16-06, 01:52 PM	Dishonorable, but in no way evil. I see alot of this popping up inthe last few posts. people saying thats bad, dishonorable, and/or mean, but not evil. I don't see a difference. bad, dishonorable, negitive, mean, evil are all synonyms. Each action, if it meets one of those descriptors falls under the heading of [evil] act. some more sever than others, but still an [evil] act. the fact that you want to say "it was merely dishonorable" or "it wasn't [evil] just meanspirited and cruel" is one argument that i will not ever understand. Just because it wasn't [vile] doesn't mean its not [evil]. those who commit [evil] acts with any regularity are at best neutral. Those who commit [vile] acts or regularly engage in [evil] actions whenever opportunity arrises are of the Evil alignment. I consider Death attack to be an [evil] act, so assasins must be evil. thats my logic, and i haven't seen anyone get close to explaining why it should be otherwize. I have seen some flimsy evidence to support death attack is not evil, but then when you look at the ability and read how it works and see what it does it screams in every language and tone that its an evil ability. I am firm in my belief that there are plenty of spells that don't have the [evil] descriptor but are none the less always evil to cast. align weapon (evil), bane, bestow curse, blashemy, blight, cause fear, circle of death, contagion, create greater undead, create undead, curse water, death knell, desecrate, dispell good, doom, energy drain, enervation, eyebite, fear, finger of death, harm, Inflict ABC, insanity, magic jar, nightmare, phantasmal killer, poision, power word kill, scare, slay living, song of dischord, soul bind, trap the soul, unhallow, unholy arua, unholy blight, wail of the banshee. thats just from core. But those are spells that are always evil to cast for various reasons. I considering channeling and useing negitive energy to be an evil act. Causing fear to be an evil act. Snuffing a life force directly is an evil act. Disrupting a soul is an evil act. And causing poision or desease is an evil act. those are things i consider to be always evil. Death attack can never be anything but an evil act. That's one of your biases. thats not a bias, thats a premise. Its the point of all of this talking, to try and show that yes death attack is evil. Common sense should not be used to determine the alignment of actions in D&D. If an action is said to have no alignment in D&D, then you should normally assume that it's unaligned. Exceptions exist, and a lot of them too your right, my mistake was in actually thinking. I need to just accept RAW as gossple and not question the fact that throwing babies into a pit of spikes isn't evil because its not explicitly stated to be evil. Its an unaligned act. :rolleyes: Exceptions exist? but... that would mean we have to THINK to find them. oh no, thats going to cause problems! because what if we don't agree about an exception? what if someone thinks murder is evil and another person thinks its no big deal? what then? do we i don't know, debate? or should we just say "unless EVERYONE thinks its evil, its not evil. so feel free to murder if you can justify it" :rolleyes: this is almost as bad as.... But murder, as opposed to self defense, is evil. Must... not... give... into... temptati.... aarrgh! Prove it. prove it... prove murder is evil. NO, i will not prove murder is evil just like i won't prove that the earth is not flat, the moon is not made of cheeze, or that the ocean is wet. That is the single most innane thing that has yet been said on this thread (and i thought "then ends justify the means" would hold that honor forever) You can't seriously think that MURDER needs to be justified as evil. unless this was a very bad atempt at humor you are very disturbing. You need to get that stick out of your ass. The rules are changeable. If a requirement doesn't make sense to you (I'd rather it be a roleplaying requirement), remove it. first off. Blow me. don't need your personal attacks to preface everything you say. so you can just leave those out or get the same back from me. second. i agree the rules are changeable. the point of that comment was to show the itter stupidity of "following" the rule through optimization and what amounts to little more than metagame cheating, rather that just changing the rule. you want you rassasin to be lawful good? fine, go for it. Your free to break whatever rules you want. But when you say, oh i will just change to evil kill a guy, get assaina nd score an atonement... thats metagaming, thats wrong, and it ruins whatever was left of the game. No, they are not required to act evilly. They act evilly according to D&D morality, because it's wat they're good at and it puts food on the table. I am going to explain this really slow. assasins have alignement requirment evil. they are required to commit an evil act just to get in the class. their class abilities are designed to commit evil acts. THEY ARE REQUIRED TO ACT IN AN EVIL MANNER JUST TO GET INTHE CLASS. i don't know how much more obvious and clear you can get without engraving it on the inside of your eyelids. Those two requirements are easy to erase without iimbalancing the game. again, i already did so above. I put up the "good assassin" that changed the class so as to change the alignment. simply dropping the alignment requirment without changing the class abilities IS unbalancing. lets say i have a PrC that has an evil alignment restriction. and as part of my class abilitys i get to cast create greater undead at will, death knell at will, blashpemy at will, desecrate at will, nightmare, symbol of pain, unholy aura and unholy blight three times per day. now thats alot of evil spells, and alot of evil power. Would just dropping the alignment requirement on that class be acceptable? NO. you don't get a host of evil abilities if your good, and if you start using abilities like that then your not really good and subject to alignment change. and if you really can't see the correlation between this and an assassin, then either your just being foolishly stubborn, or just trying to argue for the sake or arguing. I mean, I fail to see what makes an Assassin stabbing someone in the back anymore evil than the 'righteous' Paladin slaughtering an entire camp of kobolds and bugbears, steals everything they own... and because they don't follow his god, he's totally justified in doing so, and people love him for it! first off, that paladin is commiting and evil act if thats really what he is doing. second, refer to damn near evey one of my posts on this board if you want to know why death attack is evil and sneak attack isn't. i explain it time and time again.
Kresalak 06-16-06, 02:52 PM	This thread is the final straw for me. I already know that the D&D alignment system sucks and is worthless, but this has given me a reason to write out rules on replacing it with a system I find much better. Regardless, the biggest problem with the alignment system is the terms they used-good and evil. Many people seem fundamentally unable to seperate these terms from their own system of morality, and argue factually incorrect things in these threads. Man Time Forgot has it down perfectly; I don't remember if he posted in this thread or the other good assassins thread, but he said exactly what the rules on D&D alignment are. Sadly, the game itself doesn't follow those rules, but the rules suck anyway.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-16-06, 03:25 PM	I see alot of this popping up inthe last few posts. people saying thats bad, dishonorable, and/or mean, but not evil. I don't see a difference. bad, dishonorable, negitive, mean, evil are all synonyms. It's dishonorable to blow sand in an opponent's eye. I've done it... on multiple occasions. Why? Because that levels the playing field. I'm not stronger than everyone I get into a fight with. That's why I have to do things like that so I don't get my ass kicked. Dishonorable is not synonymous with Evil. And you're being negative. That's evil. Each action, if it meets one of those descriptors falls under the heading of [evil] act. some more sever than others, but still an [evil] act. the fact that you want to say "it was merely dishonorable" or "it wasn't [evil] just meanspirited and cruel" is one argument that i will not ever understand. Just because it wasn't [vile] doesn't mean its not [evil]. Oh, get off your high horse. I never said Death Attack is cruel. It really isn't: cru·el adj. cru·el·er, or cru·el·ler cru·el·est or cru·el·lest 1. Disposed to inflict pain or suffering. 2. Causing suffering; painful. Right? Death Attack does not explicitly cause pain. You can probably choose to inflict pain, but that's a roleplaying thing. I consider Death attack to be an [evil] act, so assasins must be evil. That's the "because I said so" argument. It's not valid. thats my logic, and i haven't seen anyone get close to explaining why it should be otherwize. Well, you haven't explained why it is. Since neither point has been argued, let's assume it's unaligned for argumentative purposes. I have seen some flimsy evidence to support death attack is not evil, but then when you look at the ability and read how it works and see what it does it screams in every language and tone that its an evil ability. It doesn't scream that in Icelandic. align weapon (evil), bane, bestow curse, blashemy, blight, cause fear, circle of death, contagion, create greater undead, create undead, curse water, death knell, desecrate, dispell good, doom, energy drain, enervation, eyebite, fear, finger of death, harm, Inflict ABC, insanity, magic jar, nightmare, phantasmal killer, poision, power word kill, scare, slay living, song of dischord, soul bind, trap the soul, unhallow, unholy arua, unholy blight, wail of the banshee. Spells with the Evil descriptors are not evil to cast. It explicitly states that those spells are considered [alignment] for the purposes of interaction with other spells. And why are those spells that cause fear and the "save-or-suck" spells considered evil by you? Why can't a spellcaster make it easier for his allies to kill the same people that want to kill him? I considering channeling and useing negitive energy to be an evil act. I direct you to this thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=649994). There people have come to the conclusion that negative energy is just the opposite of positive energy; unaligned in all respects. They are merely forces, balanced in respect to one another. Causing fear to be an evil act. Why? Causing fear makes the creature run away from you, which might very well be what saves its ass (considering that you're an adventurer; you won't die). Snuffing a life force directly is an evil act. Don't know about that either. Disrupting a soul is an evil act. Yes, according to D&D morality, anyways. IRL, a soul must be assumed to exist for this statement to have any value. And causing poision or desease is an evil act. Nope. Poison and disease are natural parts of the universe. It really, really depends on who you do it to, and for what purpose (I'm aware of the [Evil] descriptor on Poison, but I houserule it away, not that it's a valid argument). those are things i consider to be always evil. You have a very high standard, and you better hold yourself to it, too. Are you a moral absolutist, by any chance? thats not a bias, thats a premise. Its the point of all of this talking, to try and show that yes death attack is evil. For arguing purposes: Both parties have to agree before something is assumed to be true. your right, my mistake was in actually thinking. I need to just accept RAW as gossple You're being deliberatley obtuse. I have to assume that you had no idea what I was saying when I said it. Dumbass... and not question the fact that throwing babies into a pit of spikes isn't evil because its not explicitly stated to be evil. Its an unaligned act. :rolleyes: Hyperbole! I said exceptions exist: "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. See? Of course it's defined as evil. Search the definition. Exceptions exist? Yes, that's what I said. but... that would mean we have to THINK to find them. oh no, thats going to cause problems! Apparently it would be a problem for you. I can't explain to you what thinking is, so you'll have to find out yourself. because what if we don't agree about an exception? Then the DM has to discuss with his players on what he defines as evil and hope to whatever divine entity he worships that they don't kill him (well, that's your case, if you had less absolutist friends than you already seem to have). what if someone thinks murder is evil and another person thinks its no big deal? Then they'll have to agree to disagree. Neither can actually support his case unless both parties agree on a premise. what then? do we i don't know, debate? or should we just say "unless EVERYONE thinks its evil, its not evil. so feel free to murder if you can justify it" :rolleyes: That's kinda inane. But I'll bite. I like to say that the individual is the measure of all things, which, of course, he is. But that doesn't change the fact that even if everyone thought murder was okay, they still want to feel safe and as such, laws on murder would still stand. Okay? Okay. prove it... prove murder is evil. You have no right to an opinion you can't support. :P NO, i will not prove murder is evil just like i won't prove that the earth is not flat, the moon is not made of cheeze, or that the ocean is wet. Murder is not intrinsically evil. The Earth is intrinsically round, he moon is intrinsically not made of cheese, and the ocean is intrinsically wet. Murder should not be assumed to be evil to prove that it's evil, either (I say this to help you get started on you big challenge). That is the single most innane thing that has yet been said on this thread (and i thought "then ends justify the means" would hold that honor forever) No, it's not inane. It's a perfectly valid philosophical question. I can see that you haven't taken any philosophical or logic classes (don't try to lie; it shows). You can't seriously think that MURDER needs to be justified as evil. unless this was a very bad atempt at humor you are very disturbing. Judgemental too? I'll have you know that I have been diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder. One of my symptoms is amorality (No, not immorality. Amorality). It does not make me a bad person, but it does make it a living hell to try to reason with me. Especially with faulty logic. first off. Blow me. don't need your personal attacks to preface everything you say. And I don't need your personal attacks either. If you agree to stop what you started, I'll agree to stop, too. bla bla bla... thats wrong, and it ruins whatever was left of the game. No, it's clever, and it doesn't imbalance anything. I have to say that if a player of mine pulled something like that, and it wasn't imbalancing to my game, I'd commend him. I am going to explain this really slow. assasins have alignement requirment evil. they are required to commit an evil act just to get in the class. their class abilities are designed to commit evil acts. THEY ARE REQUIRED TO ACT IN AN EVIL MANNER JUST TO GET INTHE CLASS. Why don't you just change that rule? i don't know how much more obvious and clear you can get without engraving it on the inside of your eyelids. You could torture me until I learn. simply dropping the alignment requirment without changing the class abilities IS unbalancing. Tell me in what way it's mechanically unbalancing lets say i have a PrC that has an evil alignment restriction. and as part of my class abilitys i get to cast create greater undead at will, death knell at will, blashpemy at will, desecrate at will, nightmare, symbol of pain, unholy aura and unholy blight three times per day. now thats alot of evil spells, and alot of evil power. Would just dropping the alignment requirement on that class be acceptable? NO. I know that. But the PrC you're describing seems to get his powers from a higher power of evil. The Assassin gains it from training. Training he could well have received from some old street thug who now runs a grocery store. you don't get a host of evil abilities if your good, and if you start using abilities like that then your not really good and subject to alignment change. I never agreed that Death Attack is evil. It's your interpretation, it's not stated anywhere that it is remotely evil (There are explicitly GOOD PrCs that get the ability). Therefore we assume that it's unaligned. That's how logic works. If you want me to agree that Death Attack is an evil ability, you have to convince me. If you can (unlikely, since you have no evidence), I'll concede to that point and admit that Assassins should not be allowed to be good. and if you really can't see the correlation between this and an assassin, then either your just being foolishly stubborn, or just trying to argue for the sake or arguing. That's just inane. The correlation between the Assassin (as it currently is) and the Divine Champion of Evil is that both are evil. The difference is just about everything else (manner of combat, abilities, source of abilities). first off, that paladin is commiting and evil act if thats really what he is doing. I'll agree with you there, but I don't see how this supports the "Assassin PrC must always be evil" argument. second, refer to damn near evey one of my posts on this board if you want to know why death attack is evil and sneak attack isn't. i explain it time and time again. I don't remember seeing your proof. Could you post everything you wrote down (relevant information, please) for good measure?
Kanachi 06-16-06, 03:50 PM	Sorr to say all this again, but i feel lie my 2 points have been ignored and i think they are very valid. Could you (belthazzar1113) please give you opinions on these issues/opinions? Thankyou!! :) 1) Sniping is an act that is used by special forces in the real world today and by characters of all alinements within the game. It is an act that by definition kills a target as swiftly and effectivly as possible, if your shot in the head or throat (or where ever) by a sniper in a way that is fatal or incapasitates you it is obvous that you stand no chance of survival and no chance of fighting back... For me this is identical to death attack both in morality and action (even though the mechanics within game function differently). So is sniping evil? No, its a nessisary action that must be used by special forces and so forth to win the day. Sniping a target saves risk for your own party and spares the chance of alarms being rased allowing you not only to acumplish your task faster but without the need for more killing than is nessisary. 2) I know a character like Jack Bower from the program 24 is not an assassin, yet it has to be acknowlaged that he does act in ways that are not moral (torture, killing and so forth). However so extream are the circumstances that he is placed in that the action he performs while dark are justifiable... For example... if you were next to a nuclear bomb (in a crowded area) and to you knew that there was 30 minutes before it detonated and you had the only man next to you who knew how to disarm it would you torture him in order to extract the information? Torture would be by your deffonition an evil action and it is in most circumstances.. here however i think you will agree that you would be fored to do whatever was nessisary to disarm that bomb even at the expence of your own morality. Is Jack Bower evil? no hes Neutral.. hes a character who does what good cant for goods own protection. I believe that situations can accure that are so extream that actions, even horrible ones, can be justified. Assasination and Torture are two such matters... A good adventure will often have situations like those above that places characters from all alinemends in a situation where they must choose how to act. Good charcter may freeze up under this presure, evil characters may not care however a neutral character has the opertunity to show the strength of the path they tread (which is often the most dangerious and sanity testing of all). Personally i still believe that an assassin can be Neutral but not Good... by walking a line (like the one Jack Bower does) you are sacraficing you own goodness for good itself. You may act for the greater good but you are not good and act in a way that is not the way of a good person... nor however are your actions evil... I think this is both a logical and simple solution to the problem.
Kresalak 06-16-06, 03:55 PM	I don't remember seeing your proof. Could you post everything you wrote down (relevant information, please) for good measure? His proof is that he says so. It's pointless to argue this; he won't listen to logic. It's not worth your time to bother.
Ryu Katsuragi 06-16-06, 03:57 PM	first off, that paladin is commiting and evil act if thats really what he is doing. second, refer to damn near evey one of my posts on this board if you want to know why death attack is evil and sneak attack isn't. i explain it time and time again. You explain nothing. You simply say 'it's evil, because he does it from behind/they cannot defend themselves'. Then all Rogue's are evil. You get the bonus damage when they're denied their Dex bonus to AC. In Dungeons and Dragons, this is 'being unable to defend themselves'. So, anyone who attacks in the first round of combat, having beaten their enemy on the initiative is evil? 'Death Attack: If an assassin studies his victim for 3 rounds and then makes a sneak attack with a melee weapon that deals damage, the sneak attack has the additional effect of possibly either paralyzing or killing the target' So, by your logic, all Rogues are evil. No Rogue can be good, because their ability is to sneak attack. Just like the Assassin. The act of hitting a humaniod 'where it hurts', or where it inflicts most damage is evil. Which means that all Fighters are evil. Meaning that everyone who protects their country by hitting enemies where it is lethal is evil. Heck, hitting people in places which most effectively knock people unconcious (subdual sneak attack) is evil. So, to be a good country, you have to simply let an evil horde come through and put up no resistance? Wow. Snuffing a life force directly is an evil act. Does that make the world itself evil? Nature should be ashamed at itself for 'snuffing someones life force'. I fail to see the difference between 'directly snuffing' someone to death with a spell, rather than 'snuffing the evil lord who is slaughtering millions by putting your sword through his gut.'
Vestigial_Thumb 06-16-06, 04:03 PM	His proof is that he says so. It's pointless to argue this; he won't listen to logic. It's not worth your time to bother. I was kinda just being a jerk. Forgot to use a smilie.
Ryu Katsuragi 06-16-06, 04:24 PM	Now, I've just actually read through the class... My connection is too wonky at the moment to read through the whole conversation, but assuming it was about playing an Assassin who's gone good... What's stopping you? Really? You have to commit an evil act to get into the class. There is nothing saying the Assassin is evil, or that they /have/ to stay evil. You lose nothing. Not to mention, I fail to see why you're so annoyed by the class and it's abilities - Want to play a good assassin? Play a Lawful Good Rogue. That's all the Assassin is. A Rogue with a very easily resisted death attack, bonus saving throws against poison, and some low level spells.
Kori 06-16-06, 04:31 PM	I'd allow a Assassin to good as long as they had a story, like vampires killing thier family so they joined the local church and became sort purifiers of the church in a less noble way. It could also be a secret order of the church, one they dont nperfer to talk about in public! :P
Ior 06-16-06, 04:51 PM	It seems pretty clear that killing by itself isn't considered an evil act in D&D, since plenty of good-aligned classes are totally oriented around killing evil enemies. The concept of good and evil that is used is a medieval one where good and evil are universal forces that exist outside of people's minds. Therefore, killing an evil creature is actually about destroying a vessel of evil force, and not about taking out some poor individual who made some bad choices. Excessive cruelty or unnecessary killing might be considered evil, but an assassin certainly wouldn't have to do these things. Given that killing isn't evil by itself, a lawful good assassin character certainly becomes a possibility. The character is a member of some CIA-like group that is officially licensed by the powers-that-be and only kills evil creatures as necessary to advance the cause of Goodness. The character could actually be honorable and principled in the extreme, using his powers of stealthy slaying only under certain well-defined circumstances. The only requirement would be that the code of law that the character follows would have to allow killing by stealth, but this isn't hard to imagine. Actually, a neutral good or chaotic good assassin would have the most trouble justifying his actions, since he is supposed to put respect for life etc above anything else, including the law.
shadow mage 06-16-06, 07:59 PM	I think that [evil] spells when cast yes are always evil. The spells that carry the evil descriptor are tainting to cast, they are some of the most horrible spells you can use that directly snuff out life, or torment souls or commit what would be the dnd equivelent of a "mortal sin" for lack of a better term. You did catch the part where he mentioned casting [Fire] spells did not cause one to be come more fire-like, or the part where he mentioned casting [Death] spells did not cause one to become more death-like? Those pair of examples support his argument, while you have no support via example to back your claim that [Evil] spells cause one to become more evil. For example, shooting someone in the head point blank with a heavy crossbow is an evil act. I can't think of a single instance where this is going to be a good act, but the act doesn't specifically spell out as "this is always evil". Sneak attack on the other hand, isn't always evil. Soemtimes is just a combat style, sometimes its an opportunistic strike, sometimes its murder. It can run the gambit from good to evil. Death attack can't. Its always based on betrayal, lies and calculated murder. Its an evil act. You know death attack = sneak attack with special features right? See below for more… Further, I can think of several situations where shooting someone in the head point blank with a heavy crossbow is a nonevil, even good, act. A paladin, using said crossbow, also uses said method to dispatch a foe that has closed into close-range combat. That said, a young minute-man, in defense of his home, happens to do the same to an attacker who got a little close for comfort. Now, randomly walking up to people and shooting them in the face, I would probably qualify that as an evil act. In the two above examples, such is most certainly not an evil act, no matter how you shake it. Death attack, further, is not based on betrayal or lies. In fact, it says nowhere that it must be based on either, or even murder for that instance. You could make an assassin who uses only the paralysis effect of sneak attacks. Is death attack as evil as you insist? Thus far I’ve seen no evidence of, and you’ve shown no rules as of yet to prove such a claim. actually its saying you know how to take advantage of the weakness of a dragon that LIVES underground and kill it, but a dragon that LIVES on the surface and in the air behaves differently and you don't have the training to deal with that. Its saying that you ahve studied the habits and reactions of creatures that live beneath the earth thier whole life and know how to predict their movments and reactions well enough to land a deathblow on them. But that creatures who live underwater, or in the sky, or in flame, or even on the surface will react differently and defend themselves differently and you can't predict that well enough to know exactly how to land a deadly single strike. I don't think that sounds silly at all, it sounds like its making sense for the class. I smile as I get to explain this, if it matters. The particular prestige class was given death attack. It does not specifically mention, or even imply, that the death attack functions only underground. That said, while you are free to alter an ability as is fit for your setting, as written you must acknowledge that the Dark Hunter has an ability which functions because, somewhere along the path of the Dark Hunter, it has attained the ability to make a special sneak attack, "and the target does not detect the assassin/dark hunter or recognize the assassin/dark hunter as an enemy." If an assassin/a dark hunter studies his/her victim for 3 rounds and makes a sneak attack with a melee weapon that successfully deals damage, the sneak attack has the additional effect of possibly either paralyzing or killing the target (assassin/dark hunter’s choice). Death attack = sneak attack with a pair of additional effects. It says so quite explicitly. You argue that a sneak attack is not evil, with which we agree, and death attack is specifically mentioned as being exactly the same as a sneak attack with a specific limitation, a specific waiting period, and a pair of additional effects. whew, glad we got that cleared up. thanks shadowmage for your insightful and detailed reasoning. we are all glad to get this settled since you don't agree with us its obviously wrong. /sarcasum off. I suppose I should have said “see below.” Sorry, thought that part was obvious. ;) Read the quotes below that, they explain very clearly. "poision itself isn't evil. USEING poision is evil. Poision is just a thing, something natural that some animals produce to feed or to defend themselves from predators. Humans useing poision is evil since we know what it does, we know how bad it hurts and how horrible the use of it is, but we do it anyway. Thats not just bad thats choosing to do bad things which is evil." Show me the core rules explaining the evil of poison use. And explain why all animals that produce poison naturally are not listed as evil. Further, explain where it mentions how “bad it hurts” as you so often insist that it is. Show me, show me, show me. Use rules and quotes from the core rulebooks to support your claims, belthazzar1113, and people will be more apt to listen. Man Time Forgot has it down perfectly; I don't remember if he posted in this thread or the other good assassins thread, but he said exactly what the rules on D&D alignment are. Agreed. Hence why I linked to that thread twice already. Shame it doesn’t seem like it’s been read yet. -Shadow Mage
belthazzar1113 06-16-06, 09:29 PM	<SNIP> so i will try and address these in some sembalence of order, saving the really annoying stupid stuff for last. But before i start in... again... i would just like to say that i am woefully disapointed in the personal attacks and vindictive nature of what people have been posting. These are my opinions. that doesn't justify them as right. that makes them right to me. I am willing to listen to have others have to say and am genuinly interested (thus my continued posting to this thread) and willing to have my mind changed. So far i have not heard anything that makes me doubt my position or prove that i am, in fact, wrong. I am happy that there is debate, because i am learning alot and having a good time, but if we could try and be at least semi civil about it I know I would appreciate it very much. I respond to personal attacks poorly and with personal attacks of my own, its a character flaw that i feely admit (and how i got the Skill focus: [Pompose Debate] feat) So if you leave off on them, i will too. And now on to topic. It seems pretty clear that killing by itself isn't considered an evil act in D&D, since plenty of good-aligned classes are totally oriented around killing evil enemies. .... Excessive cruelty or unnecessary killing might be considered evil, but an assassin certainly wouldn't have to do these things. This is certainly true in many games. Killing doesn't have to be considered an [evil] act because alot of DMs and players wish to ignore that moral aspect of the game. However, one thing i would like to point out is that in the dnd system killing is often written off because you are killing an [evil] race. In the real world this would be racist, but in dnd this is perfectly acceptable. We don't question killing demons or devils because the race is personified evil. We don't hesitate killing an illithid or ghoul because they want to EAT us. We usally don't think twice about killing Drow and orcs because those races typically kill us without a thought; its only exhalted characters that really start to think about the morality of killing these races. However since this thread is specifically about alignment and morality so one must consider the moral ramifications of killing in and of itself since that is what the primary point of contention has become. Motive certainly plays a factor in the act of killing; EX self defense, a guard defending a town, defense of another, or the presense of an entities hostile to life in general-- all mitigate the act of killing. This to me doesn't mean that the act is suddenly not evil, killing is killing. But it can be Mitigated to be the lesser of two evils. But remember always that the lesser of two evils is still evil. This is how i see this alignment debate. There are not just three grades on the good-evil axis. To me, there are five different grades. Exhalted, good, neutral, evil, and vile. An exhalted character would probly argue that there is always another way to try before killing becomes nessecary (especially a vow of peace and non violence character), a good character would tell you that regrettably sometimes killing becomes a reality no matter how hard you try to prevent it, a neutral character would probly tell you that killing happens and is to be avoided but not discounted, and an evil character would tell you that it was the fastest solution to the problem and final in a way most other solutions arn't, and a Vile character would probly tell you kill them painfully as an example and then kill another for good measure because its fun. So I agree that a good character can and does kill in the dnd world, but I also point out there are alot of circumstances in the dnd world that change the nature and view of killing like the presece of [Evil] races, the ways and methods of killing, and the intent of the person doing the act itself. True that you can have good intent, and you can be killing an Evil person or race, but if the method is evil enough then it overides any other mitigations and the act remains evil. This is my primary explaination for death attack being evil regardless of other factors. Even if your using it against a murderous drow tyrant the method and act itself is evil enough that it overrides these other mitigating circumstances to have the act remain evil. And a class that has an evil ability as their main focus, a requirment of a vile act to qualify for the class and a requirment that you be evil at elast as the start seems to be a class that demands or will cause you to remain evil through the classes progression. To be otherwize would deny the very nature of the class itself and would become metagame cherry picking of mechanical abilites for a statistical advantage. If your fine with that, and you don't mind people playing characters they saw on the CO boards (a genralization to refer to characters that are numbers without story) then the debate here shouldn't concern you because you will do what you want regardless of my words. But by continuing to argue and debate here, I have made the assumption that you care about more than the simple numbers of the thing, and care about the essense and role-playing aspects of it. I have made arguments against both RAW rules lawers, and against moral justification arguments, and i have to say I am just about done with the RAW debate. According to RAW both sides of the issue have a decent case. You can go with the pattern of all other alignment based classes losing class abilities and becomeing Ex-abcs when t hey violate their alignment or you can go with the fact there isn't an ex-assassin section so it must mean that you can do whatever you want and it won't matter. RAW can't settle this debate one way or the other. So if thats really all your going to argue best to just leave off the debate unless its something new that hasn't been covered in the thread already. The assasin would be required to commit unneccary killing. They have a requirment to Kill someone for the express purpose of becoming an assassin. This is an irredeemable evil act. Trying to redeem this through an atonement spell would in my mind invalidate your fulfillment of the special requirment since if you atone for it its like a big cosmic takeback to make it like it never happened. That would violate the "for not other purpose" portion of the requirment. You did it because you knew you could take it back and it wouldn't matter, thats a purpose beyond simply joining the assassins. Thats my interpretation, and certainly subject to debate, but that is how i see that particullar idea. Want to play a good assassin? Play a Lawful Good Rogue. That's all the Assassin is. Exactly. A good assassin is a lawful good rogue without death attack or poision or evil spells. Once you add those your putting a moral context onto the class and thus have the alignment requirments. Playing the assassin PrC means that you want to play an evil character, if you want to play a "good" assassin then change the class to remove the evil abilities and the alignment restriction goes away on its own. Removing it without changing any abilities means that a good character is going to have and use evil abilities with no ramification, which unbalances the game. Evil abilities and spells are typically stronger and more powerful with the express balancing factor that good characters won't be able to use them, assassins are the same way. ...by your logic, all Rogues are evil... "Snuffing a life force directly is an evil act." Does that make the world itself evil? Nature should be ashamed at itself for 'snuffing someones life force'. I fail to see the difference between 'directly snuffing' someone to death with a spell, rather than 'snuffing the evil lord who is slaughtering millions by putting your sword through his gut.' I do not say rogues are evil. Sneak attack itself is not nessecaraly an evil ability. It can be used for non evil purposes and is built to be that way. It can be used in combat simply as an option for striking vital areas, it can be used to attack opponents who are distracted or entangled by other spells and abilities. But yes, sneak attack can be an evil act as well if its used on a helpless opponent, or if its used to murder someone from the shadows. Death attack is not sneak attack and i have made the distinction between them numerous times. Sneak attack is more than murder so the ability isn't in and of itself evil. You have to look at other context aspects to determine the morality of the action. As far as nature being evil. Things of that scope and power are beyond moral context. Nature can not be said to be good or evil, exhalted or vile, or even neutral because it is all of these things and more. Its something so much larger than human comprehension that our ways of describing it's morality or lack thereof utterly fail. You can't pin down nature as good, evil, neutral or anything else. Its a debate that hasn't been solved in real life with the nature of god, the nature of nature, the nature of the universe or anything else. You can say that this god of nature is this alignment, but as far as nature itself, that is without moral context, it simply is. In response to your failure to see the difference between combat killing and snuffing a life force. Combat can be an evil act depending on the other circumstances of the situation. But in combat untill the final blow you have the option to not kill your opponent. Even with damaging spells you have the option to pull back some caster level to make sure you opponent isn't obliterated. But with life snuffing spells your reaching out to the very essense of life itself and snuffing it out. Its not about hurting or subduing your opponent its about killing them utterly. But even that isn't enough to push them over the limit or you would see things like destruction and implosion on the list. The thing that combines to push them over the top is you are affecting the soul and life essense of your target. Any torment of a soul is an [evil] act. Directly destroying and hampering a life essense with magic is an evil act since there is really no way to fight this type assault for a human. Most people don't have spell resistance, or deathward magic, or magical protection to ward off this type of attack. These types of life snuffing spells are like the nuclear weapons of the magic world. There is no defense against them and they arn't used for anything but the total anniliation of the target. This combines to limit their use to [evil] purposes only and thus they are on the list of evil spells. And while we are on the topic of spells... And why are those spells that cause fear ... considered evil by you? Causeing fear is an [evil] act. I get this from the book of exhalted deeds and from my own personal viewpoints. There are better and more humane options than causing unreasoning panic in your opponent. Charm person is a better option than cause fear since your not unnessaraly harming the target and you can accomplish the same effect. Causing fear is an evil act because your choosing to put more negitive and evil emotion into the world when you don't have to. Your choosing to use fear and intimidation because you know its not going to just affect your target, the effect will also ripple out to those around the target. Its the terrorist mentality. Spreading fear doesn't just eliminate the threat your target presents, it also demoralizes your targets allies and spreads disention amidst their ranks. Its negitive emotion that isn't just limited to the target of your attack or spell, its negitive energy that is self perpetuating that drives people into a panic to do things they wouldn't normally do. Fear is a weapon of evil, its a weapon of opression, and its a weapon that removes choice from your oppoent, these things all combine to make spells that cause fear always [evil] acts. Is it as bad as tormenting a soul? probly not, but its evil enough that they bear mentioning. but i feel lie my 2 points have been ignored and i think they are very valid. Could you (belthazzar1113) please give you opinions on these issues/opinions? *sigh* I live to serve. :rolleyes: (thats a joke folks :D ) 1) Sniping is an act that is used by special forces in the real world today and by characters of all alinements within the game. So is sniping evil? Ok, i am going to be honest about this. I avoided this question on purpose because my answer is annoying. Sniping is in general an evil act in the real world, but sniping in dnd isn't neccessaraly an evil act. Yeah, sounds like a bunch of wishywashy bull doesn't it? well lets get to it. First, IRL sniping is very different from DnD sniping. You can strike from up to a mile away, your target is almost assuredly killed outright by a single shot, and your enemy has no chance to see that your there. Not only that but with modern technology you don't even have to be at the origon point of the bullet, it can be attached to an unmanned aircraft ten thousand feet in the air and you can be miles and miles away targeting with a computer system to kill someone possibly on the other side of the world. I consider this evil. This is my own personal opinion based on many factors not limited to my belief that guns are themselves evil for putting lethal power in the hands of the undeserving, that attacking without warning or notice is dishonorable and wrong, and that attacks that are undefendable are by their nature unfair (the world is unfair but that doesn't mean I have to like it). as i said, thats my opinion on real world sniping. I however am for the training and use of snipers. (I know, getting more confusking isn't it.) because IRL snipeing is genrally the lesser of two evils. With modern technology and the advent of highly destructive weapons and the capability for retalitory strikes or preemptive strikes that destroy the entire earth itself, sniping seems a relativly minor evil in compairison. *shrug* this is just one mans opinion, but i am all for a sniper when it means you don't risk hostages or innocent bystanders. Since we here IRL don't have the option of useing charm, timestop, teleport, or hold person (unless i missed something) a snipe attack is the best of the limited options we have. In dnd things are a different story. First there is a magical snipe and a mundane snipe. The mundance snipe is basically just a bow or xbow shot from hideing. Well ranged combat is defined by increasing range penelties, and increaing likely hood of a spot check being able to peirce your cover and detect you the closer you get. Then its just open combat. Also defining what is and isn't a snipe attack is importaint. A max range arrow shot might be considered a snipe, but then "sniping damage" is generally limited to 30 or 60 feet. Things like sneak attack, or accurate shot bonuses which was part or your definition. When your that close your opponents are getting a -3 or -6 penelty to spot you Before you shoot thus negating your cover. This isn't terribly unfair, this is just good tactics. It also means that your not going to be like a ghost and take your snipe and not have to defend youself. Your initiating combat for certain, but that alone isn't enough to override all other factors and make a snipe evil. It certainly leans in that direction, but not enough to call it out as always evil. Your also not gaurenteed to kill your opponent in a single shot, its an opening attack, but its not a guarenteed kill or a save or die style attack. And most importaintly of all you can use sniping for more than simple killing. You can use a snipe attack to break someones bonds (like a hang mans noose from several popular movies and stories) or use it to cripple and opponents ability to retreat from traditional attack, or many other uses. So its not always an evil act. Magical sniping on the other hand can very quickly cross the line into evil. It might not be always [evil] but its something that my morality detectors take a strong whiff of before i give a judgment. Effectivly you can use magic to replicate technology and push a dnd snipe into the exact same form as a IRL snipe which i think is [evil]. you can use scrying spells to hone out a target on the other side of the world and use a teleporting spell or a gate to get your effect there and then launch it from more than half a mile away (far spell or LOS spells from a nearby mountiantop) and you can launch something like slay living which is an evil spell itself (imo), so yes that snipe is going to be evil. Even launching a fireball like that i would probly say is an evil act since that much planning to commit that much carnage isn't a good act. I couldn't tell you exactly what is pushing it over the limit, but the combination of all the factors and the violation of so many different aspects of honor and fairness and its hazy morality just push it over to evil. Not enough that i am going to strip a paladins powers for allowing this to happen, and its not enough for even a cleric of kord or heronious to get spells revoked, it might be enough to make an exhalted character pause, but thats about it. So the next logical question is "would a class based around making a snipe attack be evil" my answer is "probly not". it depends on the specific class abilities and the way the mechanics worked and the intent of the class. It would be something i would certainly take a long hard look at, but again, it all depends. i hope you see why i avoided this question. my answer is annoying complicated and is probly going to be hacked up and misquoted. Plus its based on alot of my own personal beliefs that have no game effect, nor that are shared by all. :P I believe that situations can accure that are so extream that actions, even horrible ones, can be justified. Assasination and Torture are two such matters on assasination, i agree, on torture i do not. Assassination as an act can be a nessecary evil in the dnd world. A powerful and evil necromancer that controlls a mighty undead army trying to ravage the world, or a powerful and distructive thrallherd sending otherwize innocent minions to riot through the city streets both call out to be killed, and if you send a lone operative in to do this from stealth he would be termed an assassin and would be serving the greater good. Again i refer you to my statement, "the lesser of two evils is still evil" the act of assassination would be an evil act, and it would be mitigated by the fact that it was for the greater good. Culturally and socitaly we can forgive this action and breach of normal social moraes because we understand a drastic action needed to be taken. For the individual it would go back to the debate about "if a guard is commanded to kill in defense of a city, is that murder" its a mitigating circumstance for sure, but i wouldn't send a paladin or a good cleric to do this since they ahve codes that forbid it. I don't think an exhalted character would do this because of its hazy morality. I think the best option is to find yoruself someone evil, who is self serving enough to see that this task needs to be done, and then send out the right man for the job. Torture i don't think is every justified. even in a time crunch situation like you describe. Its never been a relable means of extracting information and is ultimatly self defeating as your suject will make up anything to placecate you to get the torment to stop. And sad to say that given your time frame of 30 minutes... alot of people can hold out for thirty minutes when they KNOW its going to end if they can just hold on. And especially in the dnd world when you have magic capable of reading thoughts at your disposal it seems torture really is a matter of choice and choosing to do evil is an evil act. as far as jack bower... well first let me say i don't watch the show. A good man forced to do desperate things isn't neccessaraly an evil man. it sounds like he might be forced into alignment changes and have to atone for his action with thearipy and confession and a long healing process from the spiritual and psycological damage, but thats something i wouldn't know since i don't really watch more than the commercials. But this brings us back to the question of the assassin. Jack bower isn't an assassin, he didn't choose to dedicate his life and training to murder and evil acts. Assassins do. THey train and dedicate themselves to not just killing, but murder. They study lies, betrayal and psycology to better decive opponents to betray them and murder them. Its not about JUST killing your opponent, its about betraying an implicit trust to better accomplish murder. Thats evil, and so are the ones who dedicate themselves to that act e.g., assassins. <SNIP>
belthazzar1113 06-16-06, 09:36 PM	You could make an assassin who uses only the paralysis effect of sneak attacks. did you miss the part where i did that? and posted it up on this thread? yeah, scroll back a few pages and take a look. its there. shadowmage, i am not going to start quoting the rulebook back and forth. that was done at the beggining of this thread, and has been done to death already. there is a case to be made either way, and there isn't going to be an explicit statement of "death attack is not evil" and if there was, i would still say its wrong just like i would say it was wrong if in some book it said "drowning isn't painful" I think the darkhunter shows amazingly poor design, and unbelivably bad choice for a class ability. So do i think that this is total and complete proof that death attack isn't evil? no. I think this is an example of poor class design and lazy copy paste of a previous ability without actually thinking about what that ability is. Its not much different than alot of the other mistakes in WotC books that you have to apply a little common sense to or the game gets ridiculous. see ,y above post for reasons i am not getting into RAW debates anymore here.
Ryu Katsuragi 06-16-06, 09:46 PM	dumbass. i really hope people read the crap you write and judge you on its merits, because you would be dragged out tin the streets and flogged. or at the very least totally ignored. I am surprized someone else arguing with me hasn't asked you to stop helping since THIS is the kind of tripe you trot out to support your cause. Because like me, this 'dumbass' has pointed out the same quote from the book I have used. I do not say rogues are evil. Sneak attack itself is not nessecaraly an evil ability. It can be used for non evil purposes and is built to be that way. It can be used in combat simply as an option for striking vital areas, it can be used to attack opponents who are distracted or entangled by other spells and abilities. But yes, sneak attack can be an evil act as well if its used on a helpless opponent, or if its used to murder someone from the shadows. Death attack is not sneak attack and i have made the distinction between them numerous times. Sneak attack is more than murder so the ability isn't in and of itself evil. You have to look at other context aspects to determine the morality of the action. I would look back and see what you have said on the 'distinction' you've made on sneak and death attack (which I'm assuming is just 'Well, killing someone is evil if you do it by having them fail a DC10 + 1/2 Level + Int save, but not if it's by doing 10d6 extra damage every attack because I said so'. Before you keep saying sneak and death attack are different, please read the section of the Assassin class that we both quoted for you: 'Death attack: If an assassin studies his victim for 3 rounds and then makes a successful sneak attack with a melee weapon that successfully deals damage, the sneak attack has the additional effect of possibly either paralyzing or kill the target (assassin's choice).' It's nothing to do with evil. The point of sneak attack is that this extra damage is caused by aiming at 'general' exposed weakpoints in someones anatomy to inflict extra damage. The only thing the assassin does different is insted of doing a 'generally' damaging attack, he takes the time to perfect a blow, and go for the most vunurable area accurately. In modern terms, a sniper going for the headshot.
Kobold_Avenger 06-16-06, 10:13 PM	In general i think it's a bad idea to use the BOVD or BOED for anyhing other then the feats, monsters, PrCs, items, and spells. As with regards to sections on morallity..... I dont recomend them... I only have BoVD, i only use it for the crunch.
Kresalak 06-16-06, 10:16 PM	belthazzar1113, your post has been reported for throwing out all those insults to V_T. Have a nice day.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-16-06, 10:40 PM	belthazzar1113, your post has been reported for throwing out all those insults to V_T. Have a nice day. Thanks, Kres. And to you, bel, I hope you get kicked.
Kanachi 06-16-06, 10:42 PM	so if a character is sent by the forces of good to infultrate and kill an obviously evil target and they do so by espionarge and ultimatly slay the target in a swift mercilious (and thus dishonourable) way and this is basicly their job/task... are they evil? my point here is you might describe such a character as a special forces oprative, not an assassin and this may indeed be true... however, special forces operatives around the world and throughout history (even early history) have always had the capasity to kill a target without warning and merciliously. Ultimatly special forces basicly use death strike style abilities... a fast efficiant way of killing a target without giving away your position and offering the greatest chance of sucsess (this, for me, sums up what death strike is). Basicly i see the above character as what a good (though i would say neutral) assassin would be. Though i would not call them an assassin, they would be some form of black ops. Its also important to note that not only do such forces use death strike style abilities but they also have an will use poisons/gasses to kill and subdue targets (and believe me they do and have). Several film and TV character who are acting for the forces of good have used poison to slay their enemy, james bond for one i'm sure we can all think of many many more. Therefore poison use (even to kill) may not be a good action but can and will be used by good (though once again i would say neutral) characters on legitimate evil targets. Basicly all thats needed is a separate PrC with a different name and different flavour text and I dont really see a problem here... its simply the way the Assassin class is writen up in the DMG thats made this debate what it is, mechanics wise i dont see why the rules could not be used for a black ops neutral alined character.
shadow mage 06-16-06, 10:44 PM	shadowmage, i am not going to start quoting the rulebook back and forth. that was done at the beggining of this thread, and has been done to death already. there is a case to be made either way, and there isn't going to be an explicit statement of "death attack is not evil" and if there was, i would still say its wrong just like i would say it was wrong if in some book it said "drowning isn't painful" I think the darkhunter shows amazingly poor design, and unbelivably bad choice for a class ability. So do i think that this is total and complete proof that death attack isn't evil? no. I think this is an example of poor class design and lazy copy paste of a previous ability without actually thinking about what that ability is. Its not much different than alot of the other mistakes in WotC books that you have to apply a little common sense to or the game gets ridiculous. see ,y above post for reasons i am not getting into RAW debates anymore here. Heh, funny thing is, then, you're not debating. You're arguing based on opinion. The idea of using rules to support one's self is to prove rightness or wrongness of a claim. I have supported my claims with the rules. If you're going to reject my claims as being incorrect or misguided, or what have you, then it's at least courteous to reply why, using the rules as I have. Otherwise, it is very plainly a hollow "because I said so" argument. It's not a matter of attacking another forum poster. It's a matter of asking for a tad bit of courtesy beyond the I's and my's, using more concrete evidence as support instead of personal opinion. For future reference, of course. :rolleyes: -Shadow Mage
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-16-06, 10:45 PM	If he's good, then every single farmer who's defended his land against an orcish invasion is evil because he's taken a life. Every guard who's been forced to kill a mass murderer is evil because he's killed someone. This turns D&D inside out, because all damaging spells would be evil, since they're used to kill things. Thus, Holy Smite is evil. But wait! Holy smite only affects evil things! According to your theories regarding ravages and afflictions, it isn't evil because it only affects evil things! If we assume you can't be wrong, that leads us to conclude that... The guy is evil. The end justifies/condemns the means. Thus, you can have a good person with the "assassin" PrC. However, you've also said that that, too, is impossible. I call that a corner. Actually, I call that an enclosed figure of fallibility with you inside. this is the big conculsion to your argument? the end justifies the means. This is the high and mighty conclusion you reach to debunk everything thats been said. I would love to be able to find my ethics textbook from a few years ago. There was an entire chapter dedicated to debunking that entire "the end justifies the means" line of reasoning. But since i can't find it i can just give you one quick example of why this is one of the most horrible lines of thinking imaginable. I can go out and kill ten thousand people right now by sticking them all in a freezer and laughing at them as they die. As long as i make sure their organs and tissues are transplanted into more than ten thousand people to save their lives (so ten thousand heart transplants, 10 thousand liver transpants, 20 thousand kidney donations, thousands and thousands of donated blood) then i have done more good than harm. So the ends justify the means. I can kill anyone i want as long as doing it saves one life and benifits at least one other becaus ethen the good outweighs the bad and the ends justify the means. or for example i can take someone that has a compatable heart and liver thats going to be used to save two kids, and then spend a week tormenting them in every perverted saddistic way i can think of or find online all because one of the kids is sick and we have to wait for her to recover before we do the transplant and i will get a kick out of tormenting this person. And since they already know they are going to die it would be cruel to set them free knowing they were going to die and harsh to tell their freinds and family that they had been killed "for the greater good" then send them back only to be taken away again. what about our sacrifices parents? do we make them lose her twice? no that would be unthinkable. better to just chain her in a basement for a week till we are ready. after all it doesn't matter what we do since the ends justify the means. there are hundred of examples both extream and mundane that show what a load of bull flop that line really is. If thats really your big trump card i think you finally lost, both the debate and any respect i might have for you. That level of ignorance and sidways logic is unassalible by any sane argument. I took the liberty of putting in the relevant stuff that you left out and bolding it. I hope you don't mind. Well, actually, I don't really care, but whatever. This is my point: you have to pick option 1 or option 2. In your next post, I'd like you to say which is true from your alien point of view. Personally, I like #1, but that's just me. Option 1: The end justifies the means. This means that using death attack with a poisoned weapon to end the life of a murderous, sadistic tyrant is not an evil act; it's a good one. Thus, you can have a good person with the assassin PrC. Option 2: The end doesn't justify the means, so a good act makes you good, and more relevantly, an evil act makes you evil. This makes it so that everyone who has ever killed a person is evil, as they have commited an evil act, overall motive and everything else be darned. This makes all damaging spells evil, since they assist in hurting things. Thus, ravages and afflictions are evil, since they damage creatures. But according to your rules about ravages and afflictions, they aren't evil! If you pick option 1, you're wrong about death attack and poison being innately evil. If you pick option 2, you're wrong about the concept of a "good assassin," (and more) since an assassin kills or at least harms people (and that makes him evil, since all that matters is that he harms things). or for example i can take someone that has a compatable heart and liver thats going to be used to save two kids, and then spend a week tormenting them in every perverted saddistic way i can think of or find online all because one of the kids is sick and we have to wait for her to recover before we do the transplant and i will get a kick out of tormenting this person. And since they already know they are going to die it would be cruel to set them free knowing they were going to die and harsh to tell their freinds and family that they had been killed "for the greater good" then send them back only to be taken away again. what about our sacrifices parents? do we make them lose her twice? no that would be unthinkable. better to just chain her in a basement for a week till we are ready. after all it doesn't matter what we do since the ends justify the means. The fact that you're going to save peoples' lives with the organs of the dead justifies the killing of them. The torture of them is completely irrelevant and unnecessary, so let's say that on its own; after all, it's good as a seperate event. I torture people for fun. Is that evil? Yes. You are improving your own lot at the expense of others', and that's evil since you are not also bettering other peoples' lots.
Sunrider 06-16-06, 10:53 PM	so if a character is sent by the forces of good to infultrate and kill an obviously evil target and they do so by espionarge and ultimatly slay the target in a swift mercilious (and thus dishonourable) way and this is basicly their job/task... are they evil? my point here is you might describe such a character as a special forces oprative, not an assassin and this may indeed be true... however, special forces operatives around the world and throughout history (even early history) have always had the capasity to kill a target without warning and merciliously. Ultimatly special forces basicly use death strike style abilities... a fast efficiant way of killing a target without giving away your position and offering the greatest chance of sucsess (this, for me, sums up what death strike is). Basicly i see the above character as what a good (though i would say neutral) assassin would be. Though i would not call them an assassin, they would be some form of black ops. Its also important to note that not only do such forces use death strike style abilities but they also have an will use poisons/gasses to kill and subdue targets (and believe me they do and have). Several film and TV character who are acting for the forces of good have used poison to slay their enemy, james bond for one i'm sure we can all think of many many more. Therefore poison use (even to kill) may not be a good action but can and will be used by good (though once again i would say neutral) characters on legitimate evil targets. Basicly all thats needed is a separate PrC with a different name and different flavour text and I dont really see a problem here... its simply the way the Assassin class is writen up in the DMG thats made this debate what it is, mechanics wise i dont see why the rules could not be used for a black ops neutral alined character. Given other precedents within D&D, I think the character could be either neutral or good. After all, a fighter who attacks a BBEG can certainly be good (indeed, a ranger who waylays an evil baron's tax collecters is cited as an example of CG; also, isn't attacking BBEGs what paladins do all the time?), as can a mage or psion who blasts the BBEG's entire army to oblivion, so why not an assassin who does the same thing, using stealth instead of firepower? After all, the assassin isn't leaving a trail of innocent blood in her wake to get to the BBEG, unlike the 'noble' Paladin or Fighter who gets to the BBEG by cleaving through scores of hapless conscripts... None of these characters may be exalted but that doesn't mean they're not good. They have good intentions, and their actions (removing the BBEG) are also good, so Good is the most obvious alignment (given that D&D works on a two-dimensional alignment grid, with only three choices per axis... not a lot to go on when describing complex behaviours and motives). Exalted is probably more different from Good than Good is from Evil - there's a relatively fine line between Good and Evil. In fact, Exalted characters probably have more in common with Vile characters than Good characters, much as they'd hate to admit it; in general, neither type make playable characters.
Kresalak 06-16-06, 10:57 PM	None of these characters may be exalted They might be, since Exalted is the alignment of stupidity, while Vile is that of idiocy. Exalted is the alignment of doing evil thing to evil people, but having those things be good because you're doing them to evil people. Vile is the alignment of ickyness. If you can't tell, I hate both the BoVD and BoED.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-16-06, 10:59 PM	And for the record, belthazzar, I'm better at logic than you'll ever be. EDIT: And I'm also not a bad person. I see things differently from you, and my mind works differently too. You don't call me an idiot the same way you don't call a schizophrenic a jackass. That's bigotry, and it makes you sound like a lot worse a person than me. So don't judge me.
Kanachi 06-16-06, 11:02 PM	i hope you see why i avoided this question. my answer is annoying complicated and is probly going to be hacked up and misquoted. Plus its based on alot of my own personal beliefs that have no game effect, nor that are shared by all. I see the merits of your arguement but i believe that morally the simple action of choosing to snipe attack is the same as the morality of choosing to make a death strike even if its mechanically less potent. My point is that as a character you are choosing an action that requires exactly the same thought process as death strike and thus both are morally equal even if the chance of your sucsess is reduced.. i hope you see what i mean. This is why i dont see death strike as always evil, its basicly a technique used to stop a confrontation before it starts by using leathal force (which is the exact same thought and moral process that is required of someone when making a snipe attack).
Sunrider 06-16-06, 11:06 PM	They might be, since Exalted is the alignment of stupidity, while Vile is that of idiocy. Exalted is the alignment of doing evil thing to evil people, but having those things be good because you're doing them to evil people. Vile is the alignment of ickyness. If you can't tell, I hate both the BoVD and BoED. Depends on whose version of Exalted/Vile. To some people, Exalted means sitting there passively while evil works, since it would be evil to take any stern action against them. If diplomacy doesn't work, then stand back while everyone dies, since it would be wrong to take action against those doing the killing... in other words, supremely stupid. To some people, Vile means doing evil things for evil's sake, even if it's stupid (e.g. torturing your Blackguard lieutenant to death after he's come back from a dangerous mission, rather than casting Heal, just because it's the more evil option, or simply slaughtering people for no apparent reason, as if you have no agenda other than just mindless slaughter and are just asking to get caught/killed). If you can't tell, I hate the alignment system in general - there are too many variables, motives, actions, etc. to consider in order to just lump people/actions into nine categories based around two axes. Either that, or just lump humans/elves/just about everything else into the 'always neutral' category and leave it at that.
Kanachi 06-16-06, 11:10 PM	Given other precedents within D&D, I think the character could be either neutral or good. I agree there probably are such precidents in D&D though personally i think they belittle the neutral alinement which is already vastly underused. You see if i choose to do certain actions that are evil it does not make me a good person even if i do so for the forces of good. It makes me a person who has sacraficed my own goodness for good... thus making me neutral. I believe that using the neutral alinement in this way to represent the strongly grey areas of morality is not only a potentially interesting game issue, but also allows for some great role playing... Walking a line of darkness even for the right reasons can profoundly damage a person phycologicaly. This is far more interesting than saying "well heck i'm still good looks like i can shrug those actions off my shoulders".
Kobold_Avenger 06-16-06, 11:16 PM	They might be, since Exalted is the alignment of stupidity, while Vile is that of idiocy. Exalted is the alignment of doing evil thing to evil people, but having those things be good because you're doing them to evil people. Vile is the alignment of ickyness. If you can't tell, I hate both the BoVD and BoED. Amen to that in most respects!
Sunrider 06-16-06, 11:24 PM	I agree there probably are such precidents in D&D though personally i think they belittle the neutral alinement which is already vastly underused. You see if i choose to do certain actions that are evil it does not make me a good person even if i do so for the forces of good. It makes me a person who has sacraficed my own goodness for good... thus making me neutral. I believe that using the neutral alinement in this way to represent the strongly grey areas of morality is not only a potentially interesting game issue, but also allows for some great role playing... Walking a line of darkness even for the right reasons can profoundly damage a person phycologicaly. This is far more interesting than saying "well heck i'm still good looks like i can shrug those actions off my shoulders". In some ways, it could make you seem neutral - after all, you're treading a fine line between good and evil. In other ways, it could make you seem even better than 'ordinary' good (e.g. a 'good' healer) - after all, you're sacrificing yourself for the greater good. Isn't self-sacrifice one of the hallmarks of 'good'? As I said, it's just another example of why alignment really doesn't work - for any action, let alone within an individual who performs many actions, there are so many other factors and motives, both tangible and intangible, that assigning an arbitrary alignment doesn't work. It only works in dungeon-crawls, where it's little more than a sign saying 'kill this'. After all, is the person who acts all lawful and good really LG because it's his or her true outlook on things, or is she just acting that way because she knows she's mortal and wants to end up on Mount Celestia? If you were to consider actions individually, rather than judge characters based on overall motives and goals, pretty much everyone - humans, elves, ogres, many outsiders, whatever - would end up being Neutral. Which makes the whole system pointless...
Kanachi 06-16-06, 11:27 PM	agreed :)
Nephlite 06-16-06, 11:57 PM	I took the liberty of putting in the relevant stuff that you left out and bolding it. I hope you don't mind. Well, actually, I don't really care, but whatever. This is my point: you have to pick option 1 or option 2. In your next post, I'd like you to say which is true from your alien point of view. Personally, I like #1, but that's just me. Option 1: The end justifies the means. This means that using death attack with a poisoned weapon to end the life of a murderous, sadistic tyrant is not an evil act; it's a good one. Thus, you can have a good person with the assassin PrC. Option 2: The end doesn't justify the means, so a good act makes you good, and more relevantly, an evil act makes you evil. This makes it so that everyone who has ever killed a person is evil, as they have commited an evil act, overall motive and everything else be darned. This makes all damaging spells evil, since they assist in hurting things. Thus, ravages and afflictions are evil, since they damage creatures. But according to your rules about ravages and afflictions, they aren't evil! How about Option 3: Ends don't justify Means (because they don't). Intensions and means both determine the goodness and evilness of an act. But unlike option 2, we aren't going to assume killing is evil. Killing is nuetral. Murder is evil. Murder is also unlawful: unlawful killing. One must prove that the killing was against the law for it to be murder. This is why executions/war aren't evil. Neither is unlawful. This option also makes Animate Dead an evil subtype (for Evil Domain/Protection from evil), but not an evil alignment spell (and look it is exactly what I said hehe). If you pick option 1, you're wrong about death attack and poison being innately evil. If you pick option 2, you're wrong about the concept of a "good assassin," (and more) since an assassin kills or at least harms people (and that makes him evil, since all that matters is that he harms things). Option 3: Neither are poison nor Death Attack are evil. Good assasins can exists. Torture is evil though. Jack Bower is nuetral but leans evil. He isn't purely selfish so he barely steers clear of NE, but he cares for more than friends and family when he saves lives.
Kresalak 06-16-06, 11:57 PM	I much prefer the system Magic uses, myself. 'Course, I kinda prefer the flavor of Magic in most every regard. But that's probably just me.
belthazzar1113 06-17-06, 05:26 AM	again i am going to start with those that have well thought out and reasoned debate, and then move on to the small legion of insult artists and crazies. I see the merits of your arguement but i believe that morally the simple action of choosing to snipe attack is the same as the morality of choosing to make a death strike even if its mechanically less potent. My point is that as a character you are choosing an action that requires exactly the same thought process as death strike and thus both are morally equal even if the chance of your sucsess is reduced.. i hope you see what i mean. This is why i dont see death strike as always evil, its basicly a technique used to stop a confrontation before it starts by using leathal force (which is the exact same thought and moral process that is required of someone when making a snipe attack). Your argument has merit, but I don't agree that the mental process of a sniper attack and a death attack are the same. A death attack requires three rounds of study, while a snipeing atack requires a single action. Those three rounds you watch the targets movments and plan how best to kill them. Most often you are in disgues and pretending to be someone the target wouldn't suspect, you are waiting those three rounds for their guard to drop and to capitilize on the implicit trust shared between sentient beings that "if you do not harm me i will not harm you." a death attack involves betrayal and calculated murder. The same way a poision stretches pain out over a full minute a death attack stretches the act of murder over a minimum of three rounds. Its this time that strikes me as so evil. With poision you choose to use a method that you know will make your victim suffer for ten full rounds, with a death attack your spending three rounds reenforcing the decision to murder. With a death attack you eliminate any chance this could be done accidently, or in passion, or in an enraged state. Those three rounds negate any chance that you might be ignorant of what you are about to do. You are spending that time contemplating murder and every time a death attack is made it means it was a well thought out idea with careful planning and execution to choose the evil of murder. Since every choice and every act that affects other beings has a moral context (since we can choose to inflict harm or inflict none, choose to be kind, or choose to be cruel) we can judge death attack on its moral context, and in this regard it seems wholy evil. Since you are choosing to take a life by betrayal and murder, when you are not in the heat of combat, and are not defending yourself, then we can call this choice a choice for evil and thus death attack has a moral context that makes it evil each and every time you choose to use it. To have a class based around the use of an evil ability seems to require that class be evil, hence my conclusion that assassins must be evil and remain so to make death attacks. A sniping attack on the other hand seems to be about accuracy and aim rather than study and murder. Its a single moment to lock onto a target, but there is no study and extended choice for evil. You can making sniper attacks in the heat of combat, or in self defense against other long range attacks. You can use a sniper attack to defend another character about to have the headsman's ax brought down upon them. ALl things you can't do with death attack. Useing a sniper attack in any of those ways means that it wouldn't be an evil act, and thus the act itself can not be classified as always evil. But if you treat a snipe attack as a death attack, and approach it the same way, and spend time lining up your shot for rounds at a time, and choose each time to kill your target, and prolong that choice untill you are steeled to murder from stealth, then yes a sniper attack does become an evil act. but since it can be used for good, neutral and evil purposes the attack carrys no moral context of its own, that must be derived from circumstances at the time. The fact that you're going to save peoples' lives with the organs of the dead justifies the killing of them. I am afraid that this perspective is universally decried by every single ethisist in america. taken directly from the American medical association's code of national ethics. emphasized for ease of reading. E-2.16 Organ Transplantation Guidelines The following statement is offered for guidance of physicians as they seek to maintain the highest level of ethical conduct in the transplanting of human organs. (1) In all professional relationships between a physician and a patient, the physician’s primary concern must be the health of the patient. The physician owes the patient primary allegiance. This concern and allegiance must be preserved in all medical procedures, including those which involve the transplantation of an organ from one person to another where both donor and recipient are patients. Care must, therefore, be taken to protect the rights of both the donor and the recipient, and no physician may assume a responsibility in organ transplantation unless the rights of both donor and recipient are equally protected. A prospective organ transplant offers no justification for a relaxation of the usual standard of medical care for the potential donor. (2) When a vital, single organ is to be transplanted, the death of the donor shall have been determined by at least one physician other than the recipient’s physician. Death shall be determined by the clinical judgment of the physician, who should rely on currently accepted and available scientific tests. in case your wondering this all means that its unethical to kill someone just to save someones life. The trading of one life for another is unethical, and unethical acts when chosen willfully are evil. I normally don't make blatant appeals to authority, but rarely do i encounter such stunning levels of moral decay and ethical ignorance. They might be, since Exalted is the alignment of stupidity, while Vile is that of idiocy. Exalted is the alignment of doing evil thing to evil people, but having those things be good because you're doing them to evil people. Vile is the alignment of ickyness. If you can't tell, I hate both the BoVD and BoED. You are of course free to ignore anything that contradicts your view. Then again i remember the days when we called it Lawful stupid and chaotic annoying. You can play the standard alignments to be self serving and charactures of what they should represent. The fact that you can also play the higher, or lower, standards of those alignments as charactures of what they are supposed to be is irrelevant. You can play a true neutral character to be lawful evil with heavy emphasis on the evil. A little not book jotting down each good thing and each bad thing. "gave three gold to a begger, good +1. Murdered an innocent farmer, evil +1. daily total = 0, goals met." if you really want to you can break anything in the dnd system. However since your simply going to ignore the WotC published material on alignment, i don't know why you are participating in an alignment based thread. And to you, bel, I hope you get kicked. i answered insult for insult what was thrown at me. This is my point: you have to pick option 1 or option 2. In your next post, I'd like you to say which is true from your alien point of view your tone is both mocking and insulting, so i will not play into your false dichotomy. there are not simply two options. As has already been pointed out. And for the record, belthazzar, I'm better at logic than you'll ever be. no, thats just your opinion, and coming from someone with arguments as insane as yours, its easly dismissed. EDIT: And I'm also not a bad person. I see things differently from you, and my mind works differently too. You don't call me an idiot the same way you don't call a schizophrenic a jackass. That's bigotry, and it makes you sound like a lot worse a person than me. So don't judge me. you see things differently and you don't think your a bad person so that makes you not a bad person? that is wrong. If i murder people each and every day but i think of myself as a champion crusading against global overpopulation that doesn't change the fact i am a serial killer and evil in the extream. just because you think your not a bad person doesn't make it so. Your actions and statements do. And i stand by what i said, you are a bad person. If a schizophrenic was acting like a jackass you better belive i would call them a jackass. Just because your sick doesn't excuse that type of behavior. I will judge you as you put yourself forth because I am allowed as a human being to judge other human beings. You may reject or accept that judgment, and thats your bisness. But when someone with antisocial personality disorder comes out into a forum of their own free will and acts like a total jerk, i am not going to hold back because "they are sick" you choose to come here and act like a jerk, if you don't want to be judged then stay off the boards.
Kobold_Avenger 06-17-06, 10:05 AM	To OP, its very easy to have a good aligned assassin just change the alingment requirment. I dont speak for others but sorry for turning this into a debate on ethics.
Ryu Katsuragi 06-17-06, 10:07 AM	Your argument has merit, but I don't agree that the mental process of a sniper attack and a death attack are the same. A death attack requires three rounds of study, while a snipeing atack requires a single action. Those three rounds you watch the targets movments and plan how best to kill them. Most often you are in disgues and pretending to be someone the target wouldn't suspect, you are waiting those three rounds for their guard to drop and to capitilize on the implicit trust shared between sentient beings that "if you do not harm me i will not harm you." a death attack involves betrayal and calculated murder. The same way a poision stretches pain out over a full minute a death attack stretches the act of murder over a minimum of three rounds. Its this time that strikes me as so evil. With poision you choose to use a method that you know will make your victim suffer for ten full rounds, with a death attack your spending three rounds reenforcing the decision to murder. With a death attack you eliminate any chance this could be done accidently, or in passion, or in an enraged state. Those three rounds negate any chance that you might be ignorant of what you are about to do. You are spending that time contemplating murder and every time a death attack is made it means it was a well thought out idea with careful planning and execution to choose the evil of murder. Since every choice and every act that affects other beings has a moral context (since we can choose to inflict harm or inflict none, choose to be kind, or choose to be cruel) we can judge death attack on its moral context, and in this regard it seems wholy evil. Since you are choosing to take a life by betrayal and murder, when you are not in the heat of combat, and are not defending yourself, then we can call this choice a choice for evil and thus death attack has a moral context that makes it evil each and every time you choose to use it. To have a class based around the use of an evil ability seems to require that class be evil, hence my conclusion that assassins must be evil and remain so to make death attacks. Do you enjoy ignoring what everyone tells you? The is /nothing/ in the Assassin's classes description that says an Assassin loses anything if he does anything good. Since you are choosing to take a life by betrayal and murder, when you are not in the heat of combat, You keep quoting examples which are dishonourable, not evil. Death attack is nothing to do with 'betrayal and murder'. Ever heard of three successful Move Silently/Hide checks? I'm assuming Great Cleaving through a whole bunch of 1st level Commoner conscripts forced to fight in the 'heat of combat' makes it more 'good'? You can't keep saying that death attack is any different from sneak attack. Either all Rogues are evil for using sneak attack, therefore death attack is evil (What, 10d6 + DC Whatever Fortitude to survive is more evil than just dying from the ridiculous bonus damage?) or sneak attack isn't evil, therefore neigher is the Assassin's signiture ability. The same way a poision stretches pain out over a full minute a death attack stretches the act of murder over a minimum of three rounds. Yes, I'm sure that sleeping poison really hurts. Its this time that strikes me as so evil. With poision you choose to use a method that you know will make your victim suffer for ten full rounds, with a death attack your spending three rounds reenforcing the decision to murder. No. That is totally character based. So, now all Assassin's who use poison are sadists who enjoy causing suffering? Wow. They've quickly degenerated. Death attack is nothing to do with 'deciding to murder'. That is what is called 'accepting the contract in the first place'. Those three rounds are determining where a blow would best effect an enemy, lining up a blow, amongst other things. I personally see the 'kill someone to simply become an assassin' and the 'evil' requirement just as the Monks 'You must be Lawful to undertake this': To do something as bad as simply murdering someone for no good reason is a terrible thing, which I can't see any good, even neutral character performing. However, after becoming assassin, there is a point to this killing - they are people you're paid, and told to kill. You accept the jobs you want to do. You don't think they deserve to die? You refuse the job. Simple.
Ryu Katsuragi 06-17-06, 10:09 AM	To OP, its very easy to have a good aligned assassin just change the alingment requirment. I dont speak for others but sorry for turning this into a debate on ethics. But Bel doesn't seem interested in any of that. Why would he want to be a good assassin? He couldn't sneak attack, and everything they get is evil. So, it's physically impossible for him to play one who is good, in his opinion. Unless I'm assuming that by saying 'Any good' on the Assassin class, and then having death attack, poison use, etc. suddenly makes the same abilities 'good' for that class.
Ryu Katsuragi 06-17-06, 10:19 AM	Has anyone heard of a way to make an Assassin character turn good? I was thinking something like Redeemed/Emancipated Assassin. Still get the Death Attack and all that but no longer has to be evil, kinda uses his abilities for death dealing for a more goodly cause. Anyone heard anything like this before? personally i think its silly. i want to be able to study someone and kill them in cold blood, and i want to be able to use poision to cause suffering and death, and i would like to still ahve my selection of evil assasin spells... but i want to be good. Cold blooded murder and good alignment don't mix. Useing poision is an evil act. doesn't matter who you are murdering, and who you are making to suffer. Is it better to murder a guy who cheated on his wife or a guy who didn't? does it matter? murder is murder. It really doesn't matter who your targets are, your killing people for money. Basically, the guy has created a whole arguement that death attack is evil, all forms of killing are evil, poison is evil, the Assassin's spell selection is evil because he thinks they are, and that no good character can use those tactics... ... Yet he wants to play an Assassin who can do a death attack (which is in his opinion, evil), kill people (evil), use poison (evil) and use their 'evil spell selection' (evil, once again)... and is still good, in his opinion. Is it better to murder a guy who cheated on his wife or a guy who didn't? does it matter? murder is murder. It really doesn't matter who your targets are, your killing people for money. This is the exact reason why Assassin's are thought of as evil, and are required to be evil to simply enter the class.
Sunrider 06-17-06, 10:21 AM	The same way a poision stretches pain out over a full minute a death attack stretches the act of murder over a minimum of three rounds. I'm sure that sword sticking out of your gut isn't causing any pain, nor is that Melf's Acid Arrow pumping acid into your chest... This argument doesn't hold water. Either: a) Causing pain is always evil, regardless of the intent - therefore, the use of swords/spears/bows is evil, the use of all damage-causing magic is evil, the use of some (not all) poisons is evil and the use of ravages is positively vile. By this definition, all adventurers are evil, all soldiers are evil and anyone with the authority to order soldiers/police/security personnel around are evil if they do anything other than order their units to do something other than disband or humanitarian work. In other words, a fairly ridiculous position to take. Or: b) Causing pain isn't always evil (although inflicting pain for no other purpose than torture probably is). Therefore, the use of weapons, damage-causing magic, poison, ravages, etc. isn't inherently evil, although the ends to which they are used may be - a much more defensible line of thought.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-17-06, 10:24 AM	Bel, your prejudice against the mentally ill sickens me. It's not okay to discriminate against people. You were the one who threw the first insult. You also dismissed some of my perfectly reasonable (as determined be people other than you) arguments as sentimental and "because I said so" arguments. That is just not true, and it's exactly what you're guilty of. Ask anyone. They'll tell you that my arguments completely undermine yours. You also change the definitions of words so you can better argue your otherwise hopeless case. You defined evil thusly: your opinion, dishonorable is part of the definition of evil that i use, so saying no its not doesn't amount to much of an argument. "Main Entry: honor:a keen sense of ethical conduct" (webster's online) so acting with honor would be to follow that keen sense of ethical conduct. Dishonor would be the opposite, a keen sense of unethical conduct. thus to act with dishonor is to act with unethical conduct, or to put it another way, moral corruption. And "to choose to act with moral corruption" is a very good definition of evil. While the dictionary defined it: e·vil adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est 1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant. 2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet. 3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens. 4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation. 5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper. n. 1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness. 2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil. 3. An evil force, power, or personification. 4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice. adv. Archaic In an evil manner. This is the definition that you use when arguing. Reason? Because I never agreed to your definition. If no one agrees on a premise, the argument should be according to standard definitions and assumptions. Would you change the definition of "horse" so you could argue that horses were in fact felines? I don't think so. Then again, most of your arguments have been based on nothing be personal opinions and ad hominems. Next time you get into an argument, try to do things like a sane person.
Sunrider 06-17-06, 10:27 AM	murder is murder. It really doesn't matter who your targets are, your killing people for money. Wrong. All murder is killing. Not all killing is murder. Murder is a subset of killing. Similarly, all assassination is killing. Not all killing is assassination. Assassination, like murder, is also a subset of killing. Not all assassination, however, is murder, nor is all murder assassination. Some cases may overlap, but they're not the same thing. Also, assassination need not be killing people for money. Killing people for no reason other than profit, without regard for who the target is or why they're being targeted, is obviously evil. That, however, would define only a minority of assassins. In fact, a ranger using assassin-like guerilla-warfare tactics (ambushing an evil baron's tax collectors) is cited in the PHB as the example of a Chaotic Good character.
Sunrider 06-17-06, 10:31 AM	your opinion, dishonorable is part of the definition of evil that i use, so saying no its not doesn't amount to much of an argument. "Main Entry: honor:a keen sense of ethical conduct" (webster's online) so acting with honor would be to follow that keen sense of ethical conduct. Dishonor would be the opposite, a keen sense of unethical conduct. thus to act with dishonor is to act with unethical conduct, or to put it another way, moral corruption. And "to choose to act with moral corruption" is a very good definition of evil. You're confusing the ethical axis of alignment (Chaos-Law) with the moral axis (Good-Evil). Even so, it's entirely possible for an assassin who uses supposedly 'dishonourable' tactics (by European chivalric standards anyway - many other cultures hold completely different concepts) to be lawful. Does the assassin follow a strict code of conduct? Bounty hunters' creed? Aligned strongly with a military or other organisation? It's definitely possible to be an assassin and still fall towards the 'lawful' end of the Chaos-Law axis.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-17-06, 10:42 AM	You're confusing the ethical axis of alignment (Chaos-Law) with the moral axis (Good-Evil). Oh, man. I completely forgot about that. Bel, don't define Chaos as Evil.
Fuzzy_Logic 06-17-06, 10:54 AM	By the way, Bel, your likening poison to death attack is blatantly self-contradictory. poison, you say, is evil, because the victim takes a minute to die. or, as you put it, it stretches the DEATH out to 10 rounds. death attack requires 3 rounds fo planning. it does NOT "stretch the murder out to 3 rounds." in fact, it makes death instantaneous. I'd be willing to bet a really good assassin could kil relatively painlessly, too--just a single perfect strike and the victim is instantly snuffed out. maybe not realistic, but that's the mythology behind it. therefore, i'd argue that death attack is actually the most humane way to kill someone. IMC, the royal executioner is an assassin who uses death attack on the prisoners. Oh, and as for the aswsassin's "special" requirement: "kill someone for no reason but to join the assassins." I never interpreted that as random murder. I belive the CHARACTER can have no PERSONAL reason for the killing. it can't be revenge, politics, wealth, saving the world, whatever. he doesn't care. that doesn't mean there's no reason for the target to die. given that the Assassin is supposed ot be a guild-member, by the book's flavor text, I always assumed that the victim he had to kill would be someone the guild was hired to get rid of. the new recruit proves his worthiness ot join the guild by completing an assassination, and prove shis loyalty by killing someone purely on their say-so. A non-alignment restricted assassin could keep the specila requirement. someone joining a group of, say, LN assassins working for the king would be given a target and told to kill him. the assassin would have no stake in the matter-- he'd be snuffing an enemy of the state, and proving his loyalty.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-17-06, 12:30 PM	I'm going to take the high road and apologize for the bad name-calling. I don't expect you to do the same, and even if I did, I still want you banned. Why? You need to made an example of. People need to realize that discriminating against the mentally ill is no better than discrimination based on race. It needs be stigmatized in the same way that all discrimination must be stigmatized. I'll tell you what I have had to tolerate: Some people know that I'm ill (It's not as bad as most mentall illnesses, but it can be horrible at times because of the judgements you face by "normal" people). Some of these people are ignorant and say things to try to make me tell my opinions, which are often somewhat controversial. When I tell them my opinions, they get offended and repeatedly tell me how wrong I am. I, in turn (After trying to defend my philosophical points of view), get angry. Then they go all "oh, crap. He's going insane". Yes, they don't get it. Antisocials don't go crazy. It's a personality disorder. It's constant, and doesn't come in wild mood swings, like some disorders. See how that works? When "normal" people get angry, they get angry. When mentally ill people get angry, they're going crazy. That was an actual situation involving my grandmother and a distant cousin. My grandma was trying to show her that I was an "idiot", and my cousin asked my a philosophical question regarding rape (It was stretched over a couple of days). My grandmother just told her out of thin air that I had a mental illness, which she refers to as "fáviti". "Fáviti" means idiot, but in the "good old days", it was synonymous with a person who is mentally ill. And yes, I hate my grandmother (I'm not talking to her again until she apologizes).
Kobold_Avenger 06-17-06, 04:32 PM	Ah... but Bel is not the OP... If you want to make one please do so.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-17-06, 04:46 PM	Ah... but Bel is not the OP... If you want to make one please do so. Umm... yes. *Looks around to see if someone knows he didn't understand K_A's post*
thasis 06-17-06, 04:54 PM	It seems to be continualy brought up that paying someone to kill another is an evil act. But isn't many adventurers being payed to exterminate the goblin lair? So let's say your paid by good people to assinate bad-guys... couldn't you be a good assassin? I think so. An Assassin (with some modification) could be easily a good aligned killer.
der_gogo 06-17-06, 04:56 PM	From Wikipedia: Assassination is the deliberate killing of an important person, usually a political figure or other strategically important individual. An assassin (one who carries out an assassination) usually has an ideological or political agenda, and regards the target as a serious obstacle to furthering their agenda. Other motivations may be money (in the case of a contract killing), revenge, or acts of espionage at the request of a government. Assassination, like companion terms such as terrorism and freedom fighter, is often considered to be a loaded term. So if you are killing the evil king, you are definitely assassinating him. If you do it only for money, you are evil. If you are doing it in order to restore the old laws again, you might be neutral. If you want to save the people from oppression, you are good. In real life, courageous german individuals tried to assassinate Hitler in order to save the lifes of thousands. Yeah, those were evil people. :confused: ... just my two cents.
thasis 06-17-06, 05:02 PM	Well in reality good and evil are subjective terms. It's all based on opinion. Some people believe what Person X did was good while others may believe that Person X was midly justifiable (Neutral), while other still may believe that Person X was a pure evil being. So realy, using real world comparissons might not be the best idea as people will always have diffrent views.
Ryu Katsuragi 06-17-06, 05:56 PM	So let's say your paid by good people to assinate bad-guys... couldn't you be a good assassin? I think so. An Assassin (with some modification) could be easily a good aligned killer. The problems that Bel was bringing up is he totally contradicts himself, ignores everyone and fails to even notice when he's wrong. He said in the beginning of the post, he wanted to play an Assassin who is good (capital, as he wanted the class). He then said the book says you lose your abilities if you become good. Which you don't. Which I've pointed at. He said he wanted an Assassin who would be good, and work for good, and keep his death attack, poison use and 'evil' spell selection... but then later on in the board says that only evil people use death attack and poison are evil, and can no-way be good. O.o So, he wanted to play a Good assassin, who uses everything which he personally believes makes someone 'Evil' and stay 'Good'... And was complaining to everyone why he couldn't play a Good Assassin, when it was his own personal view on what the Assassin's skills represent that were stopping him. Nothing to do with being Good alignment.
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-17-06, 07:45 PM	(too lazy to find the post, so here's the basics of what it said) Assassins are evil and have death attack. Slayers of Domiel are good and don't have death attack. Connect the dots. Let's use that logic more, shall we? Yes, we shall. Slayers of Domiel have sneak attack and cancer mages don't. Thus, sneak attack is a good ability. Assassins have sneak attack and exalted arcanists don't. Thus, sneak attack is an evil ability. I've just proven that your lgic is invalid. I am afraid that this perspective is universally decried by every single ethisist in america. taken directly from the American medical association's code of national ethics. emphasized for ease of reading. Peer pressure. Insults didn't win you the argument, causing me to flee from the boards in despair, so you resort to saying, "Everyone else thinks this, so you're wrong." How's this scenario that really happened? Xenophon was a Greek general who camped in a certain place. His troops all found these bee hives and gorged themselves on the honey. Soon after, a large fraction of the army went crazy and died. This is because the honey was made from bees that feasted on rhododendrons. That made the honey poisonous. But whaddaya know? Every single person in the army agreed that the honey wasn't poisonous. And yet, somehow, everyone was wrong. I take this as a sign that just because everyone believes something doesn't make it true. On a related note, about half the people in the country believe that big chunks of rock and plasma floating around AU's to light-years away somehow influence our behaviour and mindsets. They're all wrong too your tone is both mocking and insulting, so i will not play into your false dichotomy. there are not simply two options. As has already been pointed out. You're not one to speak, as proven by the following quote. I am going to try and start with the most logical and well thought out and presented arugments and then move onto the stupid juvenile crap at the end.... How about Option 3: Ends don't justify Means (because they don't). Intensions and means both determine the goodness and evilness of an act. But unlike option 2, we aren't going to assume killing is evil. Killing is nuetral. Murder is evil. Murder is also unlawful: unlawful killing. One must prove that the killing was against the law for it to be murder. This is why executions/war aren't evil. Neither is unlawful. Please distinguish "killing" from "murder." In that quote, you define "murder" as "unlawful killing." "Unlawful" only means "chaos." Too many people, I notice, are quick to call "chaos" a subset of "evil." Have a nice day, all!
Vestigial_Thumb 06-17-06, 08:05 PM	Please distinguish "killing" from "murder." In that quote, you define "murder" as "unlawful killing." "Unlawful" only means "chaos." Too many people, I notice, are quick to call "chaos" a subset of "evil." This is exactly the logic I was going to use if belthazzar had asked me to prove murder was not evil. Good call.
Nephlite 06-17-06, 08:51 PM	Please distinguish "killing" from "murder." In that quote, you define "murder" as "unlawful killing." "Unlawful" only means "chaos." Too many people, I notice, are quick to call "chaos" a subset of "evil." Have a nice day, all! All murder is unlawful which is due to it against all laws. Murder is killing someone without legit authority. The evil comes from its chaos nature (not the same as a chaotic). Cold blooded murder is killing someone for no other reason than you could. Hot blooded murder is killing in anger (less punishment here due to made in a second the choice). What you don't understand is murder is a legal term: In criminal law, murder is the crime of causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm. It is basically the intent when you kill them that makes it evil. Which is why I said ends do not justify means. If you kill someone to save someone that can be good. Depending on individual of course. Killing a paladin to save a blackguard is evil if the paladin is good. :D
GhostStepper 06-17-06, 09:03 PM	Killing is bad. Badness is evil. Assassins kill things, thus they do bad/evil. What? your paladin kills things? Oh...nevermind.
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-17-06, 09:56 PM	What you don't understand is murder is a legal term: In criminal law, murder is the crime of causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Imagine being in Germany during the beginning of the Holocaust. While Hitler's giving a speech at a Nuremberg Rally, you shoot him. I have caused the death of another human being, without lawful excuse (Hitler wouldn't make shooting him legal, and he was the dictator), and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Are you evil? You just prevented a war that would kill thousands (maybe millions, I can't remember that phase of history) of people. In my opinion, you wouldn't be subject to a Smite Evil, etc.
Dnjscott 06-17-06, 09:57 PM	Hey, got the new Dragon today and, whaddya know--the Sage said explicitly that poisons aren't evil, and referenced the ninja. So there ya go. As for Death Attack, I've already mentioned 3 PrCs that get it, 2 of which qualify for LG. But everyone ignores me, so there you go again.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-17-06, 10:01 PM	Hey, got the new Dragon today and, whaddya know--the Sage said explicitly that poisons aren't evil, and referenced the ninja. So there ya go. As for Death Attack, I've already mentioned 3 PrCs that get it, 2 of which qualify for LG. But everyone ignores me, so there you go. I wish you had gotten that issue before I was victimized. :weep:
Dnjscott 06-17-06, 10:51 PM	I wish you had gotten that issue before I was victimized. :weep: :weep:
Nephlite 06-17-06, 11:45 PM	Imagine being in Germany during the beginning of the Holocaust. While Hitler's giving a speech at a Nuremberg Rally, you shoot him. I have caused the death of another human being, without lawful excuse (Hitler wouldn't make shooting him legal, and he was the dictator), and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Are you evil? You just prevented a war that would kill thousands (maybe millions, I can't remember that phase of history) of people. In my opinion, you wouldn't be subject to a Smite Evil, etc. Yes, you committed an evil act. If you were sent from America or Britain you and had their authority to snipe him. Than not evil. Ends don't justify means. However, one evil dead doesn't make on evil. A DM that enforces that is a bad DM. You should have to do at least 2 bad deeds.
Sunrider 06-17-06, 11:56 PM	Yes, you committed an evil act. If you were sent from America or Britain you and had their authority to snipe him. Than not evil. Ends don't justify means. However, one evil dead doesn't make on evil. A DM that enforces that is a bad DM. You should have to do at least 2 bad deeds. No, you've committed an illegal act. Not an evil one. If you were sent as an Allied secret agent with a mission to assassinate Hitler, it's not a chaotic act either (you broke the laws of Germany but, then again, you never swore to uphold them in the first place - your allegiance is to the Allies). Whether the act is Good or Evil depends on why you killed him, or accepted the mission to kill him. Trying to prevent a war or save a lot of lives by killing someone who is known to be evil, or trying to bring down a tyrant and restore liberty to the German people? That's a good act. Simply fulfilling a mission because your superiors at MI6 gave you the mission? That's neutral. Killing him in the hope of taking his place? That's evil. Or, in your opinion, is the 'good' option to simply sit back, negotiate futilely with someone bent on world domination, wait for him to start his war and initiate his Final Solution, then go on the attack, sacrificing the lives of millions of Allied and Axis soldiers and civilians (most of whom were probably entirely innocent) and condemning millions to Nazi death camps? As the saying goes, when good men do nothing, evil triumphs.
Kobold_Avenger 06-18-06, 01:22 AM	We need a Mind Flayer LVL 40 expert with typing as a class skill. That can use his detect thoughts over the net... No more misunderstandments!!! :D
belthazzar1113 06-18-06, 02:03 AM	i had a great long post that was very carefully worded trying to present my aruments in a clear and logical manner. Since that post was lost, i am just going to wing it since i don't feel like writing it all up again. *shrug* this is all just one man's opinion, if you disagree thats fine, but calling it stupid or moronic doesn't prove me wrong. ---- You keep quoting examples which are dishonourable, not evil. If you choose to act with dishonor then your actions are evil. lets take a look at how this is, from the webster dictionary: dishonorable (adj) 1 : lacking honor Honor (n) 1 : ethical conduct unethical (adj) 1 : not adhering to ethical or moral principles e·vil adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est 1. Morally bad or wrong 2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: If you choose to act in a dishonorable way, you choose to act without honor. If you act without honor you act without ethhical conduct. If you act without ethical conduct you act without morals. And morality is what defines what is a good act. If you act with dishonor you are choosing to ignore good and do evil. Hopefully thats clear enough with all the definitions included. ---- Please distinguish "killing" from "murder." apparently I was mistaken in thinking that i don't have to prove murder is evil. I assumed this would be obvious, but mea culpa. Murder is defined as "the unlawful, malicious, and intentional killing of one human being by another. Malicious is definied as... 1 : deliberately harmful; Yes, unlawful is part of the description of murder, no that does not mean its governed by the Law-Chaos axis. What the means is that there are times when the act of killing is permited within the law. Such as in defense of one's own life. The assassin most definitly intentionally kills since they have three rounds worth of actions to build up for a death effect. It is definitly malicious since the assassin could have made a normal sneak attack for subdual but chose to wind up for a lethal death attack instead. Death attack can't be used in self defense because the target would have to be threatening you, and thus be aware of you negating your ability to make a death attack. Since murder is certainly "causing ruin, injury and pain, and is harmful" (lethal in fact) murder fits the definition of evil. Since death attacks fit the definition of murder, then death attacks are also evil. --- Imagine being in Germany during the beginning of the Holocaust. While Hitler's giving a speech at a Nuremberg Rally, you shoot him. I have caused the death of another human being, without lawful excuse (Hitler wouldn't make shooting him legal, and he was the dictator), and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Are you evil? First i would like to say Hindsight is always 20/20. So saying that you killed Hitler to save millions of lives is like saying you can predict the future and were killing him because of things he hadn't done yet. Secondly I would like to point out that by definition, "The lesser of two evils, is still evil." and you have already definied your actions to fit the catigory of murder. So killing had you killed hitler it would have been an evil act. It would have been the lesser (very lesser) of the two evils between killing him or letting him live, but it was still evil. If you refer back to my descriptions of the alignments the only people who commit no evil acts are exhalted characters. Good characters still may occasionally commit an evil act. Certain classes (such as paladins and some clerics) have serious repercussions for this, others merely have to watch out for the DM enforcing an Alignment shift. This applies equally to all "what if i killed this guy because...." arguments. Murder is still an evil act irregardless of why you do it. Legaly is can be excused by mittigating circumstances, however ethically and morally it remains evil. If your taking levels in Assassin that means your dedicating yourself to the commiting of evil acts. You are evil entering the class, you killed to get into the class, and you took the levels so you would be able to commit evil acts. I don't see how you can reconsile dedicating yourself to evil with having a good alignment. The idea of having a good alignment negates the possiblity of you dedicating yourself to evil. ---- Hey, got the new Dragon today and, whaddya know--the Sage said explicitly that poisons aren't evil, and referenced the ninja. If this is true (not questioning your truthfulness, just saying i haven't seen it) then there is a contradiction within RAW. One more to add to the list. However i still follow my origional reasoning that while poision isn't evil in and of itself, choosing to use it is. A snake doesn't have a choice about wether it uses poision or not, that is how it was built, thats how it hunts and feeds. A human has a choice about the types of weapons it uses, and choosing poision that causes pain and suffering over a long period of time is an evil choice and thus using poision is an evil act. People have pointed out there are poisions that don't cause pain, they cause things like unconciousness. And I would like to point out that I said i was talking about poisions that deal ability damage a long time ago. Even the BoED stated that Drow poision was acceptable for good aligned creatures to use since it simply causes sleep. As for the other ones, you choose to cause that much pain and suffering then its an evil act. The fact that a ninja gets poision is IMO bad design since they don't have a non-good alignment requirment. Then again, its a ninja, and its hard to make an archtype like that so they satisfy everyone. *shrug* its a ninja, what are you going to do. Historically ninja employed poision, so dnd ninja get poision. But then historically people didn't worry about alignment requirments. ---- (too lazy to find the post, so here's the basics of what it said) Let's use that logic more, shall we? {insert straw man argument} I've just proven that your logic is invalid. actually you just put words in my mouth, and then disproved it. That doesn't amount to much at all. ---- Peer pressure. Insults didn't win you the argument, causing me to flee from the boards in despair, so you resort to saying, "Everyone else thinks this, so you're wrong." Your right, just because the american medical associations ethical standards say your wrong that doesn't mean your wrong. Just because the people who have dedicated their lives to, and made careers out of, the study of good and evil and morality say that you are wrong, of course that doesn't mean anything. Of course my object was to make you flee from the boards in despair since obviously i am here only to make your life miserable. No one knows what is right or wrong better than you. Please let us partake of your wisdom so that we lesser mortals can understand this mighty and powerful ethical conclusion you have arrived at through misquotes and bold unsupported assertion. Please share with us. actually, don't. That entire thing was sarcastic (since apparently i have to point this out) the idea that you simply contravert every ethical standard held by the world because you say so is so beyond Hubris that i can't even deal with it. I am very glad your not in any kind of position of power since you obviously would think its a good idea to go around killing perfectly healthy normal people on the streets because their blood, tissue and organs could be used to save sick people or people that were hurt. I am very glad indeed i don't live in that sort of world where random murder is condoned for the greater good. taking this as an example of your moral integrity, and your ethical proficency I don't think I will ever be able to have reasoned debate since you are incapable of basic reason. Since you are obviously so far from sane that i don't think we have words for your way of thinking I don't know how to deal with you. The only phrase that comes to mind, is ethically bankrupt and morally oblivious. And its not my job or desire to try and help you with that issue. ---- Well in reality good and evil are subjective terms. It's all based on opinion. Exactly why ethical and moral debates are so hard to get pinned down. Which is why they are so importaint. The nature of what is good and evil is always changing as people chage, so you have to keep having the debate to redefine constantly what is a good and what is an evil act. ---- The problems that Bel was bringing up is he totally contradicts himself, ignores everyone and fails to even notice when he's wrong. He said in the beginning of the post, he wanted to play an Assassin who is good (capital, as he wanted the class). He then said the book says you lose your abilities if you become good. Which you don't. Which I've pointed at. He said he wanted an Assassin who would be good, and work for good, and keep his death attack, poison use and 'evil' spell selection... but then later on in the board says that only evil people use death attack and poison are evil, and can no-way be good. O.o So, he wanted to play a Good assassin, who uses everything which he personally believes makes someone 'Evil' and stay 'Good'... And was complaining to everyone why he couldn't play a Good Assassin, when it was his own personal view on what the Assassin's skills represent that were stopping him. Nothing to do with being Good alignment. Thats what i call a serious pack of lies. I never said i wanted to play a [good] Assassin. Its been my position since the beggining that death attack and poision are evil acts. I don't know where you are getting your ideas unless your listining to the people who like to misquote me and not reading my actual posts, but you are flat out, 100%, dead wrong. ---- I'm going to take the high road and apologize for the bad name-calling. I don't expect you to do the same, and even if I did, I still want you banned. Why? You need to made an example of. People need to realize that discriminating against the mentally ill is no better than discrimination based on race. It needs be stigmatized in the same way that all discrimination must be stigmatized. The only things i discriminate against are the actions of the person. You have been a royal jerk, you have started and persisted in the name calling, and you have argued points that are obviously wrong simply because you have a need to argue. You are free to want me banned the same way i am free to want you removed from public association. Not because your mentally ill, because you are moraliy and ethically unfit to be around other people. If you want to use your diagnosis as an excuse for why you have no sense of right and wrong thats fine, then you need to be in an inclosed institution where your lack of morality won't lead you to hurt yourself or others. As for the rest of it, *shrug* i havent seen anything from you that i can't dissmiss as more idiotic statements from someone that is obviously uneducated, unintellegent and mentally handicapped. If you want to call that discrimination your free to, but I don't discriminate against the mentally ill, i discriminate against YOU. ----
belthazzar1113 06-18-06, 02:05 AM	We need a Mind Flayer LVL 40 expert with typing as a class skill. That can use his detect thoughts over the net... No more misunderstandments!!! :D :rofl: thank you for the laugh...... misunderstandments is going to have me laughing all night.
Sunrider 06-18-06, 02:09 AM	If you choose to act in a dishonorable way, you choose to act without honor. If you act without honor you act without ethhical conduct. If you act without ethical conduct you act without morals. And morality is what defines what is a good act. If you act with dishonor you are choosing to ignore good and do evil. Hopefully thats clear enough with all the definitions included. No, that's your defintion of honour, dishonour, ethics, morals and evil. It's a very common one among ardent nationalists and devout followers of monotheistic religions (both of whom, by definition, believe that all others are wrong and, therefore, evil - in D&D terms, they are strongly lawfully-inclined, believe they are good and, therefore, that their polar opposites (chaotics) are evil). It's not, however, the D&D definition.
belthazzar1113 06-18-06, 02:57 AM	No, that's your defintion of honour, dishonour, ethics, morals and evil. It's a very common one among ardent nationalists and devout followers of monotheistic religions (both of whom, by definition, believe that all others are wrong and, therefore, evil - in D&D terms, they are strongly lawfully-inclined, believe they are good and, therefore, that their polar opposites (chaotics) are evil). actually its THE definition... this is from websters and the american heritage dictionary. This isn't something i made up on the spot. the fact that your argument is "just because you say so doesn't make it so" doesn't apply... this is the dictionary. and if you want to say the dictionary is not a relable source for defining a word... well then you go right ahead and see how far that argument takes you.
Sunrider 06-18-06, 03:11 AM	unethical (adj) 1 : not adhering to ethical or moral principles Emphasis mine. This is the statement of contention. By definition, the opposite of 'moral' is either 'amoral' or 'immoral'. The opposite of 'ethical' is 'unethical'. Two completely different things, although they are easily confused (just like 'schizophrenia' and 'multiple personality disorder). Dictionaries are updated to define how words are used in the common vernacular. In many fields, certain words have a technical meaning - for example, 'narcotic' in medicine has a different meaning to 'narcotic' in common usage. In D&D, 'ethical' and 'moral' are two of these technical terms, with specific meanings that differ from the common vernacular ('lawful', 'chaotic', 'good' and 'evil' are another four examples of such technical terms). The way you're defining things, you may as well get rid of the chaos-law axis and call all 'lawful' 'good' and 'chaos' 'evil'. In other words, Darth Vader would be good, since he loyally served his master (OTOH, killing the evil emperor by throwing him down the shaft in the Death Star would be an evil act by your logic, since it was a dishonourable, treacherous act). Robin Hood would be evil, since he made use of ambushes, sneaky tactics and other 'dishonourable' methods in fighting his arch-nemesis, the Sheriff of Nottingham and the tyrannical King John. Makes no sense whatsoever.
Ryu Katsuragi 06-18-06, 07:34 AM	personally i think its silly. i want to be able to study someone and kill them in cold blood, and i want to be able to use poision to cause suffering and death, and i would like to still ahve my selection of evil assasin spells... but i want to be good. Cold blooded murder and good alignment don't mix. Useing poision is an evil act. doesn't matter who you are murdering, and who you are making to suffer. Is it better to murder a guy who cheated on his wife or a guy who didn't? does it matter? murder is murder. It really doesn't matter who your targets are, your killing people for money. if an assasin goes after mob bosses does that make him good? what if he is getting paid by other mob bosses, does that make him evil? what if the assasins poision kills a criminal, does that make him good? or do the minutes of burning agony and suffering the man experiances make the assasin more evil? its not the target that determines the morality of the act, its the act itself. Some people would argue with moral certainty of any act. but cold blooded murder of someone for payment is quite simply an evil act. if you want to play a good aligned assasin, then stick with rogue or with the exalted slayer from the book of exhalted deeds. they don't use death attack but they use ravages and gain sneak attack and other slayer / assasin qualities. but as far as i am concerned the assasin is not, and will not ever be, good aligned. I don't lie, Bel. Please refer to your first post on this board (I don't know how to use the 'Quoted by...' thing on boards), fourth post on page one. Look familiar?
Vestigial_Thumb 06-18-06, 08:36 AM	The only things i discriminate against are the actions of the person. No, you don't know the things I have done. And to tell the truth, I'm a perfectly normal person. You blatantly discriminated against me and tried to maliciously hurt my feelings. Why? Apparently you don't like people who have problems. I'll tell you this: I deal with my illness just fine. How do you deal with yours? You have been a royal jerk, you have started and persisted in the name calling, and you have argued points that are obviously wrong simply because you have a need to argue. That's just completely untrue. My points are completely valid. The fact that I don't confuse morals with ethics, and the fact that you define dishonor and negativity as evil, only proves how miserably bad you are at debating. AND CAN SOMEONE PLEASE BACK ME UP ON THIS ONE? I'M SICK OF BELTHAZZAR TELLING ME I'M BAD AT LOGIC! You are free to want me banned the same way i am free to want you removed from public association. No, you're not free to want me banned from public association. You're talking about a human life. A human life with problems. Problems that it can actually deal with. And if you had a bachelor's degree at philosophy, you wouldn't be so discriminating against moral relativists either. Not because your mentally ill, because you are moraliy and ethically unfit to be around other people. It's pretty clear that it's not because I'm "moraliy and ethically unfit to be around other people." You don't know me, and you don't know my illness (apparently), but you still judge me. This qualifies as hate speech. That's three strikes: Trolling, flaming and hate speech. If you want to use your diagnosis as an excuse for why you have no sense of right and wrong thats fine, then you need to be in an inclosed institution where your lack of morality won't lead you to hurt yourself or others. My lack of morality has nothing to do with why I should be remove. I'm not the monster you seem to think I am. And people that act like you disgust me. As for the rest of it, *shrug* i havent seen anything from you that i can't dissmiss as more idiotic statements from someone that is obviously uneducated, unintellegent and mentally handicapped. That's because you are probably one of the above options. Plus "between 15 and 17 years old". If you want to call that discrimination your free to, but I don't discriminate against the mentally ill, i discriminate against YOU. No, you're discriminating against the mentally ill. You've shown that by judging me based on my illness. How do I know you wouldn't do the same with a paranoid person? Or a schizotypal one? Or one with Multiple Personality Disorder?
Kanachi 06-18-06, 09:15 AM	Your both just being silly now... I hate having to act like a grown up separating two school kids, but please... either get them both out and mesure who has the biggest or just put a sock in it. This is a debate about morality and if assassination and so forth can ever be morally good. Lets not sully it any more with pointless name calling and attempts to get one another banned. Please for the sake of a good and otherwise well mannored debate and most peoples desire not to have it getting locked (due to abusive posting) can both of you just take a deep breath and deal with the debate, not one anothers personal lives. Thankyou
Vestigial_Thumb 06-18-06, 09:21 AM	This is a debate about morality and if assassination and so forth can ever be morally good. Lets not sully it any more with pointless name calling and attempts to get one another banned. Please for the sake of a good and otherwise well mannored debate and most peoples desire not to have it getting locked (due to abusive posting) can both of you just take a deep breath and deal with the debate, not one anothers personal lives. Easy for you to say. You weren't psychologically brutalized by that... ignorant bigot. And I think I have the right to be a little bitter. EDIT: I've already try logic. But instead of refuting it, belthazzar, just dismisses it as idiotic or psychotic babble. This is only because he knows I have a mental illness and uses that as proof of why my posts don't make sense. My logic makes sense, bel. It doesn't matter what you say.
PoorHobo 06-18-06, 11:14 AM	Vestigial - You are just as much into the argument as Bel, No your Logic is not perfect. You were wrong about ethics being apart of the chaos/law axis. Morality and ethics are synonyms, not 100% interchangeable but moreso than declaring ethics to be apar of chaos and law by your own fiat. DnD morality isn't real life morality the system wasn't designed that way. Creatures can be "always evil", some people cannot wrap their minds around the fact that in a game, some things can be always evil. Always. This is becasue unlike real life Good and Evil are aboslutes the same way Gods and Goddess are. People can be devoted to good/evil and recieve power from it just the same way they could a god. In this sense good and evil is a tangible, they can be felt andd brought to bear In DnD you can be littery shown the power of good...or evil. This is how the system was written. Are there shades of grey? Sure, but the gaming system wasn't built for that, there are other systems to explore the darker side of good and the kindness of evil. This is why in DnD something or someone(the DM or RAW) can simply say something is evil. Assassins are evil, becasue DnD is a fake world designed to explore high fantasy, where good is good, evil is evil and women wear chain mail bikinis., Assassins are evil becaue it says so in the DMG Explorinng the moral implications of real life assasination while trying to use DnD leads to topics like this. Using real life examples like "would you have assasinated hitler OMG?" Are immature and irrelevent to the topic at hand. It doesn't matter becasue when I would have shot him, I wouldn't study him for 18 seconds and I sure as hell wouldn't have gotten another couple of d6 damage for doing it. In short pulling real life examples and trying to apply them to a fake made-up world is bad logic in itself. You want to convince me assassins are/can be good? Then you have to stop applying real world morality to a game. Its like me telling you monoply sucks becasue I can by boardwalk ave for 400 bucks and a railroad for 75 when they really cost millions of dollars. Dts okay for them to cost that little because everything else in the game costs a lot less than 400 bucks.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-18-06, 12:33 PM	Vestigial - You are just as much into the argument as Bel, No your Logic is not perfect. More so than belthazzar's. You were wrong about ethics being apart of the chaos/law axis. Morality and ethics are synonyms, not 100% interchangeable but moreso than declaring ethics to be apar of chaos and law by your own fiat. Oh, on the contrary. In D&D, we talk about the "moral and ethical axis". The moral axis is the good-evil axis, and the ethical axis is the law-chaos axis. This is how they are separated in D&D, which my argument is based on. Many philosophers also distinguish ethics from morals, something that I like better than the two being synonymous. I'll use an example (how we distinguish the two): The president of a company that makes automobiles finds out there is a problem with the ignition in certain weather environments that may cause a fire. To recall all the cars would cost the company millions and stock prices would drop. Recalling the cars to possibly save lives would be considered by most a good moral decision but could be considered a bad ethic decision. Not recalling the cars would be considered by most to be a bad moral decision, but could be considered a good ethic decision. The reason being is that his responsibility is to the shareholders of the company, and recalling the autos, and thereby losing money, ethically wrong to those he's responsible to. In short, ethics are written rules and much more tangible, while morals are relative and up to the person who has them. DnD morality isn't real life morality the system wasn't designed that way. But it was heavily based on it. Creatures can be "always evil", some people cannot wrap their minds around the fact that in a game, some things can be always evil. Always. Assassins don't have to be one of those things. People can be devoted to good/evil and recieve power from it just the same way they could a god. Assassins are not those people. Assassins are evil, becasue DnD is a fake world designed to explore high fantasy, where good is good, evil is evil and women wear chain mail bikinis., Assassins are evil becaue it says so in the DMG Explorinng the moral implications of real life assasination while trying to use DnD leads to topics like this. Why can't a good person have the same abilities as the Assassin? He gets it from training. He could even develop the damn abilities himself. But no-o-o-o. Belthazzar can't have any of that, now can he? Using real life examples like "would you have assasinated hitler OMG?" Are immature and irrelevent to the topic at hand. They were comparing a Hitler assassination to D&D morality. Real world examples look quite different when you compare them to that moral system. It doesn't matter becasue when I would have shot him, I wouldn't study him for 18 seconds and I sure as hell wouldn't have gotten another couple of d6 damage for doing it. In short pulling real life examples and trying to apply them to a fake made-up world is bad logic in itself. They made up a real world example and applied D&D morality to it. The act then sounded evil, but in the interest of a greater good. In real-life, the act would probably have been celebrated by almost the whole world and recognized as a good act. See the difference between D&D and real-life morality now? You want to convince me assassins are/can be good? Then you have to stop applying real world morality to a game. It's not what I did. Talk to the other guys. Its like me telling you monoply sucks becasue I can by boardwalk ave for 400 bucks and a railroad for 75 when they really cost millions of dollars. No it's not. It's like comparing the economic systems of real life and Monopoly. They are similar, but not the same. Monopoly's economic system is simplified for ease of play, and so is the D&D moral system.
PoorHobo 06-18-06, 12:40 PM	I'm not going to reply to that, your just after an argument. I'm done with you, you want a fencing match to rip apart peoples posts instead of posting coherant idea that can be debated. Your arguments are flawed and if I actually thought you might be intrested in hearing what I thought instead of more quoting and typing I would. You asked for confirmation that your logic was not flawed - Now you got another perspective but you won't take the blinders off. Good night.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-18-06, 01:02 PM	Crap! Double post.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-18-06, 01:03 PM	I'm not going to reply to that, your just after an argument. I'm done with you, you want a fencing match to rip apart peoples posts instead of posting coherant idea that can be debated. Your arguments are flawed and if I actually thought you might be intrested in hearing what I thought instead of more quoting and typing I would. You asked for confirmation that your logic was not flawed - Now you got another perspective but you won't take the blinders off. Good night. http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=126 Here you can learn a little about how people debate on these boards. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were belthazzar's alternate screen name. But you're innocent 'til proven guilty, so I won't accuse you. And also, in hockey, when someone's shinguard falls off, you don't ignore it. You hack the bone. HACK! THE! BONE! (Sorry, it's just so fun to say that) Anyways the same applies to debates.
belthazzar1113 06-18-06, 01:39 PM	I don't lie, Bel. Please refer to your first post on this board (I don't know how to use the 'Quoted by...' thing on boards), fourth post on page one. Look familiar? this was the post where i learned you have to put sarcasum tags on everything or people like you won't be able to figure out its SARCASTIC. if you actually read the post you should be able to see that, but since people are just so fond of being literal and twisting everything to meet their own needs, here is the proof, this was sarcastic. end of story.
belthazzar1113 06-18-06, 01:42 PM	DnD morality isn't real life morality the system wasn't designed that way. Creatures can be "always evil", some people cannot wrap their minds around the fact that in a game, some things can be always evil. Always. This is becasue unlike real life Good and Evil are aboslutes the same way Gods and Goddess are. People can be devoted to good/evil and recieve power from it just the same way they could a god. In this sense good and evil is a tangible, they can be felt andd brought to bear In DnD you can be littery shown the power of good...or evil. This is how the system was written. Are there shades of grey? Sure, but the gaming system wasn't built for that, there are other systems to explore the darker side of good and the kindness of evil. This is why in DnD something or someone(the DM or RAW) can simply say something is evil. Assassins are evil, becasue DnD is a fake world designed to explore high fantasy, where good is good, evil is evil and women wear chain mail bikinis., Assassins are evil becaue it says so in the DMG Explorinng the moral implications of real life assasination while trying to use DnD leads to topics like this. thank you so much for putting it into words that didn't come from me. Since obviously people like to argue with me because its me i am glad someone else can finally just put it out there.
Kresalak 06-18-06, 01:50 PM	thank you so much for putting it into words that didn't come from me. Since obviously people like to argue with me because its me i am glad someone else can finally just put it out there. Errr, Bel? Your whole argument has been from your own system of morality...
Nephlite 06-18-06, 01:52 PM	No, you've committed an illegal act. Not an evil one. If you were sent as an Allied secret agent with a mission to assassinate Hitler, it's not a chaotic act either (you broke the laws of Germany but, then again, you never swore to uphold them in the first place - your allegiance is to the Allies). Whether the act is Good or Evil depends on why you killed him, or accepted the mission to kill him. This we can agree with. Or, in your opinion, is the 'good' option to simply sit back, negotiate futilely with someone bent on world domination, wait for him to start his war and initiate his Final Solution, then go on the attack, sacrificing the lives of millions of Allied and Axis soldiers and civilians (most of whom were probably entirely innocent) and condemning millions to Nazi death camps? As the saying goes, when good men do nothing, evil triumphs. And doing evil to stop evil helps evil triumph. :rolleyes:
Kresalak 06-18-06, 01:57 PM	I'm amazed at how many people on these forums believe that all violence is evil. Kinda scares me, to be honest.
belthazzar1113 06-18-06, 02:04 PM	Quote: Originally Posted by PoorHobo Vestigial - You are just as much into the argument as Bel, No your Logic is not perfect. More so than belthazzar's. this is going to be about your entire "someone tell me i am better than belthazzar, arguments. Its really sad that you need other people to approve of you so you can be convinced your right. If you want people to back you up then mabey you should try being slightly more coherent and actually make some real points instead of saying things that obviously make people distrust you. As far as all your bull about me being a bigot or whatever else, thats your opinion. I showed this to my friends and they got a great laugh out of it. There is a difference between hating a person for what they are rather than who they are. I don't judge you because you have been diagnosed with some random thing, i judge you because your an idiot and a jackass! LoL i could have gone on forever without hearing your feeble excuse and still thought you were a full blown nutball. at this point your just amusing me with your antics... screaming for people to tell you that your right and a good boy and whats the first thing that happens? someone else shoots you down, and even your supporters tell you to be silent. poor guy... if this is really how your life is mabey you should just stay off the boards. Oh, on the contrary. In D&D, we talk about the "moral and ethical axis". The moral axis is the good-evil axis, and the ethical axis is the law-chaos axis. This is how they are separated in D&D, which my argument is based on. again this is just your opinion on how the law chaos axis is ment to be taken, others use it to mean different things. and as you and others once told me, your basing your argument on definitions that others don't agree with. So the rest of your argument is invalid since its based on a false premise. "Creatures can be "always evil", some people cannot wrap their minds around the fact that in a game, some things can be always evil. Always.'' Assassins don't have to be one of those things. yes, yes they do. Assassins have to be evil. its in the class description. They made up a real world example and applied D&D morality to it. The act then sounded evil, but in the interest of a greater good. In real-life, the act would probably have been celebrated by almost the whole world and recognized as a good act. See the difference between D&D and real-life morality now? Just because the world might have celebrated it doesn't make it any less evil. Since you are so fond of real world examples. Take the dropping of the nukes on japan. It was known at the time that this would be a horrible terrible evil act. if you look at the presidents quotes about the event he knew he was unlocking a horror upon the world and doing something evil but he did it anyway probly thinking as you seem to that the history and the world would vindicate him. but what has happened? opinions on the dropping of the bonbs are STILL divided in the extream. yes some people think it was good and that it eneded the war, but we will never know if the war was about to end anyway. We can't go back and see how things would have played out if we hadn't done it and because it was such an evil act people are going to be guilty and divided about it for all time. So all of your "but what about this evil act for the greater good" examples pretty much sum up like this. If you do good then people know its good. If you do evil then people know its evil. When you try to use evil for the greater good then you get a tainted victory and people are uncomfortable with it. useing evil tactics even if for the greater good is still evil. why you fail to see that i can only assume is due to your stubborn relentless need to prove me wrong. Why can't a good person have the same abilities as the Assassin? He gets it from training. He could even develop the damn abilities himself. But no-o-o-o. Belthazzar can't have any of that, now can he? impliying that I can't have it because i am some vindictive megelomaniac is actually rather amusing in its utter insanity. But kets go with this idea. a non assassin develops and trains on his own evil abilities and he can be good. ok, then my lawful good wizard should be able to research and cast vile spells without having to worry about alignment drift either right? i should be able to flay flesh from living people, curs epeople to unrelenting agony, wither limbs still attached to living people, and unleash all the other horrors of vile spells but it doesn't matter if they are vile and evil since i have discovered them through training. somehow this seems like one of the dumbest things i have ever hear. the reson those spells are VILE is because they are evil and can't be cast unless your evil as well... the assasin gets so good at killing because they are evil and can be cold blooded about snuffing a life. is it training? yeah partly, but then its also the willingness to be completely certain about taking a life out of the world without hesitation. thats part of the evil that you can't mimic. if you lose that cold blooded selfishness you can't make death attacks anymore because your going to feel something for your victim.
belthazzar1113 06-18-06, 02:07 PM	I'm amazed at how many people on these forums believe that all violence is evil. Kinda scares me, to be honest. and i was amazed that people came out with "the ends justify the means" and "murder isn't evil" as real legitimate arguments and no one but me said anything about it.
JellyPooga 06-18-06, 04:14 PM	I haven't read all 7 pages of this thread (I don't have the time), but has anyone mentioned the fact that 'death attack' does not neccesarily kill someone? You can choose to use it to knock your opponent out instead.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-18-06, 04:23 PM	this is going to be about your entire "someone tell me i am better than belthazzar, arguments. Its really sad that you need other people to approve of you so you can be convinced your right. You seem to have a habit of misunderstanding what I say. I'm telling other people to tell you that my arguments are valid, because you obviously don't trust me. I don't know why you don't trust me, as I have not done anything to deserve your mistrust, much less given invalid arguments. If you want people to back you up then mabey you should try being slightly more coherent and actually make some real points instead of saying things that obviously make people distrust you. That's something you're guilty of, but not me. You're the one whose posts are just laced with inconsistency and double-standards. As far as all your bull about me being a bigot or whatever else, thats your opinion. I showed this to my friends and they got a great laugh out of it. There is a difference between hating a person for what they are rather than who they are. Your friends are bigots, too. When I told you that I had APD, you flamed me more than ever, telling me that I deserved to be flogged for being ill (Yes, the illness warps what would otherwise be a healthy personality into something that people hate). Hate the illness, not the patient. And as a fun fact: One's friends tend to agree with you when you tell them your opinion. I managed to get my friends to tell me the truth about their opinions, and many of them disagreed. I'm still their friend, because philosophical opinions are not what matters in a friendship. So don't dump your friends if they turn out to not agree with you after all. I don't judge you because you have been diagnosed with some random thing, i judge you because your an idiot and a jackass! And I'm an "idiot" and a "jackass", according to you at least, because that's how you perceive me. If you think I can choose to act in some other way, you're even more of a bigot than I previously thought. LoL i could have gone on forever without hearing your feeble excuse and still thought you were a full blown nutball. Wow... I'm a nutball. I'd think you'd say something like that to your friends, not to my face. But anyways, it only strengthens my case that you should be banned. at this point your just amusing me with your antics... screaming for people to tell you that your right and a good boy and whats the first thing that happens? someone else shoots you down, and even your supporters tell you to be silent. My logic has not been "shot down" by anyone. And the only person who's told me to be silent was you, and that's only because you hate mentally ill people. poor guy... if this is really how your life is mabey you should just stay off the boards. I've been here longer than you have and you're the first person who has actually told me to leave. The fact is that your intolerance is not uncommon, but the social stigma of discriminating against the ill has during the last few decades become mor prevalent. And those people who openly discriminate against the ill people, are just hated, and rightfully so. again this is just your opinion on how the law chaos axis is ment to be taken, others use it to mean different things. But, since we can't agree on what definition we should use, we automatically assume the standard definition. That's how it works, and that's how it should work. You're obviously not arguing against me, because you're effectively arguing a different case. I'm arguing according to D&D morality, you're arguing according to your own moral code. That code also happens to be self-contradicting, naive, and just overall inane. and as you and others once told me, your basing your argument on definitions that others don't agree with. Oh no. I told you that you're basing your argument on definitions that other don't agree with. So the rest of your argument is invalid since its based on a false premise. No, that would be your argument. You argue according to your own morality and think, in your arrogance, that other people should also argue according to your morality. In other words "you're right according to yourself". yes, yes they do. Assassins have to be evil. its in the class description. Yes, according to RAW. But there's nothing unbalancing about letting those roleplaying requirements slip. Just because the world might have celebrated it doesn't make it any less evil. I never said that. I was defending the argument. I didn't come up with it. The argument was coming up with a real-life example, and then comparing it with D&D morality and real-life morality. It's not the best logic, but not half bad either. Since you are so fond of real world examples. Take the dropping of the nukes on japan. It was known at the time that this would be a horrible terrible evil act. if you look at the presidents quotes about the event he knew he was unlocking a horror upon the world and doing something evil but he did it anyway probly thinking as you seem to that the history and the world would vindicate him. but what has happened? opinions on the dropping of the bonbs are STILL divided in the extream. yes some people think it was good and that it eneded the war, but we will never know if the war was about to end anyway. We can't go back and see how things would have played out if we hadn't done it and because it was such an evil act people are going to be guilty and divided about it for all time. That just shows how people have different senses of morality. You can't expect everyone to have the same opinions about everything. I don't care about the bombing. I don't want it to happen again, but it also happened way before I was even born. It doesn't concern me. Again, I don't want any of this to happen again, and I'd probably go primal on the president's ass if he did it to anyone I knew. So all of your "but what about this evil act for the greater good" examples pretty much sum up like this. If you do good then people know its good. If you do evil then people know its evil. You know, just because most people think something is evil, it doesn't make it so. That's called "Appeal to Majority" and is a logical fallacy. Remember that. I also didn't come up with that example, so you'll have to address the people who did. When you try to use evil for the greater good then you get a tainted victory and people are uncomfortable with it.[/QUTOE] But it is in no way less of a victory. :) I also don't believe in the whole "greater good" thing. People should not expect, nor rely on that one man will take a fall for the rest. And sacrificing minorities (as in groups that contain fewer people, not African-Americans or other 'Minorities') is just a load of crap. [QUOTE]useing evil tactics even if for the greater good is still evil. But what is evil tactics? I want to hear your definition of evil tactics. And if you say: "Death Attack, because it is sneaky", then I'll point you to Sneak Attack, which is just as sneaky. Exploiting a weakness is never a bad thing. Especially in love, war and debates. why you fail to see that i can only assume is due to your stubborn relentless need to prove me wrong. I'm wrong according to you. I've now read your posts, and they don't prove jack. Well, okay, they prove one thing: You're no good at debates. impliying that I can't have it because i am some vindictive megelomaniac is actually rather amusing in its utter insanity. Oh, I meant you can't have that, as in you won't tolerate that. But kets go with this idea. a non assassin develops and trains on his own evil abilities and he can be good. Yes. ok, then my lawful good wizard should be able to research and cast vile spells without having to worry about alignment drift either right? Well, he is a Wizard. I don't remember whether casting vile spells makes you evil or not, but they were kind of "awesomely evil". If they only differ in effects, and only have the [Evil] descriptor, then no, he wouldn't have to worry about becoming evil. Not by RAW, at least. You're free to houserule whatever you want, though. i should be able to flay flesh from living people, curs epeople to unrelenting agony, wither limbs still attached to living people, and unleash all the other horrors of vile spells but it doesn't matter if they are vile and evil since i have discovered them through training. Again, I don't remember if vile spells work differently in alignment mechanics, but if they don't, then go right ahead. I'd still houserule vile spells to slowly make you more evil, considering that they are kind of overkill. somehow this seems like one of the dumbest things i have ever hear. the reson those spells are VILE is because they are evil and can't be cast unless your evil as well... You're confusing a divine power source with the source of training. A Wizard that casts vile spells is effectively just taking evil energies and using them. He's manipulating them because he can. A Cleric would never be allowed to cast such spells, because his spells are granted by someone who he is powerless without. the assasin gets so good at killing because they are evil and can be cold blooded about snuffing a life. Cold-blooded killings are what adventurers do every day. is it training? yeah partly, but then its also the willingness to be completely certain about taking a life out of the world without hesitation. It's called "killology". That's the word for training that soldiers go through. The objective of that training is to dehumanize the enemies that the soldiers will face. A good Assassin could be an ex-soldier who has learned the art of killology and retained some training from the war. It could also be that the same Assassin had been trained as a commando or Spec-Op thats part of the evil that you can't mimic. Oh, that's just the vanilla evil of D&D. if you lose that cold blooded selfishness you can't make death attacks anymore because your going to feel something for your victim. I'll refer you to my killology explanation above.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-18-06, 04:25 PM	and i was amazed that people came out with "the ends justify the means" and "murder isn't evil" as real legitimate arguments and no one but me said anything about it. That's because they had excellent explanation of how it wasn't really evil. I don't think murder is inherently evil, either. I'll tell you that I don't approve of it in any way, though.
GhostStepper 06-18-06, 04:26 PM	I'm amazed at how many people on these forums believe that all violence is evil. Kinda scares me, to be honest. I guess Jesus would have made you pee your pants in that case. lol
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-18-06, 05:13 PM	You have been a royal jerk, you have started and persisted in the name calling, and you have argued points that are obviously wrong simply because you have a need to argue If you want o disregard anything that is offical material that might damage your argument you are of course free to go ahead and do so. Just like i am free to laugh at you for what amounts to sticking your fingers in your ears and humming whenever anything that you don't agree with is said. the idea of "if its not core its wrong" is flat out stupid. There is a reason there are more books after core. Core doesn't cover everything. You want a reason from the core book. ASSASIN: ALINGMENT: EVIL. end of sotry if you want to take core as gossple. assasins are evil, end of story. now if you want to talk about ideas, but you only want to talk about your specific little ideas and ignore ANYTHING else that might conflict with those poorly worded moral justification, well then why do you even bother asking others? just do something backwards and hope no one calls you on it. Not name calling, per se, but definitely the first step on the road. you could argue that I started the sarcasm, but the quote immediately above is the first one that's just plain rude. And you have not yet posted one reason why Vestigial's arguments are invalid or unsound. Nor have you given a valid reason why death attack is evil that has not been pointed out to be wrong. On a different note (where'd that saying come from, anyway?), I have a problem for you, Belth. You've time travelled to Germany and want to stop WWII. You're quick to condemn the path of killing Hitler, but what would you do? Continue the pointless negotiations that you know will fail? Let the armies clash, killing numbers of people that you'd need scientific notation to conveniently estimate? Kill all of everyones' armies yourself to keep the war from happening? What? Originally Posted by Watchdog_of_Hades (too lazy to find the post, so here's the basics of what it said) Let's use that logic more, shall we? {insert straw man argument} I've just proven that your logic is invalid. actually you just put words in my mouth, and then disproved it. That doesn't amount to much at all. I beg to differ. No, the Slayer doesn't have death attack. But, it does explicitly say that they are assassins, albeit good ones this only reenforces my point. They are assasins, and they don't get death attack. There is a reason for this and i know you can draw the line and make the connection here.
belthazzar1113 06-18-06, 05:41 PM	I really could go through all of Vestigial_Thumb's arguments and show them to be false... again. but considering that he is working with situational ethics, and can't belive that anything could possibly different than the wild interpretations that he holds as gossple then i don't htink there is much point. Working on completely different pages and in completely different worlds. You will never be able to see reason and will never have any concept of what any of this debate has been about. You are not simply Amoral. even an Amoral person can be shown what good and evil are, what is moral and what is not. You are willfuly ignorant. You can be shown what is moral and what is not and yet you persist on saying your right when by your own admission you can't tell good from bad. You are like reasoning with a brick. I apologize profusely, I was basing all of my arguments on the assumption that you had the ability to reason. I was mistaken in that regard, and will be simply ignoring you as best as possible from now on. I do hope you get help, and manage to not hurt everyone around you because you don't know right from wrong. JellyPooga I haven't read all 7 pages of this thread (I don't have the time), but has anyone mentioned the fact that 'death attack' does not neccesarily kill someone? You can choose to use it to knock your opponent out instead. yes, i brought it up earlyer, and posted an assassin that used that version of death attack and didn't use poision and didn't have an alignment restriction. WHen i and other speak about the moral evil of death attack we refer only to the killing option of it.
Kresalak 06-18-06, 05:46 PM	I guess Jesus would have made you pee your pants in that case. lol Well, a better description would be the possible repercussions of pacifism scare me, because someone who attacks you doesn't care one whit about your beliefs; if you don't fight back, you're effectively giving him the right to take whatever he wants from you. I believe all people should have some way to defend themselves, and that furthermore, the government should provide a safe place to live so that people need never have to defend themselves. Kind of a safeguard, if you will. As for Jesus, I'm an atheist anyway.
belthazzar1113 06-18-06, 05:53 PM	And you have not yet posted one reason why Vestigial's arguments are invalid or unsound. Nor have you given a valid reason why death attack is evil that has not been pointed out to be wrong. first the whole highlight and make it big so it looks importaint trick really only makes you look like a screaming child. so lets go ahead and stop that mess shall we? second just because someone points out they disagree doesn't invalidate the point. I disagree with your assertion so does that mean i am right? no. It means that we differ in this matter. If you wantt o just say i am wrong because you say i am wrong then feel free, that doesn't make it so. I have a problem for you, Belth. You've time travelled to Germany and want to stop WWII. You're quick to condemn the path of killing Hitler, but what would you do? Continue the pointless negotiations that you know will fail? Let the armies clash, killing numbers of people that you'd need scientific notation to conveniently estimate? Kill all of everyones' armies yourself to keep the war from happening? What? this is quite simply a loaded question. but sure why not answer something totally off topic because its hillarious. Depending on when it was I don't think it would have mattered if i killed hitler or not. The times were right for a fuer. A hitler like persona to rise up and lead germany on a rampage of revenge for the economic and political whipping it took after WWI. If not a painter from austria then a street sweeper in viena... It would have been someone. Thats my personal opinion on the matter. Most probly i would have shot him anyway on the off chance i was wrong. And since this is time travel a whole new world of moral ambiguity opens up which means going back in time to kill hitler wouldn't even be an evil act since you DO know what he will do, but then your responsible for any evil that errupts from that act, like perhaps his generals fighting over the remains of the empire and causing a civil war killing millions of germans. moral questions abound!! so whats your point sherlock? trying to get me to say assassination isn't evil? lol, going back in time negates it being a real assassination. your example is flawed and pointless. hope you enjoy trying to make a triumphant point out of this pile of mush.
Kresalak 06-18-06, 05:57 PM	I really could go through all of Vestigial_Thumb's arguments and show them to be false... again. but considering that he is working with situational ethics, and can't belive that anything could possibly different than the wild interpretations that he holds as gossple then i don't htink there is much point. First things, first. Please, capitalization. It makes your post sooo much easier to read, Second, you've never shown V_T's arguments to be false. You've claimed to, but you never have. However, if you turn your statements around, he has shown you to be incorrect and you're the one working with your own code of morality, while he stays within D&D's horrible system. Working on completely different pages and in completely different worlds. You will never be able to see reason and will never have any concept of what any of this debate has been about. You are not simply Amoral. even an Amoral person can be shown what good and evil are, what is moral and what is not. You are willfuly ignorant. You can be shown what is moral and what is not and yet you persist on saying your right when by your own admission you can't tell good from bad. You are like reasoning with a brick. You have no idea what amoral means, do you? You don't really have an argument here, just insults that apply much better to yourself, so... I apologize profusely, I was basing all of my arguments on the assumption that you had the ability to reason. I was mistaken in that regard, and will be simply ignoring you as best as possible from now on. I do hope you get help, and manage to not hurt everyone around you because you don't know right from wrong. I'm drowning in the irony here. yes, i brought it up earlyer, and posted an assassin that used that version of death attack and didn't use poision and didn't have an alignment restriction. WHen i and other speak about the moral evil of death attack we refer only to the killing option of it. I still don't get why killing someone with death attack or using poison is evil. It's not nice, but that doesn't make it evil. And again, for the love of humanity, at least try to use correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation!
der_gogo 06-18-06, 06:02 PM	With my example of bringing the assassination of Hitler in, I just tried to bring some stuff in that everyone would have knowledge of in order to create a basis that all are on the same page. But if you don't want to use real-life examples, exchange Hitler for Hi'Tl0r the evil Black Dragon, ruler of the kingdom of the Duidtschlands. Voila, an RPG example for you... The points still stands the same... Bringing time-travel in just complicates everything, we can leave this part out :P Stealing is evil, but if you do it to nourish the poor, its a good act. Same, on a more extreme angle, is assassination. And on Death Attack: Why is Death Attacking someone more evil than roasting him with fireball or chopping him down with an axe???
GhostStepper 06-18-06, 06:20 PM	Within DnD concept of 'evil', assassination can't be seen as 'evil'. Good characters randomly kill sentient beings all the time and they still remain 'good' so why is does an assassin need to be evil to do the same thing the party paladin has been doing whole campaign?
Nephlite 06-18-06, 06:23 PM	Well, a better description would be the possible repercussions of pacifism scare me, because someone who attacks you doesn't care one whit about your beliefs; if you don't fight back, you're effectively giving him the right to take whatever he wants from you. I believe all people should have some way to defend themselves, and that furthermore, the government should provide a safe place to live so that people need never have to defend themselves. Kind of a safeguard, if you will. As for Jesus, I'm an atheist anyway. Jesus wasn't a pacifist. He was a warrior. He came with a sword not a dove. He fights with a whip dagger in his temple also. He does believe that violence shouldn't be first choice in a decision. But that is logical. der_gogo: With my example of bringing the assassination of Hitler in, I just tried to bring some stuff in that everyone would have knowledge of in order to create a basis that all are on the same page. But if you don't want to use real-life examples, exchange Hitler for Hi'Tl0r the evil Black Dragon, ruler of the kingdom of the Duidtschlands. Voila, an RPG example for you... The points still stands the same... Bringing time-travel in just complicates everything, we can leave this part out Stealing is evil, but if you do it to nourish the poor, its a good act. Same, on a more extreme angle, is assassination. Stealing is chaotic not evil. If your intentions are to do evil with it that makes it evil. Just like sword.
GhostStepper 06-18-06, 06:23 PM	Jesus wasn't a pacifist. He was a warrior. He came with a sword not a dove. He fights with a whip dagger in his temple also. He does believe that violence shouldn't be first choice in a decision. But that is logical. LOL
belthazzar1113 06-18-06, 06:25 PM	Stealing is evil, but if you do it to nourish the poor, its a good act. Actually this is one of the oldest moral debates in history. if stealing is wrong is stealing to save your starving family right? or it is the breadmaker who is wrong for keeping bread that could save starving familys who is wrong and so is stealing because he should just give you the bread since your need is great? or mabey its your fault for not providing for your family better and now your compounding that mistake by stealing. its one of the oldest ethical circles in existance and there really isn't an end to it. You can say this group or that group thinks a certain way, or you can give your reasoning, but then it all starts to fall apart when you extrapolate those morals into other situations as far as why death attack is more evil than using an ax or a fireball.... i refer you to my previous posts as to why this is so. I answered this SPECIFICALLY twice already.
belthazzar1113 06-18-06, 06:28 PM	Second, you've never shown V_T's arguments to be false. You've claimed to, but you never have. However, if you turn your statements around, he has shown you to be incorrect and you're the one working with your own code of morality, while he stays within D&D's horrible system. here we go, sticking to the rules. DnD uses a fixed moral system. some things are always good, somethings are always bad. as defined by the terms "Always good" and "always evil" in the MM for example. Some classes are always good or always evil. The paladin is "always good" as defined by his good alignment requirment. The assasin is defined as "always evil" because of his evil alignment requirment. if you want to stick to DnD system then thats the end of the debate. Have you heard of a good Assassin? no i haven't because they are required to be evil as per their class requirments.
GhostStepper 06-18-06, 06:38 PM	if you want to stick to DnD system then thats the end of the debate. Have you heard of a good Assassin? no i haven't because they are required to be evil as per their class requirments. The whole debate is assuming we are using the DnD system. If you stick with the D&D deffinition of whats good and evil, theres no reason to require an assassin to be evil even though there its supposed to be a requirement. Theres no need to even drag real world moral and ethical issues into it since we are all working within DnD's moral and ethical structure.
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-18-06, 07:13 PM	as far as why death attack is more evil than using an ax or a fireball.... i refer you to my previous posts as to why this is so. I answered this SPECIFICALLY twice already. He's right, guys. I think that his argument went something like this: Death attack: if you roll all ones on damage and the guy makes his save, he might survive and have to deal with the horrible agony of being stabbed for days. Axe: max damage plus critical? That guy's gonna drop like a stone. Minimum of pain. Melf's Acid Arrow: max damage plus critical? That's 16 damage! If you run around hitting peasants (14 damage kills them), you cause almost no pain! Fireball: guys, this is 10d6 damage. Nobody survives that! Dead in an instant! Bam! Summary: death attack causes pain. Axes, fireballs, and acid arrows don't. Neither does being hamstrung by a rogue with the Hamstring feat (I explained that above). Neither does having your muscle tissue dissolved by a couatl's venom or your nervous system sending signals at random, causing you to lose all semblance of coordination and making you spasm wildly, because of the ravage "golden ice" (again, see above. I explained it.). Can't you see why death attack is evil? I know. I'm a terrible, mean-hearted, insulting, unreasonable, vile, stupid, loopy, idiotic :censored:. Oh, well.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-18-06, 07:18 PM	I really could go through all of Vestigial_Thumb's arguments and show them to be false... again. You couldn't the first time. But I'm a nice person, so I'll let you try again. but considering that he is working with situational ethics, and can't belive that anything could possibly different than the wild interpretations that he holds as gossple then i don't htink there is much point. You're accusing me of something that only you have done again. I don't hold anything as gospel, either. Holding something as gospel means to treat it as law, and following it without question. I've made it clear that I don't hold a thing as gospel. You're the one who repeatedly comes up with the statement (spelled in trollspeak, the language that bel understands) "ASSASIN: ALINGMENT: EVIL". That's holding something as gospel and does not prove that Death Attack is evil. Working on completely different pages and in completely different worlds. You will never be able to see reason and will never have any concept of what any of this debate has been about. Now that is just judgemental and rude. I have been nothing but reasonable. You fail to even adress any of my points. You just re-read your straw men and ad hominems, which you apparently think is valid logic, and refer to them. I don't even know what you're specifically referring to, because you can't be bothered to quote a sentence or two about the gist of your argument. You are not simply Amoral. even an Amoral person can be shown what good and evil are, what is moral and what is not. No. An amoral person is just that: amoral. It means that he lacks the moral capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. It actually helps in logic debates to be amoral, because you're unbound by morality and can in a neutral manner support your case. Fun fact: According to D&D morality, you seem to qualify as Lawful Evil. That's the quintessential fascist, you know. And you'd think lawful people were better at logic than insane people. You are willfuly ignorant. You can be shown what is moral and what is not and yet you persist on saying your right when by your own admission you can't tell good from bad. But I understand the basic definitions of D&D morality. It's callled learning by heart. I just memorized the definitions, and I know how moral systems work. You are like reasoning with a brick. That's you. I apologize profusely, I was basing all of my arguments on the assumption that you had the ability to reason. That actually was part of my apology a few posts back. I was mistaken in that regard, and will be simply ignoring you as best as possible from now on. Fine. I'm not forcing you to listen to reason. I do hope you get help, and manage to not hurt everyone around you because you don't know right from wrong. That was uncalled for. Get off your high horse and realize that ill people need understanding, not to be pushed into institutions and locked away so no one has to look at them. I'll say this once, without knowing you (In the same way you judged me without knowing me), and basing it only on what I've experienced in interacting with you: You are an arrogant, closed-minded, irrational bigot. Don't expect me to come running to your help if you someday develop a mental illness. WHen i and other speak about the moral evil of death attack we refer only to the killing option of it. So the fact that it CAN be used to kill makes it automatically evil, huh? By that logic, swords are evil because they CAN kill. The same goes for cars. Don't worry, belthazzar! You can be redeemed! Just stop driving the cars. And don't use any husehold appliances. I realize the hyperbole and straw man tactic of the preceding statement, but it seems to be the only thing that belthazzar understands. you're the one working with your own code of morality, while he stays within D&D's horrible system. It's a bittersweet battle, Kres, it really is. And again, for the love of humanity, at least try to use correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation! I wouldn't even bother. I asked him to correct his grammar. His answer was the first insult of the thread. To the WizOs: Belthazzar1113 has trolled, flamed and committed repeated acts of hate speech towards a group. The fact that the group is not mentioned in the CoC, does not mean that it is not a valid minority. These are three reasons to ban him from these boards. He also seems to have a tendency to respond (Not limited to this thread) to ideas, creations (Not specific to classes), and discussions in a negative manner. I cannot cite any sources on that last accusation, so you're free to disregard it. But this thread should be enough.
belthazzar1113 06-18-06, 07:19 PM	I know. I'm a terrible, mean-hearted, insulting, unreasonable, vile, stupid, loopy, idiotic . Oh, well. here is what watchdog says "look i am going to make up something totally stupid, and then say its totally stupid and say that bel said it. HA i am a genius! see arn't i right? everyone tell me i am right" yeah, congratulations, you rival thumb for worst posts ever. he is still the champ, but your moving up in the standards.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-18-06, 07:24 PM	"look i am going to make up something totally stupid, and then say its totally stupid and say that bel said it. HA i am a genius! see arn't i right? everyone tell me i am right" Have you read your own posts? That's the exact thing you're guilty of. yeah, congratulations, you rival thumb for worst posts ever. he is still the champ, but your moving up in the standards. You have an unusually high standard when it comes to other people. You don't seem to hold yourself to that standard, either. That's just arrogant and hypocritical.
Kresalak 06-18-06, 07:39 PM	here is what watchdog says "look i am going to make up something totally stupid, and then say its totally stupid and say that bel said it. HA i am a genius! see arn't i right? everyone tell me i am right" yeah, congratulations, you rival thumb for worst posts ever. he is still the champ, but your moving up in the standards. His post was a hyperbole, and possibly a strawman. However, what you are saying is that Death Attack is evil because it involves the calculated, methodical killing of someone. I ask you now, how is that any different from Joe Paladin going into the BBEG's lair, killing all his guards in a brutal, painful, sword based manner (don't even try saying swords aren't painful), and then going up and hitting the BBEG with blow after blow until he drops? Here's a hint: it's more humane. Also, please tell me everything you believe Death Attack involves, so that I can prove that none of it is evil.
der_gogo 06-18-06, 07:40 PM	Well, I will end my participation here... :) @ Belthazzar1113: I think you have chosen a fitting avatar. Really could see you smiling like that when you have stated your point against us poor idiots... :D
belthazzar1113 06-18-06, 07:41 PM	No. An amoral person is just that: amoral. It means that he lacks the moral capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. It actually helps in logic debates to be amoral, because you're unbound by morality and can in a neutral manner support your case being amoral in a debate about ethics means you need to keep silent. If you can't tell one side from the other you shouldn't be arguing for or against either. With pure logic I can prove that you are alive and dead at the same time. Logic is not infallable, and you ahve run into one of the areas where logic itself very often leads to the wrong conclusion-- Ethics. But I understand the basic definitions of D&D morality. It's callled learning by heart. I just memorized the definitions, and I know how moral systems work. if you knew how moral systems worked you wouldn't be amoral. memorizing a description of a thing does not mean you know a thing. There are acts that can fit in the core definitions of both good and evil at the same time. That doesn't mean they are both, and it doesn't mean their are neither, it doesn't even make them neutral, it means you have to expand the definitions to include these new acts. You have not proved that you understand the basic definitions of DnD morality at all, as evidenced by the fact that murder (as dnd defines it) is evil, and yet you persist in arguing that murder is not evil. *shrug* you have ignored your own contradictions before That was uncalled for. Get off your high horse and realize that ill people need understanding, not to be pushed into institutions and locked away so no one has to look at them. perfectly called for. You have spent the last four posts lamenting your mental disorder (which is basically amount to you bein a certifiable jerk and then no one is allowed to say anything since its certified) and useing it as a crutch to prop yourself in the victims position. You have spent a great deal of time espousing how you are amoral and can't tell right from wrong. That makes you a danger to the people around you since you can't be trusted to know whats right and whats wrong. You need to be in a structured enviroment where you can work on this problem. The fact that i don't want to look at you or interact with you is personal, not based on your mental disorder. To the WizOs: Belthazzar1113 has trolled, flamed and committed repeated acts of hate speech towards a group. The fact that the group is not mentioned in the CoC, does not mean that it is not a valid minority. These are three reasons to ban him from these boards. He also seems to have a tendency to respond (Not limited to this thread) to ideas, creations (Not specific to classes), and discussions in a negative manner. I cannot cite any sources on that last accusation, so you're free to disregard it. But this thread should be enough. I haven't said anything that constitues hate speech since no one has come knocking at my door with a summons. I haven't said anything but called you out for being exactly what you are, a jerk. I discriminate against the willfully ignorant, and i discriminate against the cronic annoyance. Both groups which are prefectly acceptable to discriminate against. The idea that you can't discriminate against a group is pure hubris. Discriminating wrongfully is one thing, but you fall into the catigory of annoyance, unreasoning egomaniac, and whiney child. I definitly discriminate against those catigories of people. Mostly though, i just find the combination of everything you are to be directed souly at arguing unreasonable points to keep anyone from moving on with an idea. if you really want to "take the high road" as you put it. then let it go. Leave and don't post anymore. You have made your point to the best of your limited ability, now let it go. You don't need to post anymore unless you WANT to continue the insults and you want to keep a fight going. Your free to leave at anytime. So if your taking the high road, take it and be gone. you want to stay in dnd RAW, then no the assassin PrC can't be good since it requires the evil alignment. You want to go outside RAW and make a Assassin style PrC that has a good or neutral alignment, I posted up a suggestion that was tactly ignored in favor of flaming the rest of my posts, scroll back around page 4 and it should be there. It is my position that death attack and poision use are evil abilities and a class devoted to these abilities must be evil if you use the standard alignment system. Replacing these abilities allows for a more neutral or good aligned assassin. Though I personally disagree with that sort of flavor, its not mechanically unbalancing, nor have i argued aginst it at any time. These are my positions stated as clearly as possible. If you want to know why death attack or poision are evil then i have posted those answers up previously in this thread. As far as the flamers and insane arguments, all of those are pointless tripe, and can be ignored.
belthazzar1113 06-18-06, 07:48 PM	@ Belthazzar1113: I think you have chosen a fitting avatar. Really could see you smiling like that when you have stated your point against us poor idiots... :D lol, yes indeed. though it would be a more world weary look after dealing with the folks in this thread.
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-18-06, 08:07 PM	here is what watchdog says "look i am going to make up something totally stupid, and then say its totally stupid and say that bel said it. HA i am a genius! see arn't i right? everyone tell me i am right" Really? Here's the link. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9421609&postcount=211) 'Course, you'll probably edit it, but that's fine by me, because by then enough people will probably have read the original version that about the entire human population will know that you did, except that you will steadfastly repeat that everyone has eye problems and should really see doctors. You're funny. You really are. I can't help but laugh when I use reason and it is studied carefully by the person I'm reasoning with, and then, when the proof I give is found to be ironclad (or even goldclad or leadclad; geez, even waterclad), I am flamed. The fact that you are unable to refute my logic is proven by the fact that your posts regarding me have deteriorated to endless insults and no actual responses to my reasoning. And the avatar is appropriate; however, it's more the cheese that makes me say so than the smile. I freely admit that my posts are filled to the brim with vitriol and sarcasm; however, I still have content, as opposed to the time-tested, "This is what he said, 'mruglework' lol" posts of yours that do not address the issue. Again, have a nice day.
belthazzar1113 06-18-06, 08:22 PM	what proof? all i see if you misquoteing and making up things and then saying look how this is so wrong. thats not proof that just grandstanding. you want me to slap you on the back and say boy howdy you were right? then be right about something.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-18-06, 08:34 PM	being amoral in a debate about ethics means you need to keep silent. If you can't tell one side from the other you shouldn't be arguing for or against either. So I can't have an opinion, or do you just don't want me to express it? You're telling me to stay silent without having said anything intelligent yourself. Ask anyone. They'll tell you that you've been an arrogant bigot and a total jerk. With pure logic I can prove that you are alive and dead at the same time. No with your apparent logic. Logic is not infallable, and you ahve run into one of the areas where logic itself very often leads to the wrong conclusion-- Ethics. No, logic is not infallible, but it's the best thing we have to argue our points. if you knew how moral systems worked you wouldn't be amoral. Amorality is the quality of having no concept of right or wrong. However, "Amoral" must be distinguished from "immoral" in that amoral persons either do not possess ethical notions at all as a result of an unusual upbringing or inborn traits (see the so-called Antisocial personality disorder) or else do not subscribe to any moral code. This latter may in turn mean strong individualistic leanings that do not get codified into a universally applicable system. This is what it means to be amoral. You don't know what it means, so you don't get to decide how we define it. We're using the standard definition. memorizing a description of a thing does not mean you know a thing. Yes, you know some thigs, more specifically the things that are written. You don't have any deeper understanding than that. Luckily, the Core RAW clearly states what is considered good, evil, chaotic or lawful in D&D morality. This means that I can just think about an act, compare it to something that is stated in the RAW, and determine its alignment. I determine that Death Attack is utterly unaligned. Therefore none of the Assassin's class abilities are evil, so therefore it's safe to remove the roleplaying requirements, There are acts that can fit in the core definitions of both good and evil at the same time. That doesn't mean they are both, and it doesn't mean their are neither, it doesn't even make them neutral, it means you have to expand the definitions to include these new acts. And you don't get to decide, because We've seen what happens when you do. You have not proved that you understand the basic definitions of DnD morality at all, as evidenced by the fact that murder (as dnd defines it) is evil, and yet you persist in arguing that murder is not evil. How can I prove that I understand something. I can only prove I know something (By taking an exam, for example). That's unfair. And murder is defined as: In criminal law, murder is the crime of causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm, which is traditionally termed "malice aforethought". See? Murder is a legal term. The key is "without lawful excuse", which makes it chaotic. perfectly called for. You have spent the last four posts lamenting your mental disorder (which is basically amount to you bein a certifiable jerk and then no one is allowed to say anything since its certified) and useing it as a crutch to prop yourself in the victims position. Using something as a crutch would be something like an African-American saying: "You're arresting me because I'm black!" or "What? You want to oppress me some more?" You maliciously, willfully and blatantly targeted my illness, using it as an excuse to dismiss my arguments as "psycho babble". You have spent a great deal of time espousing how you are amoral and can't tell right from wrong. I have a hard time telling right from wrong. I also believe that people's gut is what they should trust. That makes you a danger to the people around you since you can't be trusted to know whats right and whats wrong. So, because I don't know it's "wrong", I'll take a chainsaw and saw off their limbs? Or maybe I'll just put poison in their food because they weren't particularly nice to me, asking me to go to the store and pick up some milk. You need to be in a structured enviroment where you can work on this problem. Riiight. My illness doesn't need treatment. Hell, it can't be treated. The only thing I can do is try to behave myself and hope people like you and my grandma don't talk to me. The fact that i don't want to look at you or interact with you is personal, not based on your mental disorder. I don't think that's entirely true. I haven't said anything that constitues hate speech since no one has come knocking at my door with a summons. I'm talking about hate speech according to the CoC. hate speech (e.g. racial, ethnic, sexist, homophobic and religious slurs) Note that it says e.g. That means that hate speech is not limited to those examples. You're a hate-mongerer :). I haven't said anything but called you out for being exactly what you are, a jerk. I discriminate against the willfully ignorant So you discriminate against yourself? You don't even try to read about APD or learn about its nature. You just judge me, and when you hear that my personality is ****ed up, you judge me even harsher, claiming that I'm using it as an excuse. It's a real illness, with very tangible symptoms! and i discriminate against the cronic annoyance.[QUOTE] Then also discriminate against yourself. [QUOTE]Both groups which are prefectly acceptable to discriminate against. It's never acceptable to discriminate. The idea that you can't discriminate against a group is pure hubris. Discriminating wrongfully is one thing, but you fall into the catigory of annoyance, unreasoning egomaniac, and whiney child. All discrimination is wrongful. I definitly discriminate against those catigories of people. That makes you a bigot. Mostly though, i just find the combination of everything you are to be directed souly at arguing unreasonable points to keep anyone from moving on with an idea. You're the one arguing unreasonable points. Leave and don't post anymore. You want me off the boards? You know, you can leave yourself. Don't expect someone else to leave just because you don't like them. You're only making a bigger ass out of yourself. You have made your point to the best of your limited ability, now let it go. I have a limited ability to reason. My amorality is exactly the reason that I'm good at arguing. You don't need to post anymore unless you WANT to continue the insults and you want to keep a fight going. You're the only one who keeps insulting. I stopped being hostile a few posts back, and I explicitly apologized to you for flamin you. Your free to leave at anytime. So if your taking the high road, take it and be gone. Hostility solves nothing. You're trying to drive me out, and it's not working. you want to stay in dnd RAW, then no the assassin PrC can't be good since it requires the evil alignment. Okay, this is the last time I'm saying this. I'm going to be very clear, so you can't in any way misunderstand me: Assassins have to be evil as it stands. Their abilities are in no way evil, however, and it would not be an unreasonable houserule to remove the two roleplaying requirements. We're arguing according to RAW, about whether it would be unbalancing to remove the two requirements. It's not. I'll also refer you to one example of how an Assassin could be good: It's called "killology". That's the word for training that soldiers go through. The objective of that training is to dehumanize the enemies that the soldiers will face. A good Assassin could be an ex-soldier who has learned the art of killology and retained some training from the war. It could also be that the same Assassin had been trained as a commando or Spec-Op I posted up a suggestion that was tactly ignored in favor of flaming the rest of my posts, scroll back around page 4 and it should be there. That PrC was not bad, but it was unneccessary. It is my position that death attack and poision use are evil abilities and a class devoted to these abilities must be evil if you use the standard alignment system. But they're not evil according to RAW, which we are arguing according to. As far as the flamers and insane arguments, all of those are pointless tripe, and can be ignored. Yes, you may all ignore any posts made by belthazzar1113.
Kresalak 06-18-06, 08:54 PM	being amoral in a debate about ethics means you need to keep silent. If you can't tell one side from the other you shouldn't be arguing for or against either. With pure logic I can prove that you are alive and dead at the same time. Logic is not infallable, and you ahve run into one of the areas where logic itself very often leads to the wrong conclusion-- Ethics. I refer you to this post, in which Thorak explains why logic is very important in discussions of morality. Link. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9408931&postcount=39) if you knew how moral systems worked you wouldn't be amoral. memorizing a description of a thing does not mean you know a thing. There are acts that can fit in the core definitions of both good and evil at the same time. That doesn't mean they are both, and it doesn't mean their are neither, it doesn't even make them neutral, it means you have to expand the definitions to include these new acts. You have not proved that you understand the basic definitions of DnD morality at all, as evidenced by the fact that murder (as dnd defines it) is evil, and yet you persist in arguing that murder is not evil. *shrug* you have ignored your own contradictions before Hint: D&D's morality system isn't yours. Changing it because you find it doesn't work is called "houseruling" and has no place on a discussion of the RAW. Which this is. It is a discussion on how, as per the RAW, there is no reason for the assassin's alignment restriction. perfectly called for. You have spent the last four posts lamenting your mental disorder (which is basically amount to you bein a certifiable jerk and then no one is allowed to say anything since its certified) and useing it as a crutch to prop yourself in the victims position. You have spent a great deal of time espousing how you are amoral and can't tell right from wrong. That makes you a danger to the people around you since you can't be trusted to know whats right and whats wrong. You need to be in a structured enviroment where you can work on this problem. The fact that i don't want to look at you or interact with you is personal, not based on your mental disorder. Here's a tip for debates: ad hominem attacks are a bad idea. I haven't said anything that constitues hate speech since no one has come knocking at my door with a summons. Err, what? What does that even mean? you want to stay in dnd RAW, then no the assassin PrC can't be good since it requires the evil alignment. You want to go outside RAW and make a Assassin style PrC that has a good or neutral alignment, I posted up a suggestion that was tactly ignored in favor of flaming the rest of my posts, scroll back around page 4 and it should be there. See above. It is my position that death attack and poision use are evil abilities and a class devoted to these abilities must be evil if you use the standard alignment system. Replacing these abilities allows for a more neutral or good aligned assassin. Though I personally disagree with that sort of flavor, its not mechanically unbalancing, nor have i argued aginst it at any time. These are my positions stated as clearly as possible. If you want to know why death attack or poision are evil then i have posted those answers up previously in this thread. Actually, they are evil if we use your alignment system. There is absolutely nothing evil about them as per the D&D alignment system. As far as the flamers and insane arguments, all of those are pointless tripe, and can be ignored. Irony!
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-18-06, 08:56 PM	what proof? all i see if you misquoteing and making up things and then saying look how this is so wrong. thats not proof that just grandstanding. you want me to slap you on the back and say boy howdy you were right? then be right about something. If you think I misquoted, follow these instructions. 1. Highlight my quote that you think is wrong. 2. Hold "control" and hit "c." 3. Click on my link. 4. Hold "control" and hit "f." 5. Hold "control" and hit "v." 6. Use your eyes. But upon some reflection, I do realize that I was making stuff up. I gave the wrong reasons for why things were or weren't evil. Oops. Oh, well.
The_Fireborn 06-18-06, 09:05 PM	Ok, guys. Lotsa flaming. Hurts my eyes. Please just cool down. However (there's always a however...)... belthazzar1113, I agree that nobody has really countered your arguments, but that's kinda due (I think) to that we may not be able to understand them. There's just a lot of going back to old topics, evading questions, etc. on both sides, I think. Let's just take things one at a time. How about this first one: belthazzar1113, why is death attack evil? Once he's given his reason, other people can argue with him. Now, it's just gotten off topic. And please stop the flaming.
GhostStepper 06-18-06, 09:53 PM	Why is this even an argument? There are no class features of the Assassin which require the class to be evil. Its just an arbitrary requirement for class entry. Lets review why the assassin shouldnt be required to be evil by DnD standards: - Death Attack: The monk has a death attack (quivering palm). Is the monk required to be evil? The death attack is just an efficient way to kill somebody, and guess what; every class kills sentient beings whether they are good, evil, or neutral. But the Death Attack is premeditated you say...so what? Paladins plan their attack when they kill things all the time. Having tactics does not make one evil. Maybe someone saw the assassin as being an evil class because he kills things, but every good character ive seen kills things. - Poison: Nowhere in DnD does it say using poison is evil. In fact, the ninja gets the exact same poison use ability as the assassin and they're not required to be evil. Once again, poison is just another efficient tool to hurt/kill someone and every class hurts/kills people. - Spells: I havent checked all the secondary books but just glancing at the Assassin spell list in the DMG i dont see a single spell that has the 'evil' descriptor. Maybe theres one in there i missed but still, a spell or 2 is hardly a major class feature in itself (spellcasting is the major feature). If someone wanted to run a good assassin they could just swap out a couple of evil spells if there actually were any. After all, the cleric has a ton of evil spells and they dont have to be evil or cast the evil spells on their list. The fact is that every supposedly 'evil' class feature an assassin has, other non-evil classes get. I would think the only way to peg the assassin is the flavor text and once again, someone who is precticed at killing things is simply good at the same thing the paladin or heroic rogue is good at. In DnD terms, there is no reason why an assassin should have to be evil.
shadow mage 06-19-06, 02:02 AM	So I'm up for a forum lock... seeing as how the arguing (not debating, which requires intelligent response from opposing parties, not from any single party versus another) will continue forever otherwise... Fact 1: Evidence, via examples and rulebook quoting, has been given for why assassins are not always evil. I can start linking if anyone would like. Fact 2: No evidence, via examples and rulebook quoting, has been given for why assassins must always be evil. If this is not the case, provide a linked post. Fact 3: Presenting arguments based solely on your interpretation of the rules, not on the rules as they are explicitly written, is invalid by default. Since interpretation can come differently as per the individual, the only single thing that binds us all to the same general game are the rules as written (RAW), so when arguing rule applications that is the only basis by which to argue. Unless you can effectively explain why your interpretation of the rules is universal, and thus applicable as an argument, argue using RAW. Simple. Fact 4: And this is the important one. Either let this thread die, annoy the WizO's enough to get it locked, or start debating legitimately (i.e., using RAW and not personal interpretation or personal feelings). This applies to everyone, because even those who have been debating and supporting/refuting claims/arguments have no business wasting their time in a fight that won't end. -Shadow Mage
GhostStepper 06-19-06, 02:27 AM	Fact 2: No evidence, via examples and rulebook quoting, has been given for why assassins must always be evil. If this is not the case, provide a linked post. Um...the DMG says assassins must always be evil. Its a class prereq. I can quote it if youd like. lol Note that this doesnt mean i think it makes sense but if you want RAW its spelled out pretty clearly. The reason why so many people arent just arguing by the RAW is that the very point of this thread is that people think the RAW is wrong because it doesnt refect the "reality" of the assassin. Personally i think you can make the case that the assassin shouldnt have to be evil by simply looking at DnD's deffinition of evil and applying it to the assassin as well as other non-evil classes, but some people think they need to drag real life ethical and moral issues into the discussion. I havent read the entire thread, but i have seen atleast a page of "i made my point and your wrong...no, YOURE wrong, my point is valid" without anyone saying anything that actually has anything to do with the topic. For me the soltion to this issue is pretty obvious just by looking at whats laid out in the rules and i wouldnt really care one way or another if this thread gets closed because of pointless bickering.
belthazzar1113 06-19-06, 02:47 AM	rather than try and come up with a new way to explain the obvious, i am going to use this thread to answer some questions and misconceptions. blocked to save space with multiple quotes. Also ignoreing the insane flaming and name calling. I am not going to bother to read the posts of people that can't do anything but take low shots or who use low tactics to try and prove a hazy point. - Poison: nowhere in DnD does it say using poison is evil? page 34, book of exhalted deeds. The use of poisons are evil. already posted this information several times. repeated again since people still haven't just read it. Spells: i havent checked all the secondary books then definitly take a look, the assassin get some of the most evil spells outside the Book of vile darkness. I posted a list back in the thread of spells that are evil for the assassin. reposted here since people are apparently too lazy to read the thread page 1. BoVD: angry ache, black bag (torture equipment), sacrifical skill, masochism, sadism, stop heart Libris mortis: blade of pain and fear, vampire fangs. Complete series: Spectral weapon, shadowform, snipers eye, snipers shot, heart ripper, cursed blade. spell compendium: dead end, ebon eyes, fell the greatest foe, phantom foe, spider poison, vulnerability How about this first one: belthazzar1113, why is death attack evil? read the description of death attack. The target must not be threatened by you. they must not know you are about to kill them, if they were threatening you and your friend they would most certainly be aware of your presnce and not be subject to the death attack. This ability is one of the major things that makes this class require evil. Its the ability to look at someone in cold blood and calmly carry out murder. This isn't defending yourself, this isn't defensind your companions, and whatever moral justification you can get after the fact doesn't change the fact that you stood next to someone and considered long and hard the best and surest way to end a life without them knowing you were ever there. Its not rage, its not panic, its cold calculated murder. and that is evil. Even if its the pursuit of a higher good its still evil since its murder. it might be less evil than NOT killing the target. But the lesser of two evils is still evil. death attack isn't ever going to be a defensive action. its never going to be something you do in the heat of combat. Its not something that you rely on to save life and limb. This ability is the essense of cold blooded killing distilled down into its mechanical essentials. Pick a target, study a target, choose your moment, and strike when they are vunerable. Its not about battle or being fair, its not about ridding the world of evil, its about a single moment in time when your looking a sentient being dead on and steeling yourself to expunge a life from the world. Its making a concious choice to kill without direct provocation. I don't see a way to describe or rewrite death attack to be anything but an evil act. death attack might not be explicitly stated to be evil, but then most actions arn't explicitly stated to be aligned. I am making an argument for why the death version of death attack is always evil. Saying that "its not in RAW" is like saying "eating live babies isn't in RAW as evil so it must be unaligned" not everything will be explicitly stated in RAW. You have to judge things on your own since no system can cover each and every thing you could possibly do, nor can you cover each aspect of each ability. Sneak attack can be an evil act or it can be a neutral act, or it can be a good act. There isn't room in the books to try and pin down the morality of each and every action, nor should there be since each game has different levels of morality they want to consider. But when you start going to change the morality and alignment of a class whos abilities are arguably evil then you have to look to see if those abilities really are evil and appropriate for a good character to have. Which is what i have done. RAW doesn't state one way or the other wether death attack is evil, I am making a case that yes in fact it is always evil. People forget that assassins in D&D (and most other contexts) are people who kill people for money. Not for rooting out evil or saving the world, but because someone wants someone dead and the assassin is the way to do it. That's Evil, no ifs ands or buts. If you want a secret "dark stalker" good guy who kills bad guys in sneaky ways, there are plenty of options ranging from rogue to shadowdancer to some PrC from the Book of Exhalted deeds, etc. DnD morality isn't real life morality the system wasn't designed that way. Creatures can be "always evil", some people cannot wrap their minds around the fact that in a game, some things can be always evil. Always. This is becasue unlike real life Good and Evil are aboslutes the same way Gods and Goddess are. People can be devoted to good/evil and recieve power from it just the same way they could a god. In this sense good and evil is a tangible, they can be felt andd brought to bear In DnD you can be littery shown the power of good...or evil. This is how the system was written. Are there shades of grey? Sure, but the gaming system wasn't built for that, there are other systems to explore the darker side of good and the kindness of evil. This is why in DnD something or someone(the DM or RAW) can simply say something is evil. Assassins are evil, becasue DnD is a fake world designed to explore high fantasy, where good is good, evil is evil and women wear chain mail bikinis., Assassins are evil becaue it says so in the DMG There's a substantial penalty. Assassins (the PrC) that become non-evil lose all of the class features of the Assassin class since an evil alignment is a prerequisite for the class. ...easily solved from page 24 of the PHB, and page 180 of the DMG. In short form, ex-assassins would retain BAB and Saves, but nothing else, from the Assassin PrC. That is what the books say, regardless of any given opinion.
GhostStepper 06-19-06, 03:12 AM	page 34, book of exhalted deeds. The use of poisons are evil. already posted this information several times. repeated again since people still haven't just read it. Ok. I dont have the BoED so never saw that. This still doesnt change the fact that the ninja class isnt required to be evil and it gets that exact same ability as the assassin. Apparently having the poison use class ability isnt enough to require a charater to be evil. then definitly take a look, the assassin get some of the most evil spells outside the Book of vile darkness. I posted a list back in the thread of spells that are evil for the assassin. reposted here since people are apparently too lazy to read the thread page 1. But none of those spells are core assassin. You can play a core assassin, cast every spell on the core list, and never cast a single evil spell. And as i pointed out, the cleric gets evil spells but you can still play as a good cleric and simply not take the evil spells. Saying that "its not in RAW" is like saying "eating live babies isn't in RAW as evil so it must be unaligned" not everything will be explicitly stated in RAW. Total straw man. No other classes routinely eat babies so this parallel has nothing to do with anything. You have to judge things on your own since no system can cover each and every thing you could possibly do, nor can you cover each aspect of each ability. Sneak attack can be an evil act or it can be a neutral act, or it can be a good act. There isn't room in the books to try and pin down the morality of each and every action, nor should there be since each game has different levels of morality they want to consider. Your presenting an excellent arguement for why Death Attack is not evil. I could elaborate, but what you quoted right there says it so well. [quote] But when you start going to change the morality and alignment of a class whos abilities are arguably evil then you have to look to see if those abilities really are evil and appropriate for a good character to have. Which is what i have done. [/sblock] This is true. Lets compare the Death Attack to another class ability: Quivering Palm. Its an instant death attack that the monk gets and the monk can be lawful good. Sure the monk doesnt have to sit and wait a few rounds to pull it off but how does that make it less evil? In fact, the monk can hit his foe with QP and tell him about how horribly he is going to die and let him live in terror for 15 days until he randomly activates it on a whim and drops him dead. As far as the assassin needed to remain evil to keep his class abilities i understand it works that way because evil is a class requirement. Im not arguing that point, all im saying is that there is no consistant reason based on class features for an assassin to have the arbitraty "evil" class requirement.
Grave_Accomplice 06-19-06, 04:12 AM	Has anyone heard of a way to make an Assassin character turn good? I was thinking something like Redeemed/Emancipated Assassin. Still get the Death Attack and all that but no longer has to be evil, kinda uses his abilities for death dealing for a more goodly cause. Anyone heard anything like this before? :confused: Their was a PrC created on a public borad called a sicarii. You could be lawful neutral. Being a good assassin is kind of a paradox. Sneaking around killing without proper provocation (if he threatened your organization on the street, why wait 'til he gets home to 'solve' the problem). I can see assassins being neutral, but good is too much of a stretch.
Sunrider 06-19-06, 05:03 AM	Actually this is one of the oldest moral debates in history. if stealing is wrong is stealing to save your starving family right? or it is the breadmaker who is wrong for keeping bread that could save starving familys who is wrong and so is stealing because he should just give you the bread since your need is great? or mabey its your fault for not providing for your family better and now your compounding that mistake by stealing. its one of the oldest ethical circles in existance and there really isn't an end to it. You can say this group or that group thinks a certain way, or you can give your reasoning, but then it all starts to fall apart when you extrapolate those morals into other situations In D&D, stealing isn't a question of morals, but one of ethics. Stealing is against the law (in most places) and against the code of conduct of most societies. In other words, it's chaotic. On the basis of all the posts you've made, it seems that you are very much of a Lawful bent (in D&D terms). Adherence to honour, to societal laws, etc. are all hallmarks of 'lawful' behaviour in D&D. You, however, are equating it to Good (which, in D&D terms, it isn't) - since Chaotic is the opposite of Lawful, you see it as Evil. Your personal definitions of Good, Chaos, Evil and Law are irrelevant in this debate - under D&D rules, dishonourable behaviour is Chaotic, not Evil, while honourable people are Lawful, not necessarily Good. As for ethics versus morals, think of it this way: Ethical/Lawful behaviour is very much about following codes of conduct, keeping your word, delivering what you promise and behaving in a fashion which is generally seen as 'honourable'. Moral/Good behaviour is about altruism, about caring for and acting in the best interests of others - in other words, putting others before yourself. Robin Hood is a classic example of someone who is moral, but not ethical. He steals from the rich and gives to the poor - this alleviates the suffering of the people, oppressed by a tyrant, but is in direct transgression of the laws and authorities of the time, as well as trespassing on the treasure hoards of quite a few wealthy people. Darth Vader is a classic example of someone who is ethical, but not moral (until he betrayed the Emperor, anyway). He delivered what he promised. He respected authority, and demanded respect when due. He kept his word to the letter, but twisted their meaning for his personal benefit (and to the disadvantage of others). Adolf Hitler (before turning insane) is another example. He was elected legitimately. He became Chancellor legitimately. He broke no laws in the process. Acting entirely within the law, he enacted 'emergency' legislation to make himself, effectively, German Fuhrer - then, once he was in that position, he used his new authority to do whatever he liked. 100% ethical, but also 100% immoral. As for the person who said Jesus would never advocate violence of any form -wasn't he the same guy who supposedly overturned all the tables in the temple, scattering currency and other trade goods all over the place, as a protest against the practices there? A classic example of a violent outburst, performed as an act of chaos, not evil. Edit: Any argument regarding alignment which requires BoED or BoVD to sustain it doesn't hold water. Those two books are so full of contradictions - both self-contradictions and contradictions with other sourcebooks - that they are nothing more than a source of crunch, not fluff (and rather ill-balanced crunch at that). I mean, poisons are evil? Coatli use poison. Then coatli must be evil. But they're always Lawful Good... :confused:
Sunrider 06-19-06, 05:21 AM	So I'm up for a forum lock... seeing as how the arguing (not debating, which requires intelligent response from opposing parties, not from any single party versus another) will continue forever otherwise... Fact 1: Evidence, via examples and rulebook quoting, has been given for why assassins are not always evil. I can start linking if anyone would like. Fact 2: No evidence, via examples and rulebook quoting, has been given for why assassins must always be evil. If this is not the case, provide a linked post. Fact 3: Presenting arguments based solely on your interpretation of the rules, not on the rules as they are explicitly written, is invalid by default. Since interpretation can come differently as per the individual, the only single thing that binds us all to the same general game are the rules as written (RAW), so when arguing rule applications that is the only basis by which to argue. Unless you can effectively explain why your interpretation of the rules is universal, and thus applicable as an argument, argue using RAW. Simple. Fact 4: And this is the important one. Either let this thread die, annoy the WizO's enough to get it locked, or start debating legitimately (i.e., using RAW and not personal interpretation or personal feelings). This applies to everyone, because even those who have been debating and supporting/refuting claims/arguments have no business wasting their time in a fight that won't end. -Shadow Mage I don't think anyone is disputing that, by RAW, the Assassin PrC class is always evil - it's stated right there in the DMG. What is being disputed are these two points: a) That assassination (as opposed to the Assassin PrC) is always an evil act, and that killing someone via sneaky means (sneak attack, sniping, poisoning, etc.) is a uniquely evil means of killing someone, as opposed to disembowelling them with a sword, killing them with Quivering Palm or roasting them alive with Burning Hands. (The two must be proven together since, if one argues that assassination is evil, but that killing them with a sword or spell is also evil, then the argument is moot, and you're essentially saying that all adventurers are evil). b) That the Assassin PrC should not, for mechanical reasons (as opposed to flavour or campaign setting reasons) have the 'Any Evil' alignment requirement, barring the requirement to kill someone for no reason other than to join the Assassins. In other words, if you get rid of the 'must kill someone to join them' requirement, the Assassin PrC has no mechanical reason to be restricted to those of Evil alignments only. Contention 'a' is easy to argue for, and difficult to argue against without changing the definitions of 'good', 'chaotic', 'evil' and 'lawful' as defined in RAW. Assuming contention 'a' holds true (and the balance of evidence in RAW is for it being so), then contention 'b' must also hold true.
Neverwrong 06-19-06, 05:27 AM	Assassins are good. Although the Dc for death attack does go a bit downhill with levels.
belthazzar1113 06-19-06, 05:38 AM	GhostStepper i would like to thank you for your well reasoned and interesting responses. If i may retort in a few places and agree in some others... This still doesnt change the fact that the ninja class isnt required to be evil and it gets that exact same ability as the assassin. Apparently having the poison use class ability isnt enough to require a charater to be evil. This has become a RAW conflict. the ninja gets poison use and is not required to be evil or even non good. Sage has come up specifically this month saying that poison use isn't evil for this very reason. However its still in the BoED that ability damage poison is evil to use. Sage obviously isn't the be all end all of rules mechanics, but its considered in the same ballpark as Core. This one is going to be a toss up for individual DMs and players to decide for their games. I think that both sides of this issue have compelling arguments. I tend to agree with my own reasoning because it makes sense to me, but alot of people will say "its a game and the rules state otherwize" quoting the sage, so again, a toss up. And while i Agree that having poision alone isn't enough to make a class required to be evil... it certainly doesn't help the case for it to be good does it :cool: But none of those spells are core assassin. You can play a core assassin, cast every spell on the core list, and never cast a single evil spell. very true, though I consider poison to be an evil spell for reasons stated above, but even barring that one spell the core assassin list is composed of mostly stealth and silence spells. If this were all you played with then i could see discounting this as a moral factor. Many classes rely on magic for stealth, but then you look at all the material presented for the assassin and the picture changes. When you look in the PHB you can see that there are few if any outright evil spells, especially those that a stealthy assassin would thematically cast. So their spell list was limited to stealth and subterfuge. But when you look at the expanding spell lists you see that it was clear the assassin was ment to have a great deal of the evil spell selection. This makes me conclude that the assassin spells were always ment to be on the evil side of things, the PHB just didn't have a wide enough selection to show this. Changing the spell list slightly would help allow a more neutral or even good aligned slayer style class, as i posted on page 4 of this thread. Total straw man. No other classes routinely eat babies so this parallel has nothing to do with anything. an over the top example to be sure, but it was done merely to make a point. Coup de Grace attacks are not considered to be evil aligned directly, but they are nearly always an evil act. There are exceptions to the general trend, but killing a helpless foe seems quite evil from the definitions of evil i have seen. Death attack falls into this same catigory in my opinion. There are some very very rare circumstances (lesser of two evils style circumstances) where it might be justified, but its always going to be evil. oh and if your really looking for classes that eat babies i am pretty sure there are a few disciples in the book of vile darkness that have that as an entry requirment :P Lets compare the Death Attack to another class ability: Quivering Palm. This is a good example of differing abilities having aligned qualities. Death attack IMO is always evil, whereas QP is sometimes evil. In your example where the monk lays in a QP and then lets the vic suffer in terror for two weeks and then slays them I would call that an evil act, and a pretty big one at that. Now if the monk hits a vic with QP and says something like "your already dead, i give you three days to get your affairs in order or to end your life in honor" then thats certainly not as bad. Borderline but not evil. And if the monk used QP for example as a form of controll, say on an assassin sent on a mission they may not want to go on (think escape from newyork) then the ability might be simply a threat that will never be used, bad certainly to threaten death, but not as evil as your example. Death attack on the other hand offers no such choice, it offers no such flexibility. You can't tell your victem that the attack is coming and let them prepare, you can't use it as a form of controll or intimidation, you can't even use it as a form of defense. It has to be used as a surprize attack that results in instant death. There isn't any wiggle room for other uses that would negate its being always evil. My point being, QP is sometimes evil, and Death attack is always evil. all im saying is that there is no consistant reason based on class features for an assassin to have the arbitraty "evil" class requirement. I definitly see how from your point of view this is a logical conclusion and am looking forward to hearing what you think of my response.
Sunrider 06-19-06, 05:45 AM	Or, in your opinion, is the 'good' option to simply sit back, negotiate futilely with someone bent on world domination, wait for him to start his war and initiate his Final Solution, then go on the attack, sacrificing the lives of millions of Allied and Axis soldiers and civilians (most of whom were probably entirely innocent) and condemning millions to Nazi death camps? As the saying goes, when good men do nothing, evil triumphs. And doing evil to stop evil helps evil triumph. :rolleyes: That depends whether you see assassinating Hitler as evil in the first place. I see it as (and D&D RAW would also see it as - I refer to the description of the Chaotic Good alignment in the PHB) Chaotic Good, provided you did it of your own free will and with the intention of saving lives and restoring liberty. Remember, in 1938, his agenda was clear. He had annexed the Sudetenland, despite all diplomatic efforts to stop him. He had made speech after anti-Semitic speech. Kristallnacht had occurred. Concentration camps had been set up. Political enemies had been rounded up and killed. Before the war, before the carnage, before the death camps, it was clear he was very evil and had the power to carry out his agenda. If assassinating him would be the 'evil' option, then what would be the other options? - Issuing an ultimatum - 'Cease and desist' - backed up by the threat of invasion. Even if the invasion succeeds, this would cost the lives of millions of Allied and Axis soldiers, many of the latter being innocent conscripts (or near-conscripts, being forced to join the NSDAP and/or Wehrmacht to maintain their social status in Nazi Germany). - Sit back and wait for him to move. This is the strategic equivalent of giving up both the surprise round and your Initiative roll. IRL, this is pretty much what happened. Results? Eight million Germans killed, twenty-five million Russians, who-knows-how-many-million Chinese, millions of Japanese, six million Jews... the list goes on. - Sit back, wait for him to move and, when he does, turn the other cheek, since resistance would involve killing, and you consider killing evil. End result? Germany takes over the world, hundreds of millions languish in slavery and the death camps get to work anyway. If you consider assassinating Hitler an 'evil' move, then the alternatives must be positively vile. As for comparing Hiroshima to assassinating Hitler (whoever made this comparison)... well, there just isn't any comparison. The former involves the indiscriminate killing of two hundred thousand, mostly innocent, civilians. The latter involves firing one bullet through one evil madman's heart, saving the world a lot of suffering. Not to say that Hiroshima didn't have mitigating circumstances, of course - after all, Operations Olympic and Coronet would have led to many more deaths (both Japanese and Allied) than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, as well as the certain Soviet capture of Hokkaido (and possibly Honshu) and the possibility of Tokyo becoming the Eastern counterpart to Berlin during the Cold War, but that's another argument entirely. The point is, one involves killing large numbers of innocent civilians to further a political agenda, however benevolent. The other involves killing a single, evil BBEG (ok, maybe not so Big, but certainly Bad, Evil and Guy) and ending, at a stroke, an entirely malevolent political agenda and saving the world a lot of pain and suffering.
belthazzar1113 06-19-06, 05:55 AM	Robin Hood is a classic example of someone who is moral, but not ethical. Darth Vader is a classic example of someone who is ethical, but not moral whew, bad examples. those are two i definitly disagree with for reasons in and of the examples themselves. to be brief, robin hood had very little choic in his manner of tactics, the king was away in the crusades and there was no other authority that he might apeal to, it became manditory to go outside the political law in order to follow a higher law and set things back right, and to defend his country from being sold out. Vader on the other hand had so much backstory and there is debate even now about why he became such a loyal minion of the emporer, not that he was particularly loyal, just that all he had was his girl, his goverment and his master, and his master got him to kill the girl and destoryed the goverment so all he had left, the only reason he had for being was to serve his master. Thats not particularly ethical or lawful, since if he was really ethical he would have killed the emporer sooner and taken over to make the empire as he was going to with his woman. again, example specific objections. as far as stealing goes, it was merely the catalist in a previous example, and not the point of the thread. Any argument regarding alignment which requires BoED or BoVD to sustain it doesn't hold water. Those two books are so full of contradictions - both self-contradictions and contradictions with other sourcebooks - that they are nothing more than a source of crunch, not fluff (and rather ill-balanced crunch at that). I mean, poisons are evil? Coatli use poison. Then coatli must be evil. But they're always Lawful Good... again, ignoreing published material might be the easy way to go, but its not going to amount to much. If you want to just ignore material then you can basically do anything you want and this entire discussion is moot since you can just change it all. So you can either take into account all material published on the topic, or you can only consider a tiny bit and consider yourself right because you edited out anything that might hint your wrong. as far as the Coatli having poision and being good. Snakes and other venomous creatures are morally neutral because they don't have controll over their biology. They use poison because its part of who they are. But when you ahve intelegence and choose to use poison then your committing an evil act. A coatli chooses when to use its poison and since its always lawful good it wouldn't just go around biting people, it would use that poison in teh same way a snake uses its, as part of its biology. It can't help it was built with poison anymore than you or I can help we were born with teeth capable of inflicing greivous wounds. But we can choose when and how we use that ability, which is why we have moral context. A Coatli can choose when it uses its poison and thus can also have moral context.
Sunrider 06-19-06, 05:59 AM	This has become a RAW conflict. the ninja gets poison use and is not required to be evil or even non good. Sage has come up specifically this month saying that poison use isn't evil for this very reason. However its still in the BoED that ability damage poison is evil to use. Sage obviously isn't the be all end all of rules mechanics, but its considered in the same ballpark as Core. This one is going to be a toss up for individual DMs and players to decide for their games. I think that both sides of this issue have compelling arguments. I tend to agree with my own reasoning because it makes sense to me, but alot of people will say "its a game and the rules state otherwize" quoting the sage, so again, a toss up. BoED and BoVD aren't core rules. Sage rulings are closer to core. Also, given all their contradictions regarding alignment, BoED- and BoVD-based alignment arguments really don't hold a lot of weight... And while i Agree that having poision alone isn't enough to make a class required to be evil... it certainly doesn't help the case for it to be good does it :cool: I refer you to the example of the Couatl. Always Lawful Good, uses poison in combat and has the intellectual capacity to make moral and ethical decisions. Coup de Grace attacks are not considered to be evil aligned directly, but they are nearly always an evil act. Your evidence for this? This is a good example of differing abilities having aligned qualities. Death attack IMO is always evil, whereas QP is sometimes evil. In your example where the monk lays in a QP and then lets the vic suffer in terror for two weeks and then slays them I would call that an evil act, and a pretty big one at that. Now if the monk hits a vic with QP and says something like "your already dead, i give you three days to get your affairs in order or to end your life in honor" then thats certainly not as bad. Borderline but not evil. And if the monk used QP for example as a form of controll, say on an assassin sent on a mission they may not want to go on (think escape from newyork) then the ability might be simply a threat that will never be used, bad certainly to threaten death, but not as evil as your example. Death attack on the other hand offers no such choice, it offers no such flexibility. You can't tell your victem that the attack is coming and let them prepare, you can't use it as a form of controll or intimidation, you can't even use it as a form of defense. It has to be used as a surprize attack that results in instant death. There isn't any wiggle room for other uses that would negate its being always evil. My point being, QP is sometimes evil, and Death attack is always evil. You still haven't offered any convincing evidence, only your personal opinions. Death attack is sneaky. Some cultures may consider it a dishonourable means to settle disputes (not all, though), since it gives the defender no chance of self-defence (that's how sneaky-types operate - fighters duke it out with muscle, rogues duke it out with brain). But, in no way is it any more evil than disembowelling someone with a sword, or allowing a magic arrow to pump acid into someone's chest for a number of rounds. It's an instant kill. If you disagree with this, then I look forward to hearing your case on why killing someone with a single, swift stroke, is more evil than hacking them to bits face-to-face with a sword, or melting them with a spell. And, given that you've said Wail of the Banshee is evil, I look forward to your arguments as to why killing people instantly and painlessly with a spell is more evil than roasting them with a Fireball (no doubt leaving lots of charred flesh, burned skin and survivors screaming in agony) or Bull Rushing them off a cliff.
belthazzar1113 06-19-06, 06:03 AM	as a side note could we mabey stop talking about natzi's? there is an old addage that onces ninjas natzis cyborgs and pirates enter a thread its dead in the water... and we are only only one warforged articifer / dread pirate away from terminal thread implosion here.... so can we knock of the assassinate hitler idea?
Sunrider 06-19-06, 06:45 AM	again, ignoreing published material might be the easy way to go, but its not going to amount to much. If you want to just ignore material then you can basically do anything you want and this entire discussion is moot since you can just change it all. So you can either take into account all material published on the topic, or you can only consider a tiny bit and consider yourself right because you edited out anything that might hint your wrong. I'm not so much ignoring it as I am pointing out the fact that those books (BoED being the worst offender) have so much self-contradicting and RAW-contradicting material in them that anything they say about alignment really doesn't hold much weight. The Couatl example is just one. Another is the issue of Poisons versus Ravages. For some reason, it says that poisons are evil - no reason given. Then it turns around and gives us Ravages - 'poisons' which inflict tremendous suffering and agony on their victims. (BTW, Exalted characters can use Ravages, and have a choice as to whether or not to use it on their foes - just like Death Attack/Sneak Attack/sniping/etc.). Then it gives us Good monsters which also use poison, and have the intellectual capacity to choose not to (but they use it anyway). In any case, the latest Sage ruling makes it clear that poison use isn't evil and, given the fact that Sage rulings in the past have been far less self-contradictory and contrary to other rules than the BoED, I consider him a far more credible source. as far as the Coatli having poision and being good. Snakes and other venomous creatures are morally neutral because they don't have controll over their biology. They use poison because its part of who they are. But when you ahve intelegence and choose to use poison then your committing an evil act. A coatli chooses when to use its poison and since its always lawful good it wouldn't just go around biting people, it would use that poison in teh same way a snake uses its, as part of its biology. It can't help it was built with poison anymore than you or I can help we were born with teeth capable of inflicing greivous wounds. But we can choose when and how we use that ability, which is why we have moral context. A Coatli can choose when it uses its poison and thus can also have moral context. Couatli use poison against their enemies. If it's evil to use poison, then coatli wouldn't use it, since they have the intellectual capacity to make that choice. But they do use it. If poison use truly is evil, then it would make couatli evil, since they choose to use it against their opponents. But, as per RAW, they are Lawful Good. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that poison use, in itself, is not an evil act, or even a chaotic one. Poison use is an act - whether it's good, evil, chaotic or lawful depends on the context in which it's being used, and the reason for its use. In other words, just like any other action. Hitting someone with a sword doesn't have an alignment. Neither does casting a Lightning Bolt at someone. It's the purpose for which you hit someone with a sword or fry them with a Lightning Bolt that makes the act good or evil. Actions don't have alignments - people carrying out these actions do, and the motives for which an action is carried out may have an alignment bias, but an individual action cannot have an alignment. Even torture doesn't have an alignment per se - what makes torture evil isn't the fact that 'it's torture, so it's evil', but the fact that the primary intent for torturing someone is to inflict agony.
belthazzar1113 06-19-06, 06:59 AM	BoED and BoVD aren't core rules. Sage rulings are closer to core. neither of them are core, and what weight you give to each is your own opinion and really can't be counted as anything but that. If you want to ignore one in favor of the other it just means the discussion is really moot. I don't consider sage core at all. Many rules clarifications are useful, but then many things sage say we totally disagree with. Warlock hideous blow for example is one that alot of people ignore even though sage says it provokes AoO alot of people say it doesn't. Sage is a good source, but its not core, and its not published material. Unless sage is clearing up errata then I will generally use published material over sage. And solid reason above both. I refer you to the example of the Couatl. Always Lawful Good, uses poison in combat and has the intellectual capacity to make moral and ethical decisions. i refer you to my post and comments on said couatl about its moral context. Your evidence for this? You seriously need evidence on why a coup de grace attack is usally evil? :confused: Killing a helpless opponent in cold blood is an evil act since you are choosing death rather than something more humane like capture or simply knocking them unconcious. To make a Coup de grace attack you need to have an opponent that can't fight back, if they can't fight back you are choosing the worst of all options for them out of everything you COULD do, this is choosing to be evil. I don't really think it needs to be explained anymore than that. If you disagree with this, then I look forward to hearing your case on why killing someone with a single, swift stroke, is more evil than hacking them to bits face-to-face with a sword, or melting them with a spell. Because of the death threshhold and the ability to defend one's self. If you hack at someone with a sword in honorable battle and they are fighting back and you overwhelm them then you win. Some hardliners will say combat is evil, others accept its a part of life. Dnd takes this latter track. But when you attack with a sword there is always the option to say "i strike for subdual" or hold back when you know your about to win to make sure your opponent is knocked into unconciousness rather than outright killed. When you fight with sword and spell you always have the option of holding back if you want, to make sure you don't kill but rather subdue your enemy. This means that every attack can't be termed always evil. Because attacking at full force against a fully healed opponent means you don't really think your going to kill him in one hit, your just trying to wear him down. WHen you get close though this is when morality starts coming into play. You always have the option to spare their life. In the heat of combat this is sometimes hard to judge and hard to do, which is why being in the heat of combat is a mittigating factor to killing another person. But with save or die effects, Death attack and wail of the banshee and slay living. your not simply trying to wear your oppoinent down, you are going to either kill them in a single shot or snuff their lifeforce directly. With death attack there is no way you can claim you were in honorable combat, you have to attack from either stealth or from plain sight as a betrayal. Your not stiking to subdue, your not striking to weaken your opponent, your striking to kill without mercy or hesitation. You have made the decision to take a life. That choice is evil, that choice colors that act evil, and with death attack you make that choice three times. three rounds the dm asks what are you doing to do and you reply study for a death attack, each time you reaffirm that you are going to kill in cold blood, and then finally the choice is finall and you attack. Irregardless of the outcome you choose the immoral, unethical act, and that is choosing evil. Save or die spells like wail of the banshee and slay living are the same types of things. There are many spells you might learn and cast, but those specifically kill by targeting the very life force of your target. there can be no more perverse act than to hold life in your grasp and crush it from existance with will power and arcane might. You choose to cast that spell rather than one that might spare your opponent death. Even fireball is still a better option since a power laden fireball will cause your enemy to surrender before your might, or fall into unconciousness where they can be captured and brought to justice or reconing beyond simply walking over and slitting their throat. This isn't just personal opinion, this is my reasoning. Take issue with the reasoning if you wish, but dismissing as just personal opinion ends the debate completely since everything that you say can and will have the same fate.
SalParadise 06-19-06, 07:16 AM	If a Paladin confronts a BBEG bound and gagged, and has witnessed him breaking a law of the land which carries a punishment of death, with the Paladin being granted the authority by the law to carry out that punishment, can it truly be seen as an 'evil' act rather than simply carrying out the law in the name of good?
Sunrider 06-19-06, 07:22 AM	If a Paladin confronts a BBEG bound and gagged, and has witnessed him breaking a law of the land which carries a punishment of death, with the Paladin being granted the authority by the law to carry out that punishment, can it truly be seen as an 'evil' act rather than simply carrying out the law in the name of good? That's not acting in the name of Good or Evil - that's acting in the name of Law, pure and simple.
Sunrider 06-19-06, 07:44 AM	Because of the death threshhold and the ability to defend one's self. If you hack at someone with a sword in honorable battle and they are fighting back and you overwhelm them then you win. Once again, honourable != good and dishonourable != evil. These are D&D definitions, not simply my own. By D&D definitions, you obviously follow a Lawful philosophy. That's fine - just don't equate it with 'good', simply because you follow it. But when you attack with a sword there is always the option to say "i strike for subdual" Not without taking -4 to your attack roll. This could easily mean the difference between victory and defeat. And, chances are, if you're fighting an equally-skilled melee opponent, you're both going to be low on hp at that stage. So, here's your choice - go for the kill and end the BBEG's reign of terror, or go for subdual damage, take the -4 to hit and increase your chance of missing, losing the fight, dying and allowing the BBEG to escape, heal up and continue his dirty work as if you'd never interfered? What do you do? or hold back when you know your about to win to make sure your opponent is knocked into unconciousness rather than outright killed. You don't know this. A solid hit can easily take off 40-50hp, or over 100hp with the right combination of feats and abilities. One hit and the enemy goes from 'fit and fighting' to 'dead'. When you fight with sword and spell you always have the option of holding back if you want, to make sure you don't kill but rather subdue your enemy. Not when attacks and spells can deal >100 points of damage. But with save or die effects, Death attack and wail of the banshee and slay living. your not simply trying to wear your oppoinent down, you are going to either kill them in a single shot or snuff their lifeforce directly. All this means is you're trying to kill them. In D&D, it's fairly clear that killing isn't evil. Why and who you kill is what makes killing a lawful, evil, chaotic or good act. With death attack there is no way you can claim you were in honorable combat, Once again, honourable != good. I suggest you re-read your PHB. you have to attack from either stealth And your problem with this is...? It's the smart way to fight. Every military force throught history has used it. It shows up in D&D. If you get a surprise round, you're at a huge advantage. If you win initiative, you're also at a huge advantage. or from plain sight as a betrayal. Again, re-read your PHB. Dishonourable actions aren't evil. Your not stiking to subdue, your not striking to weaken your opponent, your striking to kill without mercy or hesitation. How is this evil? In many situations, it's called smart. Your goal is to rid the land of a BBEG. If you've managed to sneak into the heart of your BBEG's stronghold, do you really think you can simply subdue him, tie him up and get out of there alive, carrying him as cargo, without him escaping? What exactly makes it more evil than walking up to the front door with an army, issuing a challenge and fighting a pitched battle that claims the lives of thousands on each side and, which, in the end, you may lose, allowing the BBEG to get away? It's not evil - it just makes more sense. You are, quite clearly, a very Lawful person, and have such a problem with dishonourable/Chaotic acts that you refer to them as Evil. A very common misconception... it also makes it very difficult for non-Fighter-types to be 'good' by your definition, since they're the only ones who are designed to prevail in a direct, face-to-face confrontation. Historically, Fighter-types ruled and, thus, set the rules for honour - by definition, Fighter-types are all good fighters, but not all of them are smart. So, because they couldn't defend against it, they considered sneaky tactics dishonourable... Killing and/or assassination are rarely Exalted actions. But that doesn't necessarily make them Evil. There are plenty of examples, in both fiction and fact, of sneaky, roguish 'assassins', ambushing rangers and guerilla commanders who could easily be classified as Good.
belthazzar1113 06-19-06, 08:23 AM	If a Paladin confronts a BBEG bound and gagged, and has witnessed him breaking a law of the land which carries a punishment of death, with the Paladin being granted the authority by the law to carry out that punishment, can it truly be seen as an 'evil' act rather than simply carrying out the law in the name of good? You seriously need evidence on why a coup de grace attack is usally evil? please understand i never said coup de grace was always evil, there are examples where its not. thats one of them. Read carefully and we can avoid misunderstandings :) Another is the issue of Poisons versus Ravages. For some reason, it says that poisons are evil - no reason given. BoED page 34. "Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent." reason given, next time finish the sentence. Then it turns around and gives us Ravages - 'poisons' which inflict tremendous suffering and agony on their victims. BoED page 35 "In contrast to deseases and poisons, all ravages and afflictions are supernatural." and same page, " Ravages and afflictions {are} magical tramas that turn the moral corruption of evil creatures into physical corruption that wracks their bodies." First ravages arn't poisons, they function mechanically similar but they are magical. Because of this magical nature they have a morality detector and work ONLY on evil creatures thus removing the possiblity that it can be used incorrectly. They have discrimination, which goes a long way towards proving they are a good aligned attack, very similar to how SMITE EVIL is good aligned since it can only work on an evil creature. Secondly i would like to call attention to the underlined portion of what makes poison evil. Undue suffering. Ravages specifically turn the moral corruption of a creature into physical corruption. This is damage they have brought upon themselves with their evil acts and deeds. Ravages are condenced karma, if your a good person or even an ambiguous person a ravage isn't going to do more than mabey get you wet or sticky, but if you have made a lifestyle choice to be evil then all the bad deeds you do come rebounding back on you. This isn't Undue suffering, this is overdue suffering. This is karma and justice all rolled into one nice sticky sword coating substance. The agony and suffering inflicted upon the victems of a ravage is agony and suffering they have put into the world. And in DnD's morality this amounts to justice, which is either lawful or good, but in no way evil. Then it gives us Good monsters which also use poison, and have the intellectual capacity to choose not to (but they use it anyway). First, the couatl isn't in BoED, its in the MM, so thanks for making me hunt it down. Second, in their combat block it says the usally stay back and cast spells rather than close to melle. No where does it say they charge in fangs bared and use their poison. In fact it says they are renowned for their virtue and goodness, which would lead me to belive they don't actually use their poision. They are large magical flying snakes, they have the moral capacity to not use their genetic leftover poison ability and have magic to use instead. If YOU play a couatl and it uses its poison attack then that is your failing to play the alignment and description of the creature, because no where does it say thats what they do, it says they act in combat quite differently. IN FACT if you look close you will notice that what the couatl really do with their venom is quite different. They turn it into a Ravage. Take a look on the chart on page 35, "purified couatl venom" is a ravage. They don't use it in combat, they use it to create a ravage with it to make sure it can't be used for illicit purposes. That is using intellect to turn something evil into something good. Just because they are venom filled snakes doesn't mean they are evil. Even real snakes aren't evil... just neutral animals that can't tell the difference. Couatl have that choice, and what choice did they make? they choose to turn this poison into a ravage to make sure it can't cause harm, only cause karmic justice. I think that pretty much covers what you said...
pale 06-19-06, 08:46 AM	Justice are not an good act, it might lead to good results but in it's basis punishment is neutral and lawfull. It would be good if it were making the evil doers see that they were wrong, rather than just causing pain. What punishment do is not to make people redeem their ways but to make them avoid making their ways visible. Of course an punishment might be needed to make an invidual redeem his ways or to protect the weak but it should not be regarded as good. It is one of these things were the ends justify teh means.
belthazzar1113 06-19-06, 09:12 AM	Not without taking -4 to your attack roll. This could easily mean the difference between victory and defeat. And, chances are, if you're fighting an equally-skilled melee opponent, you're both going to be low on hp at that stage. So, here's your choice - go for the kill and end the BBEG's reign of terror, or go for subdual damage, take the -4 to hit and increase your chance of missing, losing the fight, dying and allowing the BBEG to escape, heal up and continue his dirty work as if you'd never interfered? What do you do? if being good wasn't hard, everyone would do it. Are you going to be as bad as your opponent and just go for the kill everytime? then where do you draw the line between us and them, good and evil, killing and murder? you blur that line enough and your going to find yourself on the wrong side of it. Its also bordering on hubris to think your the only force of good working in the world. If you lose you can always take the shallow comfort that your actions will inspire the next hero to surpass your trial and finish the mission you started. Cold comfort for the dead, but comfort nonetheless. You don't know this. A solid hit can easily take off 40-50hp, or over 100hp with the right combination of feats and abilities. One hit and the enemy goes from 'fit and fighting' to 'dead'. a solid hit with the right combination of feats and abilities. You can tell when someone is getting low, and there is nothing saying you have to powerattack with your raging improved power attack and make a leap attack with full strength. You have the option to NOT apply your strength mod, to NOT use power attack, and to NOT make a leap attack (all just examples). Morality requires judgement, its requires concence and it requires willpower. Its not easy being good all the time, which is why a paladin is so respected. Its hard to be that good ALL the time, thats why deites hand out powers for this type of behavior. In D&D, it's fairly clear that killing isn't evil. no, actually its not. Most killing is dismissed as killing monsters that want to eat/kill/dismember you, and thats just self defense. Most other killing is against evil races and creatures that are beyond redemption. But when you talk about killing other humans then you get into moral grounds that are not so clear cut. There are certainly those who say that it is wrong for a human to take the life of another human. And even in DnD you can commit murder and lose your paladin powers meaning you commited an EVIL act. honourable != good and dishonourable != evil. if you really want to quibble over adjectives then replace honorable with dignified and there you just switched adjectives from lawful to good. happy now? good. can we actually get to the point now? You are, quite clearly, a very Lawful person, and have such a problem with dishonourable/Chaotic acts that you refer to them as Evil. A very common misconception... ok first, i am not a dnd character, i am a real person with more complex views than can be expressed on a simple law chaos, good evil axis. This is real life and not dnd, so lets try and keep those seperate shall we? second, irregardless of what alignment you think I am it has no bearing on wether or not the arguments are true or not. The condecention that you show with this line of thinking is astounding and rather offensive. Historically, Fighter-types ruled and, thus, set the rules for honour - by definition, Fighter-types are all good fighters, but not all of them are smart. So, because they couldn't defend against it, they considered sneaky tactics dishonourable my arguments are based on a simple definition of evil, with simple common sense for judging wether an action falls within the perview of being evil. Death attack always meets those criteria and is thus always evil. The history of fighter types ruling the world has nothing to do with it, and frankly is confusing the issue with tangental information. being sneaky isn't evil. sneak attacking isn't evil, hacking away with a sword isn't evil, casting a fireball isn't evil. these things arn't evil in and of themselves because there are other circumstances to consider. What i am saying is that death attack is different from these other actions in that there is no flexibility for it to be used in any situation except when it would be an evil act. You are fantasic at coming up with roundable ways of proving that things similar to death attack are not evil, and no sneak attacks are not evil, death attack remains evil, and i have not seen those arguments contraverted. poision remains evil in my opinion, and i side with the BoED against the sage. Thats a judgment call and i think we are all free to disagree on this one at this point. RAW conflict, eveyone has an opinion, you know mine, i know yours, and we disagree, no harm no foul. murder remains evil in my opinion, because murder is evil and i am not going to go through and repeat the reasons again lol. I am still laughing that i really did have to say that yes betrayal and murder are evil. ahh well, some people argue with anything :D
belthazzar1113 06-19-06, 09:15 AM	Justice are not an good act :rofl: :devil: :rofl: all your evil are belong to us :rofl: :devil: :rofl: no offense intended but damn i am tired and thats just toooo funny right now.
Sunrider 06-19-06, 09:42 AM	if being good wasn't hard, everyone would do it. Are you going to be as bad as your opponent and just go for the kill everytime? then where do you draw the line between us and them, good and evil, killing and murder? you blur that line enough and your going to find yourself on the wrong side of it. Good implies altruism, caring for others over yourself, etc. It has nothing to do with whether you kill a BBEG or capture him. Its also bordering on hubris to think your the only force of good working in the world. If you lose you can always take the shallow comfort that your actions will inspire the next hero to surpass your trial and finish the mission you started. Cold comfort for the dead, but comfort nonetheless. You're talking exalted. In other words, good with extra polish, all the rough edges removed, etc. - a nigh-unplayable character. I'm talking just normal, run-of-the-mill, good. Good characters, as described by the examples in the PHB, can fight evil without mercy, ambush minions of evil tyrants, etc. a solid hit with the right combination of feats and abilities. You can tell when someone is getting low, and there is nothing saying you have to powerattack with your raging improved power attack and make a leap attack with full strength. You have the option to NOT apply your strength mod, to NOT use power attack, and to NOT make a leap attack (all just examples). Morality requires judgement, its requires concence and it requires willpower. If you keep holding back from the beginning of the fight, you're bound to lose against an equal opponent who's actually intent on killing you. If you don't hold back, you stand a good chance of killing an opponent in one or two blows. If that's your definition of 'good', then evil always wins, because 'good' is stupid. Its not easy being good all the time, which is why a paladin is so respected. Its hard to be that good ALL the time, thats why deites hand out powers for this type of behavior. No, it's easy to be good, just as it's easy to be evil or neutral. It's near-impossible to be exalted, just as it's near-impossible to be vile. no, actually its not. Most killing is dismissed as killing monsters that want to eat/kill/dismember you, and thats just self defense. Most other killing is against evil races and creatures that are beyond redemption. But when you talk about killing other humans then you get into moral grounds that are not so clear cut. There are certainly those who say that it is wrong for a human to take the life of another human. So killing a troll that's intent on eating you, or killing orcs that are terrorising a town, is 'self-defence', while killing an evil tyrant who's forcibly enslaving and/or conscripting your people is 'murder'? Where's the logic in that? They're both equally evil - only that the evil tyrant is probably more evil, due to the fact that his higher intelligence means he's more capable of making moral judgments than the typical troll. Besides, what's the alternative? If you don't assassinate the tyrant, one alternative is war. In a war, many people will die in combat - both the 'good' rebels and the thousands of hapless conscripts recruited by the tyrant to fight your insurgency. Meanwhile, people will starve, since conscription is diverting labour from agriculture to arms production and the military. The alternative is to stay enslaved, allow the tyrant to continue his work, driving your people into ruin by starting war after war with other nations he wants to conquer. If assassination is evil, then such inaction, when you have the capacity to do something about it, is nothing short of vile. And even in DnD you can commit murder and lose your paladin powers meaning you commited an EVIL act. Show me the rule that says, 'killing a person is murder', or that 'killing a person sneakily and without warning is murder'. if you really want to quibble over adjectives then replace honorable with dignified and there you just switched adjectives from lawful to good. happy now? good. can we actually get to the point now? Doesn't change a thing. 'Dignified' is still lawful, not good. Mr Burns is a rather dignified gentleman. So's the head of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. (the man with the white cat). Neither are good. Han Solo, on the other hand, is most certainly not a dignified character. He starts off CN (in Episode 4) but, by Episode 6, he's definitely CG. Still not dignified, though. my arguments are based on a simple definition of evil, with simple common sense for judging wether an action falls within the perview of being evil. Death attack always meets those criteria and is thus always evil. The history of fighter types ruling the world has nothing to do with it, and frankly is confusing the issue with tangental information. being sneaky isn't evil. sneak attacking isn't evil, hacking away with a sword isn't evil, casting a fireball isn't evil. these things arn't evil in and of themselves because there are other circumstances to consider. What i am saying is that death attack is different from these other actions in that there is no flexibility for it to be used in any situation except when it would be an evil act. You are fantasic at coming up with roundable ways of proving that things similar to death attack are not evil, and no sneak attacks are not evil, death attack remains evil, and i have not seen those arguments contraverted. If the definition of evil is so simple, then why haven't you spelled it out for the rest of us? Go on: The definition of evil, according to Belthazzar1113, is................ murder remains evil in my opinion, because murder is evil and i am not going to go through and repeat the reasons again lol. I am still laughing that i really did have to say that yes betrayal and murder are evil. ahh well, some people argue with anything :D No-one's arguing that murder is evil. What we are arguing about is the definition of 'murder'. A bandit walking up to a random, innocent civilian and slitting her throat is clearly committing murder. What about the soldier on the battlefield, firing a machine-gun at advancing enemy troops? What about the fighter-pilot launching a missile at an enemy fighter in a dogfight? What about an admiral ordering a cruise-missile strike against an enemy naval base, filled with sailors sleeping in their quarters? What about the sniper who, having travelled behind enemy lines for several nights (hiding during the daytime) now has the enemy commander in his or her sights, and who can end the war with one shot? All involve killing. Only the first example can, without a shadow of doubt, be defined as 'murder'. As for 'betrayal' being evil, re-read your PHB. Betrayal, deception, lying, etc. are all hallmarks of chaotic behaviour, not evil behaviour. Besides, is a spy who poses as a member of an enemy organisation, then 'betrays' it by assassination its leader, really betraying anyone? Her loyalty is to her own faction, not the faction she infiltrated.
Sunrider 06-19-06, 09:43 AM	:rofl: :devil: :rofl: all your evil are belong to us :rofl: :devil: :rofl: no offense intended but damn i am tired and thats just toooo funny right now. No, Justice is a lawful concept, not a good concept.
heretic888 06-19-06, 10:02 AM	Okay. Seriously. Enough of this. Straight from the pertinent System Reference Document (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/Description.rtf) (the bold coding is mine): "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. 'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. 'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others." If you want to reference some much-criticized splatbooks, then feel free. But core is core. Laterz.
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-19-06, 12:52 PM	So I'm up for a forum lock... seeing as how the arguing (not debating, which requires intelligent response from opposing parties, not from any single party versus another) will continue forever otherwise... You're smart. How can I try and get the thread locked? Message a WizO? Start a new thread saying, "Lock thread 'assassin but GOOD?'" How?
Vestigial_Thumb 06-19-06, 02:41 PM	Belthazzar, read this post. Do it (points fist at belthazzar)... if being good wasn't hard, everyone would do it. Are you going to be as bad as your opponent and just go for the kill everytime? then where do you draw the line between us and them, good and evil, killing and murder? you blur that line enough and your going to find yourself on the wrong side of it. So you think that we should just voluntarily lose fights against equally capable opponents so we can stay lawful... sorry, I mean good according to you? Its also bordering on hubris to think your the only force of good working in the world. Maybe, but you also may be the strongest force. If you lose you can always take the shallow comfort that your actions will inspire the next hero to surpass your trial and finish the mission you started. Don't you even have a small shred of survival instinct? No offense, but you sound like someone I could wipe the floor with. a solid hit with the right combination of feats and abilities. You can tell when someone is getting low, and there is nothing saying you have to powerattack with your raging improved power attack and make a leap attack with full strength. You have the option to NOT apply your strength mod, to NOT use power attack, and to NOT make a leap attack (all just examples). And let the guy live so he'll be even more ****** and try to kill you even harder. It's better to live and let die than live and let live, counting on the creature to redeem itself and thank you later. Morality requires judgement, its requires concence and it requires willpower. It also requires a healthy mind. Its not easy being good all the time, which is why a paladin is so respected. Its hard to be that good ALL the time, thats why deites hand out powers for this type of behavior. Have you heard of the Paladins of Slaughter/Tyranny? They get their abilties from evil gods for being evil. It's just as hard to be good as it is to be evil. no, actually its not. Most killing is dismissed as killing monsters that want to eat/kill/dismember you, and thats just self defense. Adventurers go into dungeons every day to kill things and loot them for treasure. Most other killing is against evil races and creatures that are beyond redemption. But should orcs and goblins automatically be assumed to be evil? I know, I know, Occam's Razor, but I don't think that orcs should be assumed to be evil right away and attacked as a result. Well, not unless you're looking for a fight. But when you talk about killing other humans then you get into moral grounds that are not so clear cut. There are certainly those who say that it is wrong for a human to take the life of another human. And even in DnD you can commit murder and lose your paladin powers meaning you commited an EVIL act. But you agree that killing is not equal to murder, right? Okay then. There's nothing I'll add here since I agree (for once). ok first, i am not a dnd character, i am a real person with more complex views than can be expressed on a simple law chaos, good evil axis. This is real life and not dnd, so lets try and keep those seperate shall we? He was comparing your apparent personality (i.e. what we have seen of you) to the D&D moral system. I'd just think of it as a "fun fact" or something. The condecention that you show with this line of thinking is astounding and rather offensive. 1) Not condescending. 2) Thick skin, bel, thick skin. my arguments are based on a simple definition of evil, with simple common sense for judging wether an action falls within the perview of being evil. And there lies your problem. This is a RAW discussion, not a personal opinion discussion. Death attack always meets those criteria and is thus always evil. The history of fighter types ruling the world has nothing to do with it, and frankly is confusing the issue with tangental information. Death Attack is unaligned. Your definition and opinion is irrelevant and not a premise that anyone agreed to. Anything that you argue according to your opinion or definition is therefore irrelevant and doesn't prove a thing. being sneaky isn't evil. sneak attacking isn't evil, hacking away with a sword isn't evil, casting a fireball isn't evil. these things arn't evil in and of themselves because there are other circumstances to consider. How about casting a Silent Fireball out of hiding with a Wizard/Rogue multiclass? That's just as dishonorable as Death Attack. What i am saying is that death attack is different from these other actions in that there is no flexibility for it to be used in any situation except when it would be an evil act. May I remind you of the paralysis option? But no, it's only evil according to your definition, which I think is just as much crackpot as you think mine are. At least I use the standard definitions for arguing a case based on standard issues. You are fantasic at coming up with roundable ways of proving that things similar to death attack are not evil, and no sneak attacks are not evil, death attack remains evil, and i have not seen those arguments contraverted. I think it's because you only see what you want to see, willfully ignoring completely relevant and rational arguments. poision remains evil in my opinion, and i side with the BoED against the sage. The key is that poison is evil in your opinion. Since neither BoED and the Sage are Core, and both contradict each other, let's go with the golden middle on this one and ignore both. By Core RAW, poison is unaligned. Thats a judgment call and i think we are all free to disagree on this one at this point. RAW conflict, eveyone has an opinion, you know mine, i know yours, and we disagree, no harm no foul. Fine, but that disagreement keeps this discussion from progressing beyond a mere flamewar. murder remains evil in my opinion, because murder is evil and i am not going to go through and repeat the reasons again lol. Murder is evil in your opinion, because it's evil? Do you see the circular logic in that statement? I am still laughing that i really did have to say that yes betrayal and murder are evil. ahh well, some people argue with anything :D The fact that you're laughing at people only reinforces my opinion of you being an arrogant bigot. I also want to express my opinion on this one: IN FACT if you look close you will notice that what the couatl really do with their venom is quite different. They turn it into a Ravage. Take a look on the chart on page 35, "purified couatl venom" is a ravage. They don't use it in combat, they use it to create a ravage with it to make sure it can't be used for illicit purposes. That is using intellect to turn something evil into something good. BoED is outside Core. Couatls had poison long before the BoED came out, and they used it indiscriminately if forced into melee. That's playing things smart.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-19-06, 02:50 PM	Fun fact: Since you told me that I should be isolated in a structured environment so I don't endanger myself or others, I thought I'd tell you something that I hadn't thought of until today, at my coffee break: Not only do people trust me with myself and other people, they trust me with a 30 lbs. weedwhacker that can hack through all kinds of crap. I could easily kill someone with that thing if I wanted to, yet I haven't done that. Could you explain that, bel, since you have such an intricate knowledge of my condition?
Kresalak 06-19-06, 03:03 PM	Belthazzar, the reason your argument is nonsensical and worthless is because you are using an assumption that is not correct in regards to the topic at hand; that being that your personal system of morality is both correct and applies to D&D. The first is your belief, and I cannot refute that, but the second is absolutely wrong. It is, in my opinion, the number two reason that the D&D alignment system doesn't work, because people attribute their own morality to it.
Kobold_Avenger 06-19-06, 05:49 PM	Bel you haven't explained why death attack itself is evil...
belthazzar1113 06-19-06, 06:10 PM	Belthazzar, the reason your argument is nonsensical and worthless is because you are using an assumption that is not correct in regards to the topic at hand; that being that your personal system of morality is both correct and applies to D&D. The first is your belief, and I cannot refute that, but the second is absolutely wrong. useing the dnd definition of evil. Not mine. Belthazzar, read this post. Do it (points fist at belthazzar)... opening with bold faced red threats just garentee's that you don't get a response. /ignore on. Good implies altruism, caring for others over yourself, etc. It has nothing to do with whether you kill a BBEG or capture him. from the system reference doc thanks to heretic888 'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. so i guess good and evil DO have something to do with wether you KILL the bad guy or not. How utterly surprizing that takeing a life would have something to do with good and evil... You're talking exalted. In other words, good with extra polish, all the rough edges removed, etc. - a nigh-unplayable character. actually i am talking about paladins inthat particular example. a paladin is not an exhalted character, they are just the highest standard of good. if you can't see being able to not do evil then you probly shouldn't play a paladin because it sounds like you find it impossible to follow the paladins code. i really would go on, but most of this is just diffrences of opinions. Look at the definitions of good and evil as defined by heritic888 from the game and then compair it to what death attack is and you can see that its evil. if not then i really don't know what else to say at the moment. EDIT: i would like to point out... once again.... that when i talk about death attack i refer to the lethal option of death attack, the save or die option. When i speak about poison i speak specifically about Ability damage poison that is defined as painful and that which causes suffering. Not the drow sleep poison or the unconiousness poison from the DMG. I really shouldn't have to point this out every single post, but since it keeps getting brought up i need to point it out... again.
GhostStepper 06-19-06, 06:48 PM	i really would go on, but most of this is just diffrences of opinions. Look at the definitions of good and evil as defined by heritic888 from the game and then compair it to what death attack is and you can see that its evil. if not then i really don't know what else to say at the moment. The alignment definitions posted by heretic do absolutely nothing to show how Death Attack is intrinsically different than any other kind of attack that kills someone. First of all it never says good creatures cant kill. It says good implies a respect for life but thats far from saying a good creature cannont kill. It also says good protects innocent life...not BBEG life, innocent life. In fact good creatures kill BBEGs all the time. If anything Death Attack is a more humane way to kill a BBEG than hacking them apart bit by bit, frying them with fireball, or using a ravage to torture them since its an instant death. Instant death (as in Death Attack) is more humane than a drawn out painful death, and in many ways an assassin killing with a death attack is less 'evil' than a paladin that hacks a BBEG guy up or uses a ravage to produce pain and suffering. EDIT: i would like to point out... once again.... that when i talk about death attack i refer to the lethal option of death attack, the save or die option. When i speak about poison i speak specifically about Ability damage poison that is defined as painful and that which causes suffering. Not the drow sleep poison or the unconiousness poison from the DMG. I really shouldn't have to point this out every single post, but since it keeps getting brought up i need to point it out... again. By brining up the fact that some poison is 'ok' your strengthening the view that the assassin doesnt need to be evil since he can use poisons that even you dont think are evil. And this brings us back to ravages. How is using a ravage to inflict pain and suffering on a BBEG different from a good assassin using poison to inflict the exact same pain and suffering on a BBEG?
Dipteran_Legacy 06-19-06, 07:45 PM	whoa....I just took a peek at this thread, and boy, does my iq feel ten points lower than before I looked at it. this is an idiotic waste of time, bel really feels that his interpretation of the rules are the rules. I'm not even going to touch on that, as bel is flat-out blind. there's no point trying to make someone see when they flat-out cant. I will make a few comments about the original question, and a few dbates from earlier in the thread. there's no way I'm actually going to waste my time going through all this junk to see if these points have already been made, so my apologies if that's the case. -first, to bel: as far as RAW, goes, a monk actually doesnt lose any of his abilities if he changes alignment, he just cant advance as a monk any more. further, barb's only lose rage, they retain any DR, and uncanny dodge they have, as well as their improved movement. -second, it actually does say in the prc section of the DMG that if at any point a character fails to meet the entry requirements to a prc, they lose all abilities of the prc besides base atk, saves, hit die, and skill points. this pertains to alignments, if they are mentioned as an actual requirement for a prc. that said, I'm all for the repentant assassin idea, it makes for great rp, but it would have to be house-ruled. it isnt, in any way, a raw-possible concept.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-19-06, 07:51 PM	opening with bold faced red threats just garentee's that you don't get a response. /ignore on. It wasn't a threat (think Homer Simpson). You have demonstrated that you are either just trying to **** me off, or that you're a bigot. The post makes sense, so I advise you to read it. If you don't, then everyone will know that you're either a stubborn idiot (for judging it just because the big red words spelled a sentence that compelled you to read it), or that you just hate me and automatically assume I'm an idiot because I'm mentally ill. I will report you and do everything in my to have you publicly (to make an example out of you) banned if you do not stop dismissing my completely valid logic based on my illness. Fun fact (I'm coming up with a lot of these things this week): Did you know that quite a large percentage of successful people (I'm talking CEOs and Board Members) are diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder. I guess you didn't, since you think that antisocials are idiots. Read and address my ****ing posts! It's disrespectful enough that you don't do that already, and it's even worse that you admit that you dismiss them as idiotic or psychotic babble. That only reinforces my point of you being a prejudiced, closed-minded bigot. Don't deny it, it's out in the open for the world to see. You're going down...
belthazzar1113 06-19-06, 07:56 PM	The alignment definitions posted by heretic do absolutely nothing to show how Death Attack is intrinsically different than any other kind of attack that kills someone. quite right. attacks that kill fall into the evil catigory. the difference with attacks that are not death attack or save or die effects are that when you hit with a sword you don't neccessaraly kill with a hit. There is a range specifically from -1 to -10 that is unconcious but not dead. thats the subdue portion of the equasion. death attack and save or die spells don't even have this moral justification. they are outright death and killing. You are choosing to bypass any and all mercy, choosing to try and directly kill rather than incapacitate your foe, you are choosing to end life. That choice is evil. Since the lethal portion of death attack can not be used for anything other than save or die, this makes the act always evil. I have stated many times that the paralisis option of death attack is perfectly fine to do since that isn't killing at all, and i even posted a class up for an alternate assassin that used that version of death attack to avoid the evil alignment requirment. I hope that clears up where the reasoning comes from, and if anyone else wants to ask "whats the reason" i will simply refer you here. By brining up the fact that some poison is 'ok' your strengthening the view that the assassin doesnt need to be evil since he can use poisons that even you dont think are evil. If an assassin used only ravages and the two kinds of non painful poison then true the ability would have no moral context, and in fact i have said several times that poison itself isn't evil, the choice to use it is. Choosing to use AN ABILITY DAMAGE cuasing poison has been defined as painful IN RAW, and thus meet the requirment of causeing undue suffering and is an evil act. The few kinds of sleep or knockout style poisons are not evil since they harmlessly incapasitate your foes. This was updated to be included in my Good assassin build once the discussion about ravages started and i remembered these handy little magic substances. And this brings us back to ravages. How is using a ravage to inflict pain and suffering on a BBEG different from a good assassin using poison to inflict the exact same pain and suffering on a BBEG? I refer you to the Book of exalted deeds. If you want to complain about ravages then you can't discount what the BoED says about them. They are moral sensitive magical substances. they can only harm evil creatures, not just someone who has done evil, but someone who IS evil. If a paladin pushes a guy off a cliff because he had a bad day he will probly lose his paladin powers, but he won't just turn evil right there and ravages won't hurt him yet. Someone with an evil alignment makes the choice each and every day to take the evil path, and ravages bring this evil back to the evil creature. This is the same as a smite evil attack, or a holy word, or any other form of good aligned karmic attack. They only bring the pain and suffering an evil creature puts into the world, back onto themselves. It doesn't cause undue suffering since this is suffering that is due the creature. Ravages have a moral compass and can only harm those who harm others. This limits their use to only against creatures that have choosen willfully a life of evil, and can't be used against any undeserving targets. I explained this once already, why don't you read this and read the lasts three times i quoted the book, and then go read that. i am very tired of explaining the same things it says in the books over and over. Read the book and tell me where it says ravages are evil or where a ravage can affect a good aligned target. They have moral discression and thus are not indiscriminent or evil.
Kresalak 06-19-06, 07:57 PM	useing the dnd definition of evil. Not mine. I get it now. Belthazzar, you are doing the same exact thing that Oppo28 is doing on the CO boards when he claims his 7th level imp can kill Pun-Pun. You are making things up, misenterpreting the rules, and outright ignoring anything that goes against your argument. There is no point in anything further. Pretend that you've "won" this argument if you would like. Ironically enough, Oppo28 has the same avatar as you.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-19-06, 08:12 PM	Choosing to use AN ABILITY DAMAGE cuasing poison has been defined as painful IN RAW, and thus meet the requirment of causeing undue suffering and is an evil act. That's not valid. You're only arguing according to your own definitions, and that is not a premise that anyone agreed upon. Neither was BoED (By Kresalak's request), and neither was Sage (By your request). No argument that you come up with that is not based on RAW definitions will not be taken as valid, and you will lose tha debate if you don't get you act together soon. I refer you to the Book of exalted deeds. If you want to complain about ravages then you can't discount what the BoED says about them. Yes he can. Again, BoED was not a premise that was agreed upon, and no argument base don it is valid in this discussion. They are moral sensitive magical substances. they can only harm evil creatures, not just someone who has done evil, but someone who IS evil. Yes, the ravages cause tremendous pain to an evil creature. The pain could even be defined as torture, considering the incredible amounts of it the creature has to suffer. By RAW, torture is evil, and so are ravages. If you want to argue common sense and BoED, then refute that argument. I explained this once already, why don't you read this and read the lasts three times i quoted the book, and then go read that. i am very tired of explaining the same things it says in the books over and over. Read the book and tell me where it says ravages are evil or where a ravage can affect a good aligned target. They have moral discression and thus are not indiscriminent or evil. I only skimmed over that paragraph, but it basically just consisted of you referring to obscure posts made by yourself without links, so we have to search for them ourselves. Why don't you just repeat yourself like the rest of us?
GhostStepper 06-19-06, 09:17 PM	quite right. attacks that kill fall into the evil catigory. Where does it say this? If this were so, every paladin ive ever seen would be evil because they kill using attacks. the difference with attacks that are not death attack or save or die effects are that when you hit with a sword you don't neccessaraly kill with a hit. They dont always kill, but lots of times they do. Paladins and every other good character ive ever played as or DMed has use methods to kill things and by DnD deffinition they are still good. Furthermore lawfully good monks have a death attack and they are still good...and yes it is a save or die, just like the assassin's, but they dont even get the option to paralyze or do subdual damage. There is a range specifically from -1 to -10 that is unconcious but not dead. thats the subdue portion of the equasion. Paladins and a million other good characters dont just knock BBEGs out, they kill them. And they are still good. death attack and save or die spells don't even have this moral justification. Why not? A paladin kills an evil baron with by chopping him a few times and the assassin kills an evil baron by hitting him once and killing him painlessly. How is one more morally justified? they are outright death and killing. You are choosing to bypass any and all mercy, choosing to try and directly kill rather than incapacitate your foe, you are choosing to end life. That choice is evil. Maybe in your mind, but in DnD it isnt evil. Every good charcter ends life every game ive ever played, and all the paladins and good clerics are still good by DnD standards. Since the lethal portion of death attack can not be used for anything other than save or die, this makes the act always evil. When a paladin reduces the BBEG to -11 hp the bad guy doesnt even get a chance to save...he just dies. The good paladin shows no mercy and kills thing yet he is still good. A good assassin can choose to paralyze his foe with a Death Attack, while the Lawful GOOD monk kills instantly with his death attack. I have stated many times that the paralisis option of death attack is perfectly fine to do since that isn't killing at all, and i even posted a class up for an alternate assassin that used that version of death attack to avoid the evil alignment requirment. So if the regular, core assassin can choose to paralyze with Death Attack then there can be an assassin which even by your standard, uses every class ability he has (knockout poison too) and can still be good. The lawful good monk cannot use all his class abilities and ramain good by your standards since he must kill with his Quivering Palm. If an assassin used only ravages and the two kinds of non painful poison then true the ability would have no moral context, and in fact i have said several times that poison itself isn't evil, the choice to use it is. Choosing to use AN ABILITY DAMAGE cuasing poison has been defined as painful IN RAW, and thus meet the requirment of causeing undue suffering and is an evil act. The few kinds of sleep or knockout style poisons are not evil since they harmlessly incapasitate your foes. This was updated to be included in my Good assassin build once the discussion about ravages started and i remembered these handy little magic substances. So even we choose to go by your rationale (most poison use is evil) then we still can play the core assassin, use all his class abilities, and never commit an evil act since we can use painless, nondamaging poisons. I refer you to the Book of exalted deeds. If you want to complain about ravages then you can't discount what the BoED says about them. They are moral sensitive magical substances. they can only harm evil creatures, not just someone who has done evil, but someone who IS evil. I dont have the BoED around so i cant give my full impression of the specific ravages at the moment but i know they are designed to inflict pain and anguish on evil creatures. If ravage X and poison X have the exact same effects theres no difference between a good paladin using ravage X on the evil baron and a good assassin choosing to use poison X on the evil baron. They both inflict and equal amount of pain and suffering on the given evil creature. This is what people were saying about the BoED being self contradictory: it gives one example where action A is evil and action B is good when for all intents and purposes A = B. The book is full of hypocrisy. They only bring the pain and suffering an evil creature puts into the world, back onto themselves. It doesn't cause undue suffering since this is suffering that is due the creature. Ravages have a moral compass and can only harm those who harm others. This limits their use to only against creatures that have choosen willfully a life of evil, and can't be used against any undeserving targets. Ravages are about an eye for an eye and 'just' revenge. They function no differently against any given creature as a good assassin who knows his target is evil and uses a poison that has the exact same effects as the ravage. The paladin uses a ravage because he knows the recipient will feel pain and aguish, but yet the paladin remains good. This in no way differs from the good assassin who uses a poison with the exact same effects knowing that the evil baron will feel pain and anguish. This is why people dont like the BoED. It makes no sense and contradicts itself. i am very tired of explaining the same things it says in the books over and over. Read the book and tell me where it says ravages are evil or where a ravage can affect a good aligned target. They have moral discression and thus are not indiscriminent or evil. The point is that the BoED is necessarily wrong in one way or another because it contradicts itself. Either ravages are evil like poison for inflicting pain and suffering or poison is just as good as ravages when used against evil creatures for the exact same purpose, with the exact same results. The BoED tries to have it both ways and its not logical. We could choose to disregard the BoED's findings that poison use is evil considering that Skip Williams (who co-authored the PHB) says its not and ninjas can use poison and dobt have to be evil. Both of these sources are in fact more recent than the BoED and since its 2 to 1 its a pretty strong case for poison =/= evil all around. And besides...as mentioned before, a good assassin wouldnt even have to use ability damage poison while still using all his class features and remaining good.
Nephlite 06-19-06, 09:23 PM	If you keep holding back from the beginning of the fight, you're bound to lose against an equal opponent who's actually intent on killing you. If you don't hold back, you stand a good chance of killing an opponent in one or two blows. If that's your definition of 'good', then evil always wins, because 'good' is stupid. So says Dark Helmet from Space Balls. So killing a troll that's intent on eating you, or killing orcs that are terrorising a town, is 'self-defence', while killing an evil tyrant who's forcibly enslaving and/or conscripting your people is 'murder'? Where's the logic in that? They're both equally evil - only that the evil tyrant is probably more evil, due to the fact that his higher intelligence means he's more capable of making moral judgments than the typical troll. Intent and how you kill him matter. If you are fighting for saving your people and not just revenge than good act. Besides, what's the alternative? If you don't assassinate the tyrant, one alternative is war. In a war, many people will die in combat - both the 'good' rebels and the thousands of hapless conscripts recruited by the tyrant to fight your insurgency. Meanwhile, people will starve, since conscription is diverting labour from agriculture to arms production and the military. The alternative is to stay enslaved, allow the tyrant to continue his work, driving your people into ruin by starting war after war with other nations he wants to conquer. If assassination is evil, then such inaction, when you have the capacity to do something about it, is nothing short of vile. Hindsight is 20/20 dude. You can't be blamed for war caused by another. Not doing something is never evil: it is neutral. No-one's arguing that murder is evil. What we are arguing about is the definition of 'murder'. A bandit walking up to a random, innocent civilian and slitting her throat is clearly committing murder. What about the soldier on the battlefield, firing a machine-gun at advancing enemy troops? What about the fighter-pilot launching a missile at an enemy fighter in a dogfight? What about an admiral ordering a cruise-missile strike against an enemy naval base, filled with sailors sleeping in their quarters? What about the sniper who, having travelled behind enemy lines for several nights (hiding during the daytime) now has the enemy commander in his or her sights, and who can end the war with one shot? All involve killing. Only the first example can, without a shadow of doubt, be defined as 'murder'. Bandit= murder. Evil. Soldier killing enemy troops= killing not murder. Not evil. Fighter Pilot= killing. not evil. Sailor are not civilians so not murder if this is war. If he just doies it because he feels like thanwe are back at bandit idea. Sniper given authorization/this is war? If he just decides to do it than most likely murder. Could be false identity anyway.
Sunrider 06-19-06, 09:57 PM	So says Dark Helmet from Space Balls. How could I not bring up that quote when someone suggested performing an obviously stupid action in the name of 'good'? Intent and how you kill him matter. If you are fighting for saving your people and not just revenge than good act. That's exactly the point I'm making. Not necessarily for saving your people, though (as a soldier, that would be more LN than anything) - if you're acting (not necessarily fighting) to alleviate the suffering of people, if you're trying to save the lives of innocents, if you're trying to prevent an evil power from terrorising people, you're performing a good deed. Hindsight is 20/20 dude. You can't be blamed for war caused by another. Not doing something is never evil: it is neutral. In which case, doing something about it, when it's apparent that's the solution that will lead to the least loss of innocent life and the least suffering by innocent people, is a good act. You're just highlighting the point I'm trying to make - obviously, sittinb gack and doing nothing is neutral - therefore, intervening and stopping the slaughter is a good act, not an evil one (because it involves the killing of a non-innocent BBEG), as Belthazzar1113 is suggesting. Bandit= murder. Evil. Soldier killing enemy troops= killing not murder. Not evil. Fighter Pilot= killing. not evil. Sailor are not civilians so not murder if this is war. Try telling this to said individual who can't tell the difference between 'murder' and 'killing'... If he just doies it because he feels like thanwe are back at bandit idea. Well, duh... Sniper given authorization/this is war? If he just decides to do it than most likely murder. Could be false identity anyway. I agree with the given authorisation/war part. But, even if it's not a war, it's not necessarily murder and not necessarily evil. If she's a civilian patriot killing a tyrant in order to end his reign of terror and restore liberties which had been taken away, that's not evil. If she's an outsider killing the tyrant because he's been trampling on human rights, etc., that's not evil - it may be completely outside the bounds of national or international law, but that makes it a CG act, not an evil act. If, however, she's simply trying to kill the tyrant to take his place at the helm, then, yes, the action is evil (since it was conducted with evil intent).
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-19-06, 10:27 PM	Hindsight is 20/20 dude. You can't be blamed for war caused by another. Not doing something is never evil: it is neutral.I beg to differ. A weakened goblin has a bunch of prisoners tied up and is torturing them. You've scouted around, and know that he is alone and will not recieve backup. You also know you can kill him easily. Allowing him to continue inflicting extreme pain on innocent beings is neutral? Also, you don't need hindsight. You just need Augury.
belthazzar1113 06-20-06, 12:06 AM	Kresalak i choose not to respond to your personal attacks and obvious insulting remarks. /ignore on i would like to point out... once again.... that when i talk about death attack i refer to the lethal option of death attack, the save or die option. When i speak about poison i speak specifically about Ability damage poison that is defined as painful and that which causes suffering. Not the drow sleep poison or the unconiousness poison from the DMG. I really shouldn't have to point this out every single post, but since it keeps getting brought up i need to point it out... again. please read the entire post before you quote bits and ask questions that are answered later inthe same post quite right. attacks that kill fall into the evil catigory. Where does it say this? If this were so, every paladin ive ever seen would be evil because they kill using attacks. page 7 BoED on Mercy "Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villans might betray that kindness or escape.. to continue their evil deeds." and, "the good doctrine taken to its logical extream -- respecting and honoring even the life of one's enemy." page 9 of BoED, paraphrased for length and quoted for emphasis, "Violence is a part of the D&D world, and not inherently evil in the context of that world." several paragraphs of examples later "That said, there are certain limits upon the use of violence that good characters must observe." the list includes, "violence must have just cause" (against evil is a just cause). Also, must not be about vengance. "Violence should have good intentions, launching an incursion into orc territory is not a good act if the primary motivation is profit" and, "The means of violence must be as good as the intentions behind it. The use of evil spells is not good even when the target is evil" Death attack offers no chance for mercy, QP does. Death attack offers no chance for surrender. Death attack is the antithesis of respecting life as it is a save or die without the possiblity of knocking the target out or into unconciousness. Assassins fulfill contracts as written thus their motivation is profit, wether this be the profit of training (when meeting the "special" requirment to enter the class) or the profit of gold or objects. I have made a case that death attack is an inherently evil ability and violates the just means idea expressed inthe final page 9 quote. a good assassin wouldnt even have to use ability damage poison while still using all his class features and remaining good. page 104, palyers handbook 3.5 "Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character a certain way." assassins must be evil to be part of the Assassin PrC and if you are an evil alignment you have already stated your intent to play your character to be evil. Being evil alignment and then not acting it is just metagaming and a violation of everything the alignment system represents. for a player that wants to play an assassin-style character that is good meaning only using the paralisis portion of death attack, only using ravages or non ability damage poison and not useing evil spells, i offered my "good assassin" or slayer class. Which was universally ignored in favor of this endless debate and flame war. Keeping the assassin "as is" and dropping only the alignment and special requirments to the class is unbalacing. FIrst it gives evil abilities to good characters with no controll or balance to those abilities. If you decide to not use those evil abilities and stick only to the good versions then you are giving up a signifigant portion of the class with no compensation and thus are underpowered. Replacement of the evil portions of the class with good or neutral aligned abilities seems to be in order thus was born the "good assassin". Furthermore lawfully good monks have a death attack and they are still good...and yes it is a save or die, just like the assassin's, but they dont even get the option to paralyze or do subdual damage. Page 104 of the PHB3.5 lists monks as "usally lawful neutral". Thus they get a single class ability that is evil aligned that is not the focus of the class. A neutral character would be well advised to monitor the use of that ability lest they abuse it and move into the realm of evil. A good aligned monk would probly never use that ability at all seeing as how its morally questionable in the least and in the extreme, evil. as far as it being a save or die with no choice, they do get a choice, its the assassin that gets no choice. An assassin has no choice about offering a foe the chance to surrender or die, no change to ask for mercy, and no chance to explain or validate their actions. An assassin must be in stealth or not seen as a threat to their opponent, meaning the opponent must be unaware that death looms before them. This means that without any way to morally justify their action an assassin makes the decision to murder. A monks QP doesn't have to be triggered right away. You can give your foe the chance to surrender and ask for mercy, you can give your foe a chance to explain, and even when QP is used, untill you trigger it nothing happens. In the event the foe betrays or murders and there is no choice left but kill or be killed QP becomes morally acceptable since the foe had warning, you respected the dignity of their life, and offered mercy. A rejection of everything you could do means they are forcing you to kill, forcing this evil upon themselves. And you can not be held responsible for anothers evil acts (with the paladin clause being an exception to this trend) Either ravages are evil like poison for inflicting pain and suffering or poison is just as good as ravages when used against evil creatures for the exact same purpose, with the exact same results. ravages are not poisons. poison is a natural (ex) ability and ravages are a supernatural (su) ability. Poisons are indiscriminate and generate pain and suffering in anything or anyone succeptable to being poisoned thus bringing new pain and suffering into existance. Ravages can affect only evil targets thus gaining moral discrimination and do not generate new pain and suffering but rather bring the pain and suffering evil creatures have caused back into them in specific ways. Ravages do not put pain and suffering back into the world, they are taking corruption that is already there (the moral corruption of an alignment) and converting it into physical corruption (Ability damage) this isn't opinion, this is explained on page 9 of the BoED, and if you want to say ravages are evil because we are ignoring the BoED fluff text, then you have to ignore ravages entirely and can't use them as justification for your argument about poison since the justification is IN the so called fluff text. --- Hindsight is 20/20 dude. You can't be blamed for war caused by another. Not doing something is never evil: it is neutral. If a baby is drowining in a few inches of water and you watch it die then you have commited an evil act. You have allowed an innocent to die for your pleasure, or indifference, or apathy, or whatever other adjective you wish to use. Irregardless doing nothing is not always Neutral. Bandit= murder. Evil. Soldier killing enemy troops= killing not murder. Not evil. Fighter Pilot= killing. not evil. Sailor are not civilians so not murder if this is war. If he just doies it because he feels like thanwe are back at bandit idea. Sniper given authorization/this is war? If he just decides to do it than most likely murder. Could be false identity anyway. BoED page 9 "It is certainly possible for a good nation to declair war upon andother good nation, but fighting in such a conflict is not a good act." This would extend also to assassinations, and death attack specifically was covered above. FIghting in a war against evil creatures is not an evil act, and is a good act if the war was provoked and you are fighting to end the continuation of evil acts.
K 06-20-06, 12:08 AM	OK everyone, sit down and shut up. Since people have apparently been willing to go over 250 posts without actually reading the book, let's RTFM and see what it says, shall we? We start with the alignment defintions starting on page 104 of the PHB and continuing onto page 106 of the same document. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good. Oh snap, that was the very first entry, so I guess we don't have to read any of the others for this part of the debate. It's perfectly acceptable, even exemplary behavior, for a lawful good character - to fight without mercy, which last time I checked meant that you could kill people. Without mercy even. So obviously the fact that you're running around killing people doesn't make you non-good. So what is it that makes you Evil when you're an Assassin? Well, let's look at the Assassin on page 180 of the DMG: Special: The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins. Wow, that wasn't hard either, that was the prerequisites for entering the class. Where to get in, you have to kill someone for no reason and then you can join their evil club. Yay. So to join the organization, you have to commit an evil act. After that, you can do anything you want. So if you put on a Helm of Opposite Alignment and then decide that you want to make up for the evil crap you were doing - go nuts. Nothing happens to your evil skills just because you aren't evil. Using the skills isn't even evil. If you stab the right people, you can be Lawful Good. Then, because you already have the class abilities, you can still use your death attack and even continue taking levels in the Assassin class (according to page 176 of the DMG): characters must meet requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class I honestly can't believe this argument has been going on as long as it has. Please, RTFM. Your key sections are: PHB, p. 104 DMG, p. 180 DMG, p. 176. So please, before you continue this inane flamewar, think about it. Maybe you think that a character who used to work for an evil organization of hired killers and is now a reformed killer who works for justice is a dumb character concept. Maybe you think it's an awesome character concept. Maybe it's not legal in your campaign, but it's legal according to the Core Rules. If someone is playing a core rules only game out of the book, it's not even ambiguous that they could play a redeemed assassin and use their death attack on evil wizards and demons. It's so amazingly non-ambiguous that I am unable to understand how this got to be over 8 pages long. For crying out loud, read the core rules, give the character concept a thumbs up or a thumbs down, and move on.
SalParadise 06-20-06, 12:43 AM	There's an exalted assassin in BoED. He has a save-or-die against evil ability.
belthazzar1113 06-20-06, 12:55 AM	Wow, that wasn't hard either, that was the prerequisites for entering the class. Where to get in, you have to kill someone for no reason and then you can join their evil club. Yay. So to join the organization, you have to commit an evil act. After that, you can do anything you want. page 16 of the complete warrior. "Meeting class requirments: its possible for a character to take levels in a prestige class and later be in a position where the character no longer qualifies to be a member of the prestige class. And alignment change....can make a character inelegible to advance further in a Prestige class. If a character no longer meets the requirments for a prestige class he or she loses the benifits of any class features or other special abilities granted by that class." so no, you can't just "do whatever you want" since "alignment: evil" is a prerequisit to the class and once you change that you no longer qualify for the class. Originally Posted by The Rules characters must meet requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class yes, and according to page 16 of the CW you must continue to meet those prerequisits. Just because it wasn't stated explicitly in CORE doesn't mean its not how it works. It should have been assumed, but since people like you bring up arguments like this it was explicitly spelled out in a later book. We start with the alignment defintions starting on page 104 of the PHB and continuing onto page 106 of the same document. this example and page 7 of the BoED (which stand as rules as written) are in direct conflict. --- The reason CORE isn't the end all be all of the game is because CORE can't cover every single contingency and action that comes up in a dnd game. This is a situation that is illogical and questionable for certain, hence two books on the specific subjects of the alignment system, good and evil. And hence this debate as some people question logic, some people ignore everything but what they want to see (such as what you are doing) and some people argue because they have a personal vendeta aginst someone and must refute even the most simple assertions of that person. so... how about you realize that CORE doesn't cover every situation which is why there are more books published. And realize that this "proof" has been DIRECTLY contraveted or outright disproven by the rules as written.
belthazzar1113 06-20-06, 01:01 AM	There's an exalted assassin in BoED. He has a save-or-die against evil ability. no, it doesn't have a save or die ability. You roll damage based on PrC level and if the total is greater than the life of the victem it dies, if not nothing happens. Its a very powerful attack that causes no pain unless the subject would then be killed with that single attack. The same as any other sneak attack, sword attack, or spell attack. THe use if this ability is also limited to evil creatures only, thus giving it even more moral context and prevents it from being used against any but those who are consitantly evil. I would still say as a DM the use of this ability should be carefully monitored, but then since its not going to be the first strike (your opponent will likely have too many HP to succumb) if they haven't surrendered or asked for mercy by the time this ability MIGHT work, they are really forcing your hand, and you can not be held responsible for that.... btw this slayer of domiel has been pointed out... 9 times so far? and each time its been discussed and left behind only to be grought up again. all of these arguments are in the thread, so lets let this point die unless there is something new to contribue eh?
GhostStepper 06-20-06, 01:27 AM	page 7 BoED on Mercy "Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villans might betray that kindness or escape.. to continue their evil deeds." and, "the good doctrine taken to its logical extream -- respecting and honoring even the life of one's enemy." Well the BoED is going against the core rules, as K pointed out the first example of a good paladin says: A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good. So the BeED is once again proven to be an erroneous source of info on alignment in DnD. When ever 2 sources contradict each other, the core rules are always right. page 9 of BoED, paraphrased for length and quoted for emphasis, "Violence is a part of the D&D world, and not inherently evil in the context of that world." several paragraphs of examples later "That said, there are certain limits upon the use of violence that good characters must observe." the list includes, "violence must have just cause" (against evil is a just cause). So a good assassin can Death Attack against an evil baron and its a just cause...exaclty like a paladin that chops him to bits. Death attack offers no chance for mercy, QP does. You keep changing your story on Death Attack. You CAN use it with mercy since you can use it to paralyze. You CANNOT use mercy with Quivering Palm since it just kills. You have the 2 reversed. And even if you could only kill without mercy with Death Attack, that is still totally inline with quote about good characters fighting agains evil without mercy. Death attack offers no chance for surrender. Once you make someone roll to save against your Quivering Palm there is no chance to surrender. And the monk can still be LG. Death attack is the antithesis of respecting life as it is a save or die without the possiblity of knocking the target out or into unconciousness. Whats with the selective memory? You dont have to kill with a death attack. Even if you do kill with it, its the same as the LG paladin that kills the BBEG. Its not evil to kill DnD, we've already established that. Assassins fulfill contracts as written thus their motivation is profit, wether this be the profit of training (when meeting the "special" requirment to enter the class) or the profit of gold or objects. I have made a case that death attack is an inherently evil ability and violates the just means idea expressed inthe final page 9 quote. There is nothing in the assassin description or class abilities that requires that the assassin work for profit. It mentions vengeance as a possiblity but its not required. You can just as easily have a secret sect of assassins that work for a LG church and take out evil tyrants. assassins must be evil to be part of the Assassin PrC and if you are an evil alignment you have already stated your intent to play your character to be evil. Being evil alignment and then not acting it is just metagaming and a violation of everything the alignment system represents. Im not arguing that at all. I understand that technically the assassin class requires you to be evil to qualify. All im arguing is that none of the class features necessarily require that a character be evil to employ them. for a player that wants to play an assassin-style character that is good meaning only using the paralisis portion of death attack, only using ravages or non ability damage poison and not useing evil spells, i offered my "good assassin" or slayer class. There doesnt need to be a new class, all that needs to be done is drop the 'evil' requirement and say that the target that a character must kill to enter the group be evil and deserve to die. Keeping the assassin "as is" and dropping only the alignment and special requirments to the class is unbalacing. FIrst it gives evil abilities to good characters with no controll or balance to those abilities. How is this remotely unbalanced? The monk gets Quivering Palm so Death attack isnt unbalanced and the ninja gets poison use and its not unbalanced so where are these evil things that good characters should never use? If you decide to not use those evil abilities and stick only to the good versions then you are giving up a signifigant portion of the class with no compensation and thus are underpowered. ill let you in on a little secret: poison is really underpowered at medium to high levels. Your not missing out by nerfing an already second class ability. Secondly, if your in a party using Death Attack to paralyze is the equivalent of killing anyway. You sneak up and paralyze BBEG and then of all people the PALADIN comes in for the killing blow since we have established that LG paladins kill evil "without mercy". And once again, using death attack to kill is no more evil than any LG who "fights evil without mercy." Replacement of the evil portions of the class with good or neutral aligned abilities seems to be in order thus was born the "good assassin". Theres no need since none of the class abilities are inherently evil. Page 104 of the PHB3.5 lists monks as "usally lawful neutral". Thus they get a single class ability that is evil aligned that is not the focus of the class. So quivering palm is evil now? And so a lawful good character is getting an evil class abiilty...ok A neutral character would be well advised to monitor the use of that ability lest they abuse it and move into the realm of evil. A good aligned monk would probly never use that ability at all seeing as how its morally questionable in the least and in the extreme, evil. As its been said a million times: killing someone with one punch is no more evil than the paladin hacking them to pieces bit by bit. A LG monk using Quivering Palm is being quick and merciful with dealing out death while the paladin who slowly hacks away at someone and sadistically employs ravages before finishing them off. as far as it being a save or die with no choice, they do get a choice, its the assassin that gets no choice. I know that you know this is wrong, so why are feining ignorance on the DA ability again? When the monk makes his foe save or suffer from QP there is no choice: its save or die. When the assassin makes his foe save or suffer DA there IS a choice: kill or paralyze. An assassin has no choice about offering a foe the chance to surrender or die, no change to ask for mercy, and no chance to explain or validate their actions. An assassin must be in stealth or not seen as a threat to their opponent, meaning the opponent must be unaware that death looms before them. And this is in no way different than a LG rogue who kills the BBEG with a sneak attack or the paladin that attacks on a suprise round. No where in DnD does it say killing with stealth is evil. Show me where is says using stealth is evil. This means that without any way to morally justify their action an assassin makes the decision to murder. An LG assassin creeping out of the shadows to kill the evil baron can have the same moral justification as the LG rogue who does the same. Or the paladin who by the RAW "fights evil without mercy". Say it with me now: "without mercy". A monks QP doesn't have to be triggered right away. You can give your foe the chance to surrender and ask for mercy, you can give your foe a chance to explain, and even when QP is used, untill you trigger it nothing happens. In the event the foe betrays or murders and there is no choice left but kill or be killed QP becomes morally acceptable since the foe had warning, you respected the dignity of their life, and offered mercy. A rejection of everything you could do means they are forcing you to kill, forcing this evil upon themselves. And you can not be held responsible for anothers evil acts (with the paladin clause being an exception to this trend) So do the exact same thing with the assassin's DA if you think killing is evil! Paralyze the evil baron, tie him up, and let him explain himself. ravages are not poisons. poison is a natural (ex) ability and ravages are a supernatural (su) ability. So what? Because poisons are natural they are evil? Poisons are indiscriminate and generate pain and suffering in anything or anyone succeptable to being poisoned thus bringing new pain and suffering into existance. Ravages can affect only evil targets thus gaining moral discrimination and do not generate new pain and suffering but rather bring the pain and suffering evil creatures have caused back into them in specific ways. So what? If a LG assassin poisons the evil baron to punish his evil he is doing the exact same thing as the paladin with a ravage. Both of them are using a substance to inflict pain and harm to an evil individual. Ravages do not put pain and suffering back into the world, they are taking corruption that is already there (the moral corruption of an alignment) and converting it into physical corruption (Ability damage) this isn't opinion, this is explained on page 9 of the BoED, and if you want to say ravages are evil because we are ignoring the BoED fluff text, then you have to ignore ravages entirely and can't use them as justification for your argument about poison since the justification is IN the so called fluff text. The fluff text makes no sense logically so i prefer to go by the examples of good and evil put forth in the core rule books. Ravages do the exact same thing as poison but only to evil creatures.This situation doesnt make sense for 2 reasons: - if a LG assassin used a posion to do 4 Str damage to an evil creature because he is punishing his evil the BoED would say this is evil but if a LG paladin uses a ravage to do 4 Str damage to an evil creature because he is punishing his evil, the BoED would say this is good. This makes no logical sense. - The BoED says that good creatures are supposed to be merciful and not inflict pain and suffering. The whole reason you use a ravage is to inflict pain and suffering, and yet its not deemed to be evil. Regardless of whether the fluff text says ravages are good it makes no sense considering that they inflict pain and suffering and elsewhere in the book it says that inflicting pain and suffering is evil. I tried to lay this out as simply as possible so you can see the obvious contradictions in BoED. The book makes no sense but it doesnt really matter since the core books override all the nonsense it contains anyway. To recap lets see what we have covered: - The core rule book specifically says that LG characters "fight evil without mercy." If a secondary source contradicts a primary source its assumed the primary source (the PHB) is right. The BoED contradicts the PHB, so we assume the PHB is correct. - The assassin's death attack can be more merciful than the quivering palm. When you make someone make a save against your DA you can paralyze them, while if you use QP and they fail the save they automatically die. - Using the assassin's DA to kill in stealth is in no way different than a LG rogue that kills in stealth or a paladin who jumps out and gets a surprise round. No where in DnD does it state that killing with stealth is evi. - Using poison against an evil opponent is no more evil than using a ravage that induced that same effects. If they are both employed for the purpose of punishing evil "without mercy" then there is no reason one should be more evil than the other.
belthazzar1113 06-20-06, 02:50 AM	Ghost, unfortunitly your tone and responses are condecending and rude, should you continue in this vein you will be be ignored like the rest of the people that resort to such low and base tactics. Please try and maintain some little bit of respect. So the BeED is once again proven to be an erroneous source of info on alignment in DnD. When ever 2 sources contradict each other, the core rules are always right. that is a very large assumption. There are many books that state that their rules trump those of other books or even core books. The master tactitian feat was one that went through three or four books before it was finalized. Polymorph has been updated in at least 4 books including the new PHB2 and each one changes the rules. Your assumption that core trumps everything is just an opinion, what is really happening is there is a DIRECT conflict within the rules as written and you simply come down on one side of that conflict and have asserted that it is correct. So a good assassin can Death Attack against an evil baron and its a just cause...exaclty like a paladin that chops him to bits. again i ask that you read the entierty of a post before you comment on something adressed later. I have argued that the assassins death attack is an unsuitable means to acomplish a good goal, and is always evil. It violates "there are certain limits upon the use of violence that good characters must observe." portions of the alignment issue. You keep changing your story on Death Attack. You CAN use it with mercy since you can use it to paralyze. You CANNOT use mercy with Quivering Palm since it just kills. You have the 2 reversed. once again.... i direct you to the top of the post where i state that when referencing death attack i am referring to the save or die option of this ability. Again i ask that you read the entirty of a paragraph before you cut and paste and start in with "you are wrong" i gave my reasoning on QP just a few lines later, and yes QP can be an evil act, but it doesn't always have to be, the lethal option of death attack is always an evil option. Once you make someone roll to save against your Quivering Palm there is no chance to surrender. And the monk can still be LG. again i direct you to the portion of my post concerning QP. You can give them an option to surrender after they are affected by QP but you trigger it. There is nothing in the assassin description or class abilities that requires that the assassin work for profit. again i direct you to the part of my post that concerns the assassin requirment to kill to gain entry into the class, killing for profit does not have to mean gold, killing in exchange for reciving training is also a profitable situation. The monk gets Quivering Palm so Death attack isnt unbalanced and the ninja gets poison use and its not unbalanced so where are these evil things that good characters should never use? again i direct you to the part of my post that says "monks are usally lawful neutral" so their having a single class ability that is borderline evil is fine. However BASING the entire class around an ability that is evil means the class is evil. If i base a class around casting Stop Heart, its an evil class. This is an evil spell and if i get Stop Heart at 1st level and every level i improve my ability to cast Stop Heart and then get one or two other small abilities, no one would agrue the class is evil. I contend that death attack is always an evil act, and thus having an entire class based around this act means the class must be evil. I also contend that choosing to use ability damageing poison is an evil act and the assasins get this at level 1 and continue to improve in its use. I also contend that the assassin spell list is ment to include most evil spells (also in the class description referencing their "study of the dark arts") Not only that, I am proven right by the fact the class DOES require an evil alignment! If you want to change the requirments then you need to change what those requirments grant. If you take away the need to rage from the requirments to be a frenzied berzerker then the class doesn't really make much sense anymore does it? you might be able to argue "well, anyone could learn to just fly into a homicidal frenzy if they really put their mind to it, so why should i have to learn to get all angry first?" This is the same paralell that you make saying "well anyone could learn how to be a cold bloodied killer for hire, so why should i have to be evil first?" extending your logic to other classes shows how much it lacks in the way of substance. for a more specific parallel... When Unearthed arcana changed the alignment requirments of the paladin they didn't leave all the abilities the same, they changed the abilities to match the new alignments. If your going to change the alignment requirments of an assassin then you need to change the abilities to match. Why exactly is this so hard for you to understand? You sneak up and paralyze BBEG and then of all people the PALADIN comes in for the killing blow since we have established that LG paladins kill evil "without mercy". again, your assuming your side in a rules conflict is the right one without any justification at all, and using it to prove further points in a debate. Just as you wish to call me out on this i do the same to you. A paladin that kills a helpless opponent would lose their paladin abilities and would have grossly violated his alignment and class restrictions. the paladin who slowly hacks away at someone and sadistically employs ravages before finishing them off a paladin who used ravages for the joy of seeing another suffer would instantly have violated their alignment and class restrictions and cease to be a paladin. Why don't you watch your examples occassionally. I know that you know this is wrong, so why are feining ignorance on the DA ability again? When the monk makes his foe save or suffer from QP there is no choice: its save or die. When the assassin makes his foe save or suffer DA there IS a choice: kill or paralyze. once again i refer you to the top of my quoted post where i state that i am specifically talking about the save or die portion of the death attack... to quote you... what is up with your selective memory? if you are going to compair save or DIE then lets compair the save or DIE and not compair the save or DIE to the save or be paralized. A monk can activate QP, inform the BBEG and demand surrender. THen this puts the choice to the BBEG wether or not he wants to force the save or die on himself or surrender right there. An assassin who wants to use their save or die has to be hiding so the bbeg doesn't know they are under attack, or they have to be in plain sight and not threatining the BBEG, meaning they can't ever offer him a chance to surrender. An assassin does not have the choice to offer or accept surrender, the mechanics of their ability negate that choice, and thus make the ability evil. Or the paladin who by the RAW "fights evil without mercy". Say it with me now: "without mercy". condecending much? ok, lets be condecending. An ANYTHING thats good... (page 7 BoED on Mercy) "Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter {what}" say it with me now, Good characters must offer and accept mercy. since you are so fond of RULES AS WRITTEN. So what? Because poisons are natural they are evil? Because poisons cause undue pain and suffering thechoice to use them is evil. rules as written. they have no moral guide, no discression, they simply affect whoever they come in contact with. That in and of itself is not the evil part, the evil act comes in choosing to employ a weapon you know causes undue pain and suffering. If a LG assassin poisons the evil baron to punish his evil he is doing the exact same thing as the paladin with a ravage. Both of them are using a substance to inflict pain and harm to an evil individual. first there are no lawful good assassins since assassins have to be evil to be in the class. secondly poison adds undue pain and suffering into the world. Poison is generating this pain from a substance, its coming into being without any moral justification. You might have moral justification in using it, but then thats suspect as well since you are choosing something you know causes pain and suffering when you don't need to. A ravage isn't causeing any new pain and suffering, its takeing the pain and suffering the "baron" has put into the world and bringing it back upon him. Its not creating new evil in the world, its not creating new pain, its taking that which was done and giving it back. Thats not evil, thats karma. The fluff text makes no sense logically so i prefer to go by the examples of good and evil put forth in the core rule books. you are saying "nope, i don't belive these rules, i am going to go with my own interpretation of these other rules" you are simply choosing a side of a debate and then saying the other side is wrong because you have picked a side. If a secondary source contradicts a primary source its assumed the primary source (the PHB) is right. The BoED contradicts the PHB, so we assume the PHB is correct. incorrect, that is simply your opinion and most certainly not mine. The BoED came out after the PHB, and thus if they wanted to make a change to the system the latest publication would be where you find it, so i go by the one that came out most recently. That is more reasonable than the argument you make. If your argument were true than the books that state "this rule/ability/text superseeds what was published inthe PHB/DMG/MMx" would simply be wasting space since they COULDN"T trump what was in the core books. - The assassin's death attack can be more merciful than the quivering palm. the assassins save or die attack can not be more merciful than the quivering palm since you can't offer mercy before they are DEAD. - Using the assassin's DA to kill in stealth is in no way different than a LG rogue that kills in stealth or a paladin who jumps out and gets a surprise round. No where in DnD does it state that killing with stealth is evi. killing from stealth isn't evil, however killing without provocation and killing without the attempt at quarter are evil. the neccessity of an assassin to be in stealth or in disgues combined with the fact the death attack is an instant kill is what makes offering or accepting mercy an impossiblity. it means you can't do anything BUT kill in cold blood. Using poison against an evil opponent is no more evil than using a ravage that induced that same effects. your opinion that is directly contradicted by RAW. if thats a legitimate argument then assassins are evil because they have to be evil is also a legitimate argument. And since everyone here has argued against that one, i think we can safely conclude you are wrong as well.
Sunrider 06-20-06, 02:55 AM	Where the BoED says 'good', it means 'exalted'. Where it says 'evil', it means 'anything not exalted'. Where the BoVD says 'evil', it means 'vile'. Where it says 'good', it means 'anything not vile'. These are not good sourcebooks to use on alignment, given their many self-contradictions, hypocrisy and ideas contrary to core RAW. They're designed for very specific types of campaigns.
Sunrider 06-20-06, 03:01 AM	condecending much? ok, lets be condecending. An ANYTHING thats good... (page 7 BoED on Mercy) "Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter {what}" say it with me now, Good characters must offer and accept mercy. since you are so fond of RULES AS WRITTEN. These are 'rules' written in the BoED. They are in direct contradiction to the text in the PHB: A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good. Rules presented in the PHB are considered core rules. Core rules trump splatbooks, unless errata exists to change the core rules concerned. In this case, there is no such errata - therefore, a good character can fight evil without mercy, regardless of what the BoED says. As for paladins losing their abilities for acting dishonourably, etc. - that's because of the Paladin's code of conduct, not because they're Good. It's more a case of unlawful behaviour than non-good behaviour. P.S. You're in no position to lecture others about being 'condescending'.
belthazzar1113 06-20-06, 03:09 AM	They're designed for very specific types of campaigns so are evil PCs and PC assassins. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use them. If you want to change alignment and start talking about DnD morality then go to the books that are all about DnD morality. that would be the BoED and BoVD. Rules presented in the PHB are considered core rules. Core rules trump splatbooks, unless errata exists to change the core rules concerned. i see you are very firm in your opinion. Still, its just an opinion, and i disagree with it. A change to the rules can be done in errata, or it can be printed in a future book such as was done with polymorph. I choose to accept that the latest publications are the sources to go through when deciding rules issues. It makes more sense than simply saying CORE RULES! I don't go back to my second and first edition books looking for rules clarifications because DnD has changed and gone through revisions since then, i go with the most up to date material i can find. Then i judge for myself each side of the debate. Most times i agree with the changes, occasionally I do not. RAW contradictions require DM discression to adjucate, not blind clinging to core rules simply because they are core. P.S. You're in no position to lecture others about being 'condescending'. and you were doing so well, and then you just break down into disrespectful behavior... please moderate your tone into a more respectful manner if you wish to continue to recive my responses.
K 06-20-06, 03:18 AM	Your assumption that core trumps everything is just an opinion, It is an opinion. But it happens to have some backup: When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees. Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The PHB is the Primary Source for Playing the game and using class descriptions. Other books are optional. I don't need the BoED to play the game. In fact, if the BoED has any rule that contradicts the way the PHB says that I should play the game, I am instructed to ignore it. The Book of Exalted Deeds is a contradictory and perplexing tirade written by someone who had apparently never taken a college level ethics course. It's really pretty sad. But it's also easily discountable. That book is a non-primary source in the D&D game. Everything in it is optional, and people don't have to use any of it if they don't want to. There really is no need to have big long rants and arguments about this. The BoED is a non-primary source. You can use it if you want. In your home games, you can use the rules for Good and Evil presented in my own Tome of Fiends (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=646241) - but the default assumption on this board is that you are using the actual rules, and according to those, you use the perplexing and contradictory alignment definitions in the Player's Handbook, and not the perplexing and contradictory definitions of Good and Evil in the Book of Exalted Deeds. And that means that you can be Lawful Good and punish evil without mercy. Maybe not in your game, but that's between you and your players, this discussion is about the RAW. And in the RAW you can totally be a Good Assassin as long as it involved an alignment change. This isn't up for debate, this isn't something that you can change by insulting people or appealing to emotion. It's a fact. And in your own games you can play it differently. I personally play Good and Evil very differently from the way they are presented in the books. But for the purposes of this conversation, we are using THE RULES IN THE BOOK. Now, go read them.
Sunrider 06-20-06, 03:20 AM	again i ask that you read the entierty of a post before you comment on something adressed later. I have argued that the assassins death attack is an unsuitable means to acomplish a good goal, and is always evil. It violates "there are certain limits upon the use of violence that good characters must observe." portions of the alignment issue. What, exactly, are these limits? Where are they spelled out? Show me the rule saying that, 'it is an Evil act to use Death Attack', or something implying as such, and I might actually believe you. IMO these limits upon the use of violence are there to cover such things as collateral damage - launching fireballs indiscriminately into a crowded marketplace to kill a BBEG is not a good act, even though it involves killing a BBEG. They do not cover such things as assassinations, Death Attack, death spells, killing BBEGs without warning, etc. Again i ask that you read the entirty of a paragraph before you cut and paste and start in with "you are wrong" i gave my reasoning on QP just a few lines later, and yes QP can be an evil act, but it doesn't always have to be, the lethal option of death attack is always an evil option. Once again, this is by your opinion. An opinion that has no basis in RAW and, thus, which cannot be justified objectively in the context of D&D. If you want to call it evil in your campaign, then go ahead. But there's nothing in the rules to suggest that such is the case. a paladin who used ravages for the joy of seeing another suffer would instantly have violated their alignment and class restrictions and cease to be a paladin. Why don't you watch your examples occassionally. That's due to the intent, not the act itself. Someone using a ravage for no reason but to cause suffering is committing an evil act, whether or not ravages are good. Someone using a poison for the same purpose is also committing an evil act. At the same time, someone using a ravage as a tool to fight evil with good intent, without the specific intention of causing undue suffering (although that may be the result), is performing a good act. Same thing applies if the substance in question is a poison rather than a ravage. Ravages explicitly are said to cause pain and suffering. Poisons are not. It's the purpose for which they are used that determine whether an act is good or evil. Because poisons cause undue pain and suffering thechoice to use them is evil. rules as written. they have no moral guide, no discression, they simply affect whoever they come in contact with. That in and of itself is not the evil part, the evil act comes in choosing to employ a weapon you know causes undue pain and suffering. Let me disembowel you with a sword, or pump acid into your chest for seven rounds, and then you can start lecturing others on why 'poison causes undue pain and suffering'. The choice to use a poison, just like a spell or sword, is made before you make the attack. In terms of 'no moral guide... no discretion', poisons fall into the same category as swords and spells. Only that they cause less suffering, not more suffering, as they don't involve you being chopped to bits or dissolved by caustic substances. As for ability damage being evil, are Wounding weapons evil? Is Crippling Strike an evil ability? Is Ray of Enfeeblement evil? Is Feeblemind evil? If you consider them to be, then you're playing a completely different game to the rest of us... and it's not D&D. first there are no lawful good assassins since assassins have to be evil to be in the class. 'Assassin' as in 'someone who assassinates', not necessarily someone who has levls in the Assassin PrC. secondly poison adds undue pain and suffering into the world. So does a sword or fireball. Given a choice, I'd much rather drink poison and die than be hacked to bits by a sword, or immolated by a spell. Either that, or Socrates was an idiot. you are saying "nope, i don't belive these rules, i am going to go with my own interpretation of these other rules" you are simply choosing a side of a debate and then saying the other side is wrong because you have picked a side. Pot. Kettle. Black. incorrect, that is simply your opinion and most certainly not mine. The BoED came out after the PHB, and thus if they wanted to make a change to the system the latest publication would be where you find it, so i go by the one that came out most recently. That is more reasonable than the argument you make. If your argument were true than the books that state "this rule/ability/text superseeds what was published inthe PHB/DMG/MMx" would simply be wasting space since they COULDN"T trump what was in the core books. No, it's a core ruling of the game. Text trumps tables. Core trumps splatbooks. Errata trumps everything. And, even if your argument were correct, then, by the latest ruling (by the Sage), poison use isn't evil...
belthazzar1113 06-20-06, 04:03 AM	What, exactly, are these limits? Where are they spelled out? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: : :mad: :mad: :mad: read my post, i spelled them out FOR you. Once again, this is by your opinion. An opinion that has no basis in RAW incorrect. Read the wuotes from BoED RAW and that opinion is supported. What part about READ THE POST do you not get? That's due to the intent, not the act itself. Someone using a ravage for no reason but to cause suffering is committing an evil act, whether or not ravages are good. Someone using a poison for the same purpose is also committing an evil act. yes..... and your point is? someone useing a spoon to cause pain and suffering is comming an evil act, but that doesn't mean a spoon is evil. IT DOES mean the act is evil. Poison isn't evil, using poison is. Ravages arn't evil, using ravages because you enjoy watching someone suffer is an evil act. Using a ravage because you need to take down and evil creature and ravages help isn't evil because ravages are explicitly states to not cause undue pain and suffering. Poisons are not. O.o i specifically quoted book and page... you can't get more clear than that. Let me disembowel you with a sword, or pump acid into your chest for seven rounds, and then you can start lecturing others on why 'poison causes undue pain and suffering'. you know anything about poison in real life? if i had a choice between a sword in the gut and jellyfish poison i would take a sword inthe gut each and everytime without needing to think about the choice. get stung by a jellyfish and tell me getting a knife cut is better. So does a sword or fireball. Given a choice, I'd much rather drink poison and die than be hacked to bits by a sword, or immolated by a spell. Either that, or Socrates was an idiot. sword and fireball are acts of combat which is not inherently evil in the dnd world. combat is a fact of life, poison isn't. socrates wasn't an idiot, he was using a non painful sleeping / death style poison. You want ability damage? stick your hand in a bucket of box jellyfish, you will see what some serious dex / con damage feels like. Pot. Kettle. Black. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: however unlike you i support my decision with actual reasoning rather that simply coming down on one side of the debate. of course you say those are OPINIONS, but when there ir a direct conflict in RAW, you need something outside RAW to try and figure things out. it's a core ruling of the game. Text trumps tables. Core trumps splatbooks. Errata trumps everything. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. So it doesn't say anything anywhere about alignment and it specifically mentions material covered in the PHB. As you would so aptly put it, they talk only about the crunch, not the fluff. And since we are debating "fluff" neither is inherently correct. I also find it freaking hillarious that you are quoteing RAW RAW RAW CORE CORE CORE at me when you are talking about chageing those rules... we are talking about specifically breaking RAW and CORE, and you want to use RAW and CORE to say its fine to break RAW and CORE... The PHB is the Primary Source for Playing the game and using class descriptions. Other books are optional. I don't need the BoED to play the game. In fact, if the BoED has any rule that contradicts the way the PHB says that I should play the game, I am instructed to ignore it. great logic K... in fact since i just need the players handbook to play the game and i am instructed to ignore anything i don't need to play the game... *GASP* ASSASINS ARN"T CORE! they arn't in the PHB so i am instructed to ignore them. *poof* --K dissapears in a puff of logic.-- :rofl: its also high hubris to compair your own work with that published by WotC... sorry, but if it was ment to be in the game, they would publish it. *shrug* i don't compair my work to published material, and i think its pretty arrogent of you to say "I am right because I am just as good as CORE and CORE is as good as you can get" so lets leave your work out of it and stick to published material. BoED is published, and is the one half the in depth examination of DnD morality and alignment. if you want to talk about DnD morality and alignment thats the source you need to use.
Sunrider 06-20-06, 04:37 AM	'Core' rulebooks are PHB, DMG, MM and XPH. Everything else is non-core. I never suggested that the Assassin PrC, as presented in the DMG, with all its requirements, isn't evil. I'm saying, and supporting my arguments using core rules and errata, that assassination and the use of poison are not evil acts. So far, you haven't cited a shred of evidence beyond your own opinion (which is no evidence whatsoever) and the BoED (which is overruled by the core rulebooks I, and others, have cited, and is one of the two most discredited offerings from WotC, at least as far as fluff-text regarding alignment goes). If pointing out all the contradictions in BoED, all the rulings to the contrary in core RAW and errata, the rulings which explicitly say that core trumps splatbooks and offering examples, both in-game and real-life, aren't enough for you, then we're pretty much arguing against a brick wall.
NeoOutkast 06-20-06, 04:38 AM	I Dislike the whole evil thing, why cant i kill for hire without having to be one or the other. therefore i decided to make my own assasin class. check it out! http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=6591933#post6591933&origin=
Sunrider 06-20-06, 04:53 AM	:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: : :mad: :mad: :mad: read my post, i spelled them out FOR you. Where? You may have posted something among the rest of the incoherent mess, but it would be so much easier if you actually stated them explicitly. Go on, list them and quote the source: 'The limits to the use of violence, which must be adhered to by Good characters, are: a) b) c) d)' AFAIK there are no limits stated anywhere in RAW, either explicitly or implicitly. Therefore, given that core RAW allows good characters to fight evil without mercy, the most logical 'limits' would be those involving collateral damage. As in, killing a BBEG, without hurting any innocents, is a good act. Carpet-bombing a village to kill a BBEG isn't a good act, since a lot of innocent people will be killed in the collateral damage. incorrect. Read the wuotes from BoED RAW and that opinion is supported. What part about READ THE POST do you not get? Show me the quote. Then show me a related quote that suggests that said quote (if you can actually find one) overrules Core RAW. Because, if you can't find one, then the ruling that Core RAW overrules splatbooks stands. yes..... and your point is? someone useing a spoon to cause pain and suffering is comming an evil act, but that doesn't mean a spoon is evil. IT DOES mean the act is evil. Poison isn't evil, using poison is. Ravages arn't evil, using ravages because you enjoy watching someone suffer is an evil act. That's pretty much what I've stated. Using a ravage because you need to take down and evil creature and ravages help isn't evil because ravages are explicitly states to not cause undue pain and suffering. Read the book again. It is explicitly stated that ravages do cause undue agony in their victims. No rules - Core or otherwise - suggest that poisons do the same. you know anything about poison in real life? As a matter of fact, yes, I do. I see deliberate paracetamol overdoses in ED every day. I see patients brought in, overdosed on opiates or benzodiazepines, either by accident, or through deliberate suicide attempts. I see children brought in overdosed on other prescription medications, having mistaken them for candy. Some have unpleasant side effects (e.g. vomiting and nausea). If untreated, many can result in death. Most, however, are painless - they may cause unconsciousness, convulsions, etc., but no 'undue pain or suffering'. if i had a choice between a sword in the gut and jellyfish poison i would take a sword inthe gut each and everytime without needing to think about the choice. get stung by a jellyfish and tell me getting a knife cut is better. That's one poison, out of how many? All ravages, on the other hand, are explicitly said to cause pain and suffering to their victims. sword and fireball are acts of combat which is not inherently evil in the dnd world. combat is a fact of life, poison isn't. So snakes, spiders and scorpions aren't a part of life? Poison is as part of combat as any other weapon. It may not be considered particularly honourable, but it is no more evil a weapon than a sword. socrates wasn't an idiot, he was using a non painful sleeping / death style poison. You want ability damage? stick your hand in a bucket of box jellyfish, you will see what some serious dex / con damage feels like. I could list a pharmacy of drugs here that cause similar ability-draining effects and are painless, but I won't. of course you say those are OPINIONS, but when there ir a direct conflict in RAW, you need something outside RAW to try and figure things out. There is no conflict. D&D rules explicitly say that, when rules presented in a splatbook contradict those written in core rulebooks, the core rules prevail, unless errata suggests otherwise. In this case, there is no errata.
SalParadise 06-20-06, 05:43 AM	someone useing a spoon to cause pain and suffering is comming an evil act, but that doesn't mean a spoon is evil. IT DOES mean the act is evil. Poison isn't evil, using poison is. Ravages arn't evil, using ravages because you enjoy watching someone suffer is an evil act. Using a ravage because you need to take down and evil creature and ravages help isn't evil because ravages are explicitly states to not cause undue pain and suffering. And using the spoon to eat Jell-o is not an evil act. Using poison for pest control is not an evil act. The question has to be asked where the line gets drawn in regards to which uses are acceptable. If the acceptable aspect of a ravage is that it only affects evil people (being an evil people poison essentially), then where is the difference between using a ravage on an evil person, and using a poison on an evil person? you know anything about poison in real life? if i had a choice between a sword in the gut and jellyfish poison i would take a sword inthe gut each and everytime without needing to think about the choice. get stung by a jellyfish and tell me getting a knife cut is better. You know anything about unicorn blood in real life? Of course not. Because D&D is not real life. Justifying this D&D perception by bringing up the real life experience of Jellyfish is quite silly. If we're going to bring real life into this, then you're going to have to concede that we are all evil evil people for putting out roach motels and the like. But mouse traps, of course, are okay. BoED is not core. The PhB is core. Objective alignment is the 'default' ruleset in D&D according to the Book of Vile Darkness. That objective alignment system is laid out in the PhB. If you want to use the BoED to determine what is 'good' and what is 'evil' then that's your choice, but it's a variant on the core rules outlined in the SRD.
Majick 06-20-06, 08:49 AM	Ok, wow :cool: This is possibly the most successful thread i've ever started, other than perhaps the Robilar's Overpowering Gambit thread from a month or so back :P But from what i can gather, we have had several views on the question; some very well formulated, some just alright and some blatantly just hate inspired from some personal grievance. But from what i can gather, people seem to believe that Poison itself is not inherently evil, but some believe using it is. People seem to think Death Attack is inherently evil, while others justify it as just another way to eliminate a foe. Personally, and for the purposes of the question i asked of all of you, i thank you deeply for your devotion to the thread and thank you all for your input. On a more personal note, the game which i was DM for and the reasons i asked the question (for a player of mine) were answered in the first game we played: Assassin (good): So, let me get this straight, you want to wait till morning so we can fight them on even terms? That's ludicrous! Why can't we just jump em now while there sleeping? Knight: No, not a chance. Not while i'm around anyway, we wait until morning, then we fight them. Mage: I agree with the Knight, we should fight them with honor! Fighter: Your kidding right? You wanna wait? Why? We're gonna get killed tommorow if we face em in the open like that! Knight: I don't care what you say, i'm not going, so goodnight. Assassin (good): *whispers to Fighter* see you on the flip side muscles, i got a date with a Warlord 3 hours (game time) and a little bit of individual RP later, the Warlord was dead, the Assassin was home with the group again, and the other characters could only "Thank their lucky stars" the majority of the forces had mysteriously dispanded, no longer willing to rape and pillage the country side any more without the backing of the Warlord. Moral of this story: Different people have different ways to accomplish the same goal, for good or evil (take the Knight and the Assassin's different approaches),stoping someone from doing what they think is right is not being a good DM, and i ruled that personally, i felt his actions were justified in terms of the greater good, and the fact that the Warlord never even woke up says to me that it wasn't something that the Assassin took his time with, hurting the fellow. This is my point of view and obviosly not everyones, so i understand if people believe he should have lost his alignment for this, but then again, that is in fact your decision and not the one i used for my game. So please, whatever you do, take your players creativity and judgement into account and don't penalise them for wanting to do something a little different... and most of all, use a soft touch every once in a while, don't abuse your power as DM, and don't take advantage of a DM who has allowed something slightly out of character. Thank you again, Majick :D
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-20-06, 10:38 AM	Death attack is the antithesis of respecting life as it is a save or die without the possiblity of knocking the target out or into unconciousness.So, let's review two different possibilities. 1. Alhandra takes out her trusty sword and kills the BBEG. 2. An Assassin (PrC) death attacks the BBEG and he fails his save. Death attack is evil because it doesn't have the possiblity of knocking people out? Even if that were true (paralysis option), Alhandra is even more evil than the Assassin (PrC). Why? Because she did have the chance to knock him out with nonlethal, and she didn't take it! She just whcked away at him with her sword, even though it was clear that if she hit him with the flat of the blade a few times, he'd fall unconcious instead of die. But she chose not to and she just flat-out killed him. "Meeting class requirments: its possible for a character to take levels in a prestige class and later be in a position where the character no longer qualifies to be a member of the prestige class. And alignment change....can make a character inelegible to advance further in a Prestige class. If a character no longer meets the requirments for a prestige class he or she loses the benifits of any class features or other special abilities granted by that class."Then why are there "Ex-character" sections for barbarians, paladins, etc? It seems that if that rule were important, then there would be no need for those things (which are even in the PHB and DMG, which take precedence over noncore).
GhostStepper 06-20-06, 03:13 PM	that is a very large assumption. There are many books that state that their rules trump those of other books or even core books. The master tactitian feat was one that went through three or four books before it was finalized. Polymorph has been updated in at least 4 books including the new PHB2 and each one changes the rules. Your assumption that core trumps everything is just an opinion, what is really happening is there is a DIRECT conflict within the rules as written and you simply come down on one side of that conflict and have asserted that it is correct. K specifically quoted WotC's official policy. When a secondary source contradicts a primary source the primary source is right. The BoED is a secondary source and the PHB is a primary source, thus the PHB trumps the BoED when it makes ridiculous statements. Its not my opinion, its WotC official policy. I have argued that the assassins death attack is an unsuitable means to acomplish a good goal, and is always evil. It violates "there are certain limits upon the use of violence that good characters must observe." portions of the alignment issue. You have get to prove how using a death attack to kill is any different than a paladin killing by hacking and slashing. Both kill. And a paladin is allowed to hack and slash as he "fight evil mercilessly" to kill BBEG. once again.... i direct you to the top of the post where i state that when referencing death attack i am referring to the save or die option of this ability. You just ignore the fact that you can use the Death Attack to paralyze instead of kill and then base your whole argument around "you MUST kill when using Death Attack." That essentialy what your doing and its completely illogical. again i direct you to the portion of my post concerning QP. You can give them an option to surrender after they are affected by QP but you trigger it. You can give them the option to surrender by paralyzing them and binding them when using DA. You have yet to prove that using it is always evil. again i direct you to the part of my post that concerns the assassin requirment to kill to gain entry into the class, killing for profit does not have to mean gold, killing in exchange for reciving training is also a profitable situation. This whole thread is about dropping the 'evil' requirement for the assassin while leaving everything else the same. If your LG and getting into a LG assassin guild i assume that the DM would require that the person your assigned to kill to get into the LG assassin guild would be evil. This in no way, shape or form is different than the church rewarding a paladin for going and assassinating an evil tyrant by hacking him to bits. again i direct you to the part of my post that says "monks are usally lawful neutral" so their having a single class ability that is borderline evil is fine. However BASING the entire class around an ability that is evil means the class is evil. It doesnt matter what monks 'usually are'. QP palm can be used for good or evil just like DA can be used for good or evil. In this way, neither class should be restricted in alignment based on their death attack class ability. You can use DA to kill and evil tyrant EXACTLY like the paladin does by hacking with his sword or you can choose to be even more merciful with the DA and paralyze them and allow them to surrender. I also contend that choosing to use ability damageing poison is an evil act and the assasins get this at level 1 and continue to improve in its use. And how is this different from ravages that do the same thing if your using it on someone evil? Because "the fluff text says so" is not a logical argument because the fluff text is contraditory and illogical. Give me a logical reason. I also contend that the assassin spell list is ment to include most evil spells (also in the class description referencing their "study of the dark arts") But as ive stated before, you can play a core assassin, cast every spell on the list and never commit and evil act. (poison is still a matter of debate apparently though) Not only that, I am proven right by the fact the class DOES require an evil alignment! We've already established that. The arguement is that none of the class features necessarily reflect the alignment requirement and thats why we think it should be dropped. If you take away the need to rage from the requirments to be a frenzied berzerker then the class doesn't really make much sense anymore does it? you might be able to argue "well, anyone could learn to just fly into a homicidal frenzy if they really put their mind to it, so why should i have to learn to get all angry first?" You can multiclass into barbarian any time you like and you dont need to meet any prereqs to suddenly learn how to rage so why should it be different with the FB? This is not the best example you could have used to back up your arguement. This is the same paralell that you make saying "well anyone could learn how to be a cold bloodied killer for hire, so why should i have to be evil first?" extending your logic to other classes shows how much it lacks in the way of substance. None of the classes class abilities require that you be any more of cold blooded killer than a paladin. None of class's abilities requires you be a hired killer. You say my logic lacks substance but you have yet to present any logic yourself. Your just making stuff up to back up your arguement. for a more specific parallel... When Unearthed arcana changed the alignment requirments of the paladin they didn't leave all the abilities the same, they changed the abilities to match the new alignments. If your going to change the alignment requirments of an assassin then you need to change the abilities to match. Why exactly is this so hard for you to understand? UA was about alternate rules sets so of course they are going to present alternate rules. Is that so hard for you to understand? again, your assuming your side in a rules conflict is the right one without any justification at all, and using it to prove further points in a debate. My justification is WotC's official policy on primary and secondary sources and some quotes right out of the PHB. Your justification is a set of contradictroy rules from a secondary source. Just as you wish to call me out on this i do the same to you. A paladin that kills a helpless opponent would lose their paladin abilities and would have grossly violated his alignment and class restrictions. Nowhere in the PHB does it say this. There is no part in the paladin's code that says he cant kill a helpless BBEG. In fact, the PHB says he would "fight evil mercilessly". a paladin who used ravages for the joy of seeing another suffer would instantly have violated their alignment and class restrictions and cease to be a paladin. Why don't you watch your examples occassionally. So you admit that using ravages isnt always good? Lol Now there is no logical way that you can argue that using poisons against BBEG is always evil. once again i refer you to the top of my quoted post where i state that i am specifically talking about the save or die portion of the death attack... One again, you cant pretend that Death Attack is always lethal and then try to vilify it when you know that not true. if you are going to compair save or DIE then lets compair the save or DIE and not compair the save or DIE to the save or be paralized. Lol We are arguing save or die vs save or die or be paralyzed because, like it or not, thats how the ability works. A monk can activate QP, inform the BBEG and demand surrender. THen this puts the choice to the BBEG wether or not he wants to force the save or die on himself or surrender right there. An assassin can use his DA to paralyze and let the BBEG surrender. They is no differene what so ever. An assassin who wants to use their save or die has to be hiding so the bbeg doesn't know they are under attack, or they have to be in plain sight and not threatining the BBEG, meaning they can't ever offer him a chance to surrender. First of all, once again i remind you that an assassin is not required to use save or die with DA. A LG assassin wouldnt have to. Secondly, i ask you once again to show where killing using stealth is evil. No where does the rules say it is. It is exactly the same as paladin jumping out from hiding and killing the BBEG on a surprise round. An assassin does not have the choice to offer or accept surrender, the mechanics of their ability negate that choice, and thus make the ability evil. But he DOES have the choice to offer or accept surrender. Its called paralysis. An ANYTHING thats good... (page 7 BoED on Mercy) "Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter {what}" say it with me now, Good characters must offer and accept mercy. since you are so fond of RULES AS WRITTEN. This goes against the PHB. The official policy of WotC is that if the secondary source contradicts a primary source, the primary source is always rights. Its RULES AS WRITTEN. And even if we go by your example it doesnt phase my argument for a LG assassin at all since such an assassin could show mercy by paralyzing with DA. Either way you have no argument for why LG shouldnt be assassins. Because poisons cause undue pain and suffering thechoice to use them is evil. rules as written. Swords cause undue pain and suffering, the choice to use them is evil. Logical equivocation. This is exactly why the BoED makes no sense. they have no moral guide, no discression, they simply affect whoever they come in contact with. That in and of itself is not the evil part, the evil act comes in choosing to employ a weapon you know causes undue pain and suffering. Swords have no moral guide, no discression, they simply affect whoever they come in contact with. That in and of itself is not the evil part, the evil act comes in chooseing to employ a sword you know causes undue pain and suffering. Now see how ridiculous the BoED is? secondly poison adds undue pain and suffering into the world. Poison is generating this pain from a substance, its coming into being without any moral justification. Someone using poison against BBEG has the same moral justification as someone using a ravage against BBEF. Its the moral motivation behind the act which is reflected by the character's alignment, not they type of weapon used in the act. The BoED's position on ravages being good and ravages being evil is as ridiculous as saying its evil to use a regular sword to attack an evil creature but it is a good deed when you attack with a holy avenger. You might have moral justification in using it, but then thats suspect as well since you are choosing something you know causes pain and suffering when you don't need to. Great argument for why ravages are evil! You know they cause pain and suffering when you dont need to. A ravage isn't causeing any new pain and suffering, its takeing the pain and suffering the "baron" has put into the world and bringing it back upon him. Its not creating new evil in the world, its not creating new pain, its taking that which was done and giving it back. Thats not evil, thats karma. This statement is in direct contradiction to your previous statement. You say poison is evil because you dont have to use it to inflict pain and suffering but then you say its ok to use a ravage when you know it will inflict pain and suffering. I know the fluff text says its not really evil, theres no need to reiterate. Im pointing out that the fluff text is illogical and contradicts itself. You have to choose which part of the BoED you want to go by because you cant have your cake and eat it too. Either inflicting pain and suffering is always evil and thus using ravages is evil (since your not required to use them to inflict pain and suffering) or its ok to inflict pain and suffering as long as its on a bad guy. The last option makes more sense because its backed up by the primary source when it says LG "fights evil mercilessly", it backs up Skip Williams' finding that poison isnt evil, it backs up the fact that the ninja can use poison and not be evil. There are more sources that say the BoED is wrong than says its right...in fact it actualy says that it, itself is wrong. you are saying "nope, i don't belive these rules, i am going to go with my own interpretation of these other rules" you are simply choosing a side of a debate and then saying the other side is wrong because you have picked a side. You keep cherry picking the part of BoED that backs up your point at any given time when, as a whole, it contradicts itself. Im not going by my personal opinion but by the primary sources. My opinion just happens to be reinforced by not only logic but official WotC policy. incorrect, that is simply your opinion and most certainly not mine. The BoED came out after the PHB, and thus if they wanted to make a change to the system the latest publication would be where you find it, so i go by the one that came out most recently. That is more reasonable than the argument you make. If your argument were true than the books that state "this rule/ability/text superseeds what was published inthe PHB/DMG/MMx" would simply be wasting space since they COULDN"T trump what was in the core books. The last i checked, no where in the BoED did it say that specifically overrides the PHB. Its a set of supplementary rules, is not core, and is a secondary source. The official WotC policy is that if a secondary source contradicts a primary source then the primary source is right. And even if the BoED DID override the PHB you still have yet to pick which of the contradictory viewpoints it presents. the assassins save or die attack can not be more merciful than the quivering palm since you can't offer mercy before they are DEAD. You can paralyze them and offer mercy before you coup de grace them. Its just as merciful as QP. killing from stealth isn't evil, however killing without provocation and killing without the attempt at quarter are evil. No where in the assassin's class abilities does it say he must kill without provocation. Once again your just making stuff up. the neccessity of an assassin to be in stealth or in disgues combined with the fact the death attack is an instant kill is what makes offering or accepting mercy an impossiblity. it means you can't do anything BUT kill in cold blood. Once again....paralyze. Your whole arguement seems to be based on the belief that paralyze is not an option. Your ignoring the RAW. And still, even if it was only an instant kill, a LG rogue could do the same thing and still be good by the core rules. your opinion that is directly contradicted by RAW. My opion is backed up by more instances of RAW than yours is. I have the PHB, the CAd and the co-author of the PHB. You have the BoED which has rules that contradict other rules in the BoED! Your opinion not only contradicts RAW but itself as well. And it doesnt even matter who has more RAW since the BoED is an optional, secondary source and thus the PHB with its "fighting evil mercilesly" is correct.
K 06-20-06, 03:42 PM	If Death Effects were evil, the Solar probably wouldn't run around casting power word kill or destruction, would it? And yet, if we look on page 12 of the Monster Manual (the primary source for creatures and creature abilities as it happens), we find that the Solar has power word kill as a spell-like ability, and the sample Solar prepared spells on page 13 include destruction. Yes, you can be Good, even a "puissant champion of good" and still run around using Death Effects. You can swing a Vorpal Sword, you can use powers that kill an opponent outright without mercy or forebearance. And in fact if you want to be the greatest of the Angels, you have to do that. This isn't really up for debate. You can totally kill people instantly and without mercy and be Good. That's D&D. That's the way D&D has always been, and that's the way it's always going to be.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-20-06, 03:43 PM	But as ive stated before, you can play a core assassin, cast every spell on the list and never commit and evil act. (poison is still a matter of debate apparently though) No, this is also just the opinion of belthazzar. The Poison spell does not carry the [evil] descriptor. Even if it did, it specifically, specifically states in the RAW: The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water. Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on. A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says the spell fails. A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher. I.E. casting a spell is never an aligned act. Ghoststepper, Kresalak, Sunrider, and Watchdog (and if there's anyone else that's arguing pro-good Assassins, I mean you too), You've all made your case. Belthazzar either has no ability to understand how logic works, or he's being deliberately obtuse. I think you should just ignore him. Happy thoughts, people! Happy thoughts!
belthazzar1113 06-20-06, 04:16 PM	Then why are there "Ex-character" sections for barbarians, paladins, etc? It seems that if that rule were important, because ex base casses work differently than ex presetige classes. there isn't a PrC in the books that i have found that has an ex section. But page 16 of the CW covers ALL PrCs and goversn what happens when you violate your requirments. THey don't need to repeat the rule each and every time there is a PrC published, they put the rule out there and expect it to be followed without having to restate it everytime. Death attack is evil because it doesn't have the possiblity of knocking people out? Even if that were true (paralysis option), i am done arguing about this paralysis option. WHen yo make a death attack you have no chance to talk to the target before hand. you have no chance to ask for surrender or offer quarter. durning your wind up for death attack, the three rounds of observation. they can't know you are there or they can't know you are a threat. You won't be doing a death attack if your going to paralize someone. your not going to make the switch at the last second, because nothing will change. the target sits for three rounds doing the same things in a non combat encounter, if your going ot make a death attack then your going to make a death attack from the start. if your going to make a paralysis attack your going to paralize from the start. the whole idea of oh i can sit there and then randomly change my mind at the last minute is a joke. There is no reason anyone would ever change their mind, and no reason that anything would ever change. You do one or the other, and i am specifically talking about the LETHAL option of death attack. I don't feel the need to state this anymore and anyone else who simply brings up oh but then you could do paralisis i will simply state your wrong and move on. you want to know why you can reference this section of post right here. This is my point of view and obviosly not everyones, so i understand if people believe he should have lost his alignment for this, but then again, that is in fact your decision and not the one i used for my game. from what it sounds and reads like your running a morally ambiguous game that doesn't bother to think about morality or larger issues. More along the lines of kick in the door, see an orc, kill the orc. I said way back in the beggining if you didn't mind chucking the alignment system then it really doesn't matter what you do. And since You can pretty much ignore alignment and do whatever you can justify then you can have a LG assassin, or even a LG blackguard. 'Core' rulebooks are PHB, DMG, MM and XPH. Everything else is non-core. psionics is core? yeah, i know a million people that would rise up from the dead to oppose that one, so mabey you just proved my point. Everyone has their own opinion on what they use and what they don't use. I consider BoED and BoVD to be the difinitive subject and primary source material for talking about alignment and dnd morality. These books were written specifically to adress the subject and i consider their work to trump that which came before. if it didn't then they wouldn't have bothered to write them. Obviously some other people disagree and based on personal dislike of the work they dismiss it as "non-CORE" and theirfore useless and to be ignored... yet then they turn around and use material in it to justify their own argument. Ravages are not in the DMG, ravages are in BoED. if you want to use them to justify yourself, then you yourself are using BoED and all that it entails. Everyone has their own views on whats the primary source for different information. Base classes and base races are in the PHB, magical items and some of the first PrCs are in the dmg, monsters are in the MM. but base alignment i consider to be in the two books written specifically about alignment, while that which is in the phb was just the bare skeleton and summery and was expanded and clerified and really codeified in BoED and BoVD. its a difference of opinion and a difference of perspective. And untill you show me something say says specifically "Mercy isn't good, murder isn't evil, torture isn't evil, and ravages are exactly the same thing as poisons" then really there isn't going to be a way to solve this within the rules. Outside reason and common sense is going to be the end arena for this debate. i have already presented by arguments based on reason, RAW, and logic. If all we are going to do is snipe back and forth with the same arguments over and over again then really its a waste of time.
K 06-20-06, 04:42 PM	The Core Books are anything that says "Core Rulebook" on the front of it. All other books don't say that, and in the lowe rright hand corner of the Dungeons and Dragons logo it says "supplement" or "accessory". So the Player's Handbook is Core Rule Book I. While the Book of Exalted Deed is a "Supplement". Honestly, this is completely non-controvertial, just look at the cover of the book. You don't even have to read the whole book, in this case you can tell a book by its cover!
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-20-06, 04:57 PM	All right, Bel, allow me to revise what I said. Posted and revised by Watchdog_of_Hades So, let's review two different possibilities. 1. Alhandra takes out her trusty sword and kills the BBEG. 2. An Assassin (PrC) death attacks the BBEG and he fails his save. Death attack is evil because it doesn't have the possiblity of knocking people out? Since that's true, Alhandra is even more evil than the Assassin (PrC). Why? Because she did have the chance to knock him out with nonlethal, and she didn't take it! She just whcked away at him with her sword, even though it was clear that if she hit him with the flat of the blade a few times, he'd fall unconcious instead of die. But she chose not to and she just flat-out killed him. WHen yo make a death attack you have no chance to talk to the target before hand. you have no chance to ask for surrender or offer quarter.I oppose that with this.While studying the victim, the assassin can undertake other actions so long as his attention stays focused on the target and the target does not detect the assassin or recognize the assassin as an enemy. You could (and might) argue that "the target does not detect the assassin or recognize the assassin as an enemy" means that the target must not detect the assassin and must not recognize him as a threat, but that is utterly ridiculous. So, you could spend your 18 seconds chatting with him and assessing whether there's any hope of redemption, and then stab him. Alternatively (warning: word "paralysis" coming up), you could paralyze your enemy and then tie him up, then speak with him at length about the evils of his ways. You won't be doing a death attack if your going to paralize someone.Pardon my net-slang, but :heehee . Read this. Death Attack: If an assassin studies his victim for 3 rounds and then makes a sneak attack with a melee weapon that successfully deals damage, the sneak attack has the additional effect of possibly either paralyzing or killing (assassin's choice).Notice how the "paralyze" option is under the heading of "death attack?" Thus, you will be making a death attack if you use the ability "death attack" to paralyze someone. Edit: I have another thing. I'll reveal it piece by piece. So, Mr. BBEG is walking around his estate, when the good party jumps out at him and starts slashing at him. Okay? That's evil, right? They're not giving him a chance to surrender. Or how's this? Mr. Goblin is standing guard in a dungeon when the party rushes in through the door and hacks him to pieces. That's evil too, right?
Vestigial_Thumb 06-20-06, 06:43 PM	i am done arguing about this paralysis option. No, you are not. You have only expressed an opinion, not fact. You have not proven, or even supported anything you have said in this entire thread. It's called trolling when one states opinion as a fact. WHen yo make a death attack you have no chance to talk to the target before hand. you have no chance to ask for surrender or offer quarter. durning your wind up for death attack, the three rounds of observation. they can't know you are there or they can't know you are a threat. You can still paralyze them. Scenario: Assassin: You can surrender now if you want to. Some jerk: What makes you think I'll surrender? Assassin: This... *makes paralyzing Death Attack* Assassin: How about now? Coup de grace is never evil, so you can do this all day if you want to. And Death Attack is not evil, it's unaligned. Since we're so dumb, why don't you just quote your post, or even just provied a link? You won't be doing a death attack if your going to paralize someone. your not going to make the switch at the last second, because nothing will change. the target sits for three rounds doing the same things in a non combat encounter, if your going ot make a death attack then your going to make a death attack from the start. Tactics, my friend. Tactics. Maybe you are supposed to capture the creature, so why not paralyze it while you kill the other enemies? if your going to make a paralysis attack your going to paralize from the start. No, it's your choice. It never says when you can choose, so you can choose after the attack is resolved. the whole idea of oh i can sit there and then randomly change my mind at the last minute is a joke. Your logic is a joke. There is no reason anyone would ever change their mind, and no reason that anything would ever change. I would rather decide after the attack hits... if it hits. You do one or the other, and i am specifically talking about the LETHAL option of death attack. Well, you can't argue half a case. You're arguing that Death Attack is evil. Death Attack consists of two options. By RAW, Death Attack is unaligned. Your opinion doesn't matter, because I could just say right back that Death Attack is good. Neither claim could be backed up, so we'd end up right where we started. I don't feel the need to state this anymore and anyone else who simply brings up oh but then you could do paralisis i will simply state your wrong and move on. Then you'd be wrong. And arrogant. you want to know why you can reference this section of post right here. That quote was the proof of your inability to argue cases. from what it sounds and reads like your running a morally ambiguous game that doesn't bother to think about morality or larger issues. No, he runs pretty damn standard D&D games from what I hear. And yes, standard is what we're discussing. More along the lines of kick in the door, see an orc, kill the orc. And it sounds like you make your players roleplay Exalted Lawful Stupid characters if they want to stay good. Do you also force them to just leave their enemies after their enemies drop? I said way back in the beggining if you didn't mind chucking the alignment system then it really doesn't matter what you do. And since You can pretty much ignore alignment and do whatever you can justify then you can have a LG assassin, or even a LG blackguard. Straw man. Total straw man. There lies a difference in where Assassins and Blackguards get their abilities. Assassins should not lose their training if they turn good. If Blackguards turn good, the dark powers they worship simply stop giving them power. psionics is core? yeah, i know a million people that would rise up from the dead to oppose that one, so mabey you just proved my point. I doubt you know more than 300 people, none of them would dispute this if they actually knew that Psionics is Core. It's a fact. Everyone has their own opinion on what they use and what they don't use. I consider BoED and BoVD to be the difinitive subject and primary source material for talking about alignment and dnd morality. These books were written specifically to adress the subject and i consider their work to trump that which came before. Then you'd be the only one. And you'd also be wrong. Any arguments based on sources that contradict but don't supercede Core, don't. You're wrong, and that's all there is to it. if it didn't then they wouldn't have bothered to write them. Yes. These books are written for DMs who want to run specific campaign settings. It's okay to use them, but they do not in any way supercede the Core rules, unless they are houseruled. Obviously some other people disagree and based on personal dislike of the work they dismiss it as "non-CORE" and theirfore useless and to be ignored... yet then they turn around and use material in it to justify their own argument. No, they're using it to show that even if you use the material, it contradicts the Core rules. Core rules supercede the rules in BoED. Ravages are not in the DMG, ravages are in BoED. if you want to use them to justify yourself, then you yourself are using BoED and all that it entails. You called it upon yourself. You wanted to argue according to BoED, so they did so too, and proved you wrong. You only lose harder if you use BoED as a source. Everyone has their own views on whats the primary source for different information. But we are only arguing according to one. The WotC policy regarding primary and secondary sources. Your opinions don't matter, neither do mine, nor anyone else's. You've been trying to get away with this forever. Using your opinion as the source and then using your opinion to "prove" everyone who disagrees with you wrong. You're the one who is wrong. Base classes and base races are in the PHB, magical items and some of the first PrCs are in the dmg, monsters are in the MM. but base alignment i consider to be in the two books written specifically about alignment, while that which is in the phb was just the bare skeleton and summery and was expanded and clerified and really codeified in BoED and BoVD. The BoED is specifically about one kind of good: Exalted. Everything in it is zealous glorification of good. They even confuse good with law at times in it. The book is also a secondary source. That's a fact. None of our opinions, nor yours, matter. "Mercy isn't good, murder isn't evil, torture isn't evil, and ravages are exactly the same thing as poisons" then really there isn't going to be a way to solve this within the rules. Okay, I'll try my best. Mercy: It can be shown by a Blackguard. If the Blackguard is given the assignment of capturing a victim for sacrifice, he'd have to show mercy. He'd have to eventually hold back and subdue the target. That act of mercy would be considered evil in Core RAW. Murder: That's easy. Murder is a legal term. I've already shown the definition, so I'll just ask you like you ask me: Find the damn post yourself. The definition shows that murder is only illegal, and therefore chaotic. Murder also doesn't have to be chaotic; you could do it in the name of your nation, not unlike assassinating Hitler (replace the name Hitler with "anonymous tyrant" if it makes you feel any better). Torture: Now no one said torture wasn't evil. I believe it would be easy to define it as such by the Core rules. Ravages: They're exactly like poison, except they actually cause pain. Intolerably large amounts I might add. It would be defined as torture, which is evil. So it stands that BoED is not a reliable source. Outside reason and common sense is going to be the end arena for this debate. i have already presented by arguments based on reason, RAW, and logic. No, you have presented arguments consisting of flaming, trolling, hate speech, personal opinions, sentiment, and logical fallacies. If all we are going to do is snipe back and forth with the same arguments over and over again then really its a waste of time. You're the one who's been wasting my time. The only reason I keep posting is because I'm hoping that you'll eventually snap out of your ignorance and try to reason with me. And it wouldn't hurt if you apologized.
Satori 06-20-06, 07:07 PM	I know how we can end this discussion! By using TV and Movie morality! -Xena the Warrior Princess uses several techniques that paralyze victims. If I remember right (that show hasn't been on for a while), her paralysis techniques would kill someone if she didn't reverse it. Is Xena evil? -Jet Li from Kiss of the Dragon is an acupuncturist that uses a special attack at the end of the movie. He sticks needles in special spots and ends up slowly killing the bad guy. Is Jet Li evil? Or his character, at least? -In the movie Proof of Life with Russell Crowe, there is a seen where Russell Crowe jumps out of the foliage and rather brutally rips out a hostage taker's throat with a knife. He then proceeded to rescue an innocent man. Was Russell Crowe evil in that movie? -In the movie Spy Game with Brad Pitt and Robert Redford, Brad Pitt is a Marine Corps sniper that studies his vietnamese victim intently before shooting him in the head. Later in the movie he is arrested and tortured for trying to save an innocent woman. Was Brad Pitt evil in that movie? I saved the two best for last. -In Replacement Killers, Chow Yun Fat in a hired killer that is too moral to kill a child. He gives up killing people, but is still able to make headshots and take out the bad guys with his "Hired Killer Skills". -In The Professional, Jean Reno plays Leon, a hired killer that ends up losing his life to save a young, innocent little girl from a corrupt DEA agent. He abides by a strict "No Women, No Children" rule...but otherwise operates like a professional hired killer. Have I made my point? DnD has about as much relevence on real life as TV and Movies do...in fact, they are extremely similar in that they offer a relevent model of human existence...but without all the sticky stuff that leads to boring entertainment. In other words, watch more TV and argue on the internet less.
Sunrider 06-20-06, 10:11 PM	As for XPH being core, look at the back of CPsi and read what it says. It's not contradicted anywhere else.
Apostate 06-20-06, 10:37 PM	Has anyone heard of a way to make an Assassin character turn good? I was thinking something like Redeemed/Emancipated Assassin. Still get the Death Attack and all that but no longer has to be evil, kinda uses his abilities for death dealing for a more goodly cause. Anyone heard anything like this before? :confused: Yes I have, but it's from a book, and talking about books here is a no-no. In any case, the character is an ex-assassin who became a priest of the Silver Flame and now uses his assassin abilities (including poison use and death attack), in addition to his nifty clerical spells, to destroy creatures of evil in the world of Ebberon.
belthazzar1113 06-21-06, 02:51 AM	The Core Books are anything that says "Core Rulebook" on the front of it. All other books don't say that, and in the lowe rright hand corner of the Dungeons and Dragons logo it says "supplement" or "accessory". which means kingdoms of kalamar is core rulebook 4 right? sats so right on the cover. so everything in there about setting and how the dnd world operates is primary source and ebberon, forgotten realms, darksun, planescape, and all the rest, those are all wrong and should be totally ignored. Wow wotc is going to be annoyed when they find out half of their product line is worthless. Your argument is invalid, not everything that says core rulebook on it is really core. And even then, not everything that can be covered in the core books was covered. For example, losing PrC requirments after attaining the prc isn't covered the the dmg, its covered in the complete warrior. Does that make that rule invalid? no, it just means it wasn't in the dmg, it doesn't make it any less valid. the core books do not contain all the knowldge that encompasses the dnd rule set, nor the dnd text. thats why there are other books published. Each one adding to the rule set and building on it. Sometimes, yes, even changing it. If i want to look up a spell, i look in the spell compendium since i know that book overrides spell descriptions that came before it, even the ones in the PHB. If i want to look up alignment I look in the alignment books, BoED and BoVD, because i know thats why they were written and they override the skeletal alignment system presented in the PHB. They have become the primary source for the alignment descriptions, and for the definitions of morality. Since your entire point is based around a single adjective, while mine is based around a half page section explaing the reasons behind t hat word, i see my arugment and reasons as stronger evidence, combined with the fact that this follows my own independant line of reasoning and i have been convinced that this is the correct side of the issue. -Xena the Warrior Princess uses several techniques that paralyze victims. If I remember right (that show hasn't been on for a while), her paralysis techniques would kill someone if she didn't reverse it. Is Xena evil? your seriously going to bring in movie and tv logic. ok.... xena is neutral. she changed from evil. She uses what amount to the stunning attack line of feats to produce her stuns. She doesn't have to study for twenty seconds before she can paralize, she can do it while someone is defending themselves, and she doesn't require flanking or them being flatfooted to do it. IN short, its not a sneak attack, its not a death attack, its not a paralisis attack. Durning the show if you want to watch she fluxs from sometimes good ro sometimes neutral, she is working with her alignment which is one of the themes of the show.... putting it in dnd terms is a bit silly, but you did ask. Was Russell Crowe evil in that movie? never saw that one, sorry. Have I made my point? nope. in your last two examples it was modern times with modern weapons, which means we use the modern rules, not dnd rules. under modern rules you have a death threshhold equal to your con, since most people have a con between 8-13 that means your average sniper rifle (4d6+2 damage) is going to be an instant kill save or die attack, combine that with the sniper prc which actually gets sneak attack and most of the time a s niper simply kills a victem outright with a single shot, no death attack required. as for the morality of the act... well thats up to you to judge, i gave my opinions on the morality of snipin gin the real world vs dnd world and i am not going to repeat them. and using tv and movie morality to prove an point? bad form. In other words, watch more TV and argue on the internet less. i was done arguing a while ago, but people keep coming up to refute my points. The OP already came up and said what he was going to do, i already presented my opinions on the matter, several tiems, but people keep coming back to argue specifically with me and say "pay attention bel this is why your wrong" or "what do you think about THIS bel?" and so here i am, answering back... the debate is closed since i haven't heard anyone bring up anything new... just the same old "no its not" arguments unsupported by any clear reasoning or fact. the people who are continuously arguing with me differ on a question of opinion, this is fine untill they become insane and disrespectful, then i ignore them and get flamed for walking away from whats obviously a pointless attempt at reasoned discussion. even the best of posters eventually turns disrespectful when i don't instantly fall over at flawed logic and reverse my feild. Unfortunitly i think about my arguments If Blackguards turn good, the dark powers they worship simply stop giving them power. to use your own arguments against you, show me in core where there is an ex blackguard section. show me where it says they can't change alignments once they take the blackguard class. you could literally be a paladin / blackguard with a simple atonement spell assuming you are going by "CORE" alone. And blackguards don't actually have to do anything evil to get into their class, so by your logic that makes them LESS evil than an assassin. So, you could spend your 18 seconds chatting with him and assessing whether there's any hope of redemption, and then stab him. if you ask a BBEG will he surrender he is going to immediatly see you as a threat thus negating your ability to sneak attack or death attack him. if you want to paralize and tie up the bbeg and then tell him he is captured and ask for a surrender promise or a vow of captivity then your perfectly justified in doing so, thus why i presented an alternate assassin that used the paralisis option exclusivly and was able to hold any alignment.
SalParadise 06-21-06, 03:11 AM	The BBEG is sitting in his castle. The assassin sneaks in, invisible, and starts to study the BBEG. The party paladin breaks down the door to his throne room and says, "Are you prepared to repent for your evil deeds?" The BBEG chuckles, the Paladin states, "This is your last chance to surrender! Repent now!" If he doesn't repent, and the assassin takes that death attack to paralyze the BBEG, is the assassin evil? The BBEG refused to surrender. The BBEG stated that it wouldn't repent. The BBEG was given ample chance to do either. No blood was shed. Is there issue with this? Is it necessarily evil? You keep pirouetting around this thread, dancing around rules you disagree with (despite being core), ignoring common sense, and quoting rules that simply do not apply as if they have authority. If you want to play with BoED and BoVD, feel free. Nobody's saying you're wrong for doing that. However, when you accept BoED and BoVD as core, and state that they must apply to every single game out there, because they're new, you're absolutely wrong. Page 5, PHB 3.5:Your group needs these items to play D&D. - The Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster's Manual revised core rulebooks.The cover of BoVD and BoED say accessory. Do you understand what an 'accessory' is?
Sunrider 06-21-06, 03:40 AM	which means kingdoms of kalamar is core rulebook 4 right? sats so right on the cover. so everything in there about setting and how the dnd world operates is primary source and ebberon, forgotten realms, darksun, planescape, and all the rest, those are all wrong and should be totally ignored. Wow wotc is going to be annoyed when they find out half of their product line is worthless. Your argument is invalid, not everything that says core rulebook on it is really core. These are campaign sourcebooks. What FR sourcebooks say applies to FR games, what Eberron sourcebooks say applies to Eberron games, etc. And even then, not everything that can be covered in the core books was covered. For example, losing PrC requirments after attaining the prc isn't covered the the dmg, its covered in the complete warrior. Does that make that rule invalid? no, it just means it wasn't in the dmg, it doesn't make it any less valid. the core books do not contain all the knowldge that encompasses the dnd rule set, nor the dnd text. thats why there are other books published. Each one adding to the rule set and building on it. Sometimes, yes, even changing it. If i want to look up a spell, i look in the spell compendium since i know that book overrides spell descriptions that came before it, even the ones in the PHB. If i want to look up alignment I look in the alignment books, BoED and BoVD, because i know thats why they were written and they override the skeletal alignment system presented in the PHB. They have become the primary source for the alignment descriptions, and for the definitions of morality. Since your entire point is based around a single adjective, while mine is based around a half page section explaing the reasons behind t hat word, i see my arugment and reasons as stronger evidence, combined with the fact that this follows my own independant line of reasoning and i have been convinced that this is the correct side of the issue. You clearly don't understand the concept of core rules versus splatbooks. Splatbooks add new rules to the existing, skeletal system. They do not change the core rules. For example, Complete Adventurer gives new uses for many skills. These new uses are just that - they provide more ways to use material already presented in the PHB. They do not change the core rules, nor do they contradict or otherwise come into conflict with them. Therefore, they are valid in any game where Complete Adventurer is being used. When rules presented in splatbooks contradict core rules, however, core rules win, unless there is errata suggesting otherwise. This is the case with many things presented in BoED/BoVD - unlike the extra rules presented in CW/CAdv/CArc/CDiv/etc., which don't contradict core rules, merely adding to them, some of the fluff text in BoED directly contradict core rules. Where there is no conflict (e.g. CAdv and the new uses for skills), you use both. Where there is conflict (e.g. BoED and alignment), core rules win - the splatbook advice is considered incorrect.
belthazzar1113 06-21-06, 07:44 AM	300 posts and still its the same handful of arguments going round and round and round... legitimate points get ignored in favor of endless flaming as diehard jackels try to simply prove their nemissis wrong because of some phsycotic desire to win. The flames have won, i presented every argument and opinion I want, and there is never going to be an end to this debate. its over and done with as everything is out, so let it die, lock it down, and move on. vote to lock it down!!
SalParadise 06-21-06, 09:06 AM	300 posts and still its the same handful of arguments going round and round and round... legitimate points get ignored in favor of endless flaming as diehard jackels try to simply prove their nemissis wrong because of some phsycotic desire to win. The flames have won, i presented every argument and opinion I want, and there is never going to be an end to this debate. its over and done with as everything is out, so let it die, lock it down, and move on. vote to lock it down!! If you think the discussion is so unproductive, simply stop posting. Claiming that the discussion is over because nobody is listening to you, and appealing to a mod to close the thread from within the thread is unproductive and childish. If you want the thread closed, or think there has been a breach of the CoC, then I suggest you send a PM to a friendly mod asking for the thread to be closed, and click on the nice triangular ! button at the top right of offensive posts with an explanation of how they violate the CoC. You may style yourself the arbiter of all that is right and correct in the world, and think that through force of will you can control a forum and discussion simply by stating what you think should be done, but the world doesn't work that way. There are proper channels to go through. The mature thing would be to use them and ignore people who are breaking the CoC rather than egging them on.
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-21-06, 10:38 AM	Speaking of repeating myself, you didn't respond to this, Bel.: So, Mr. BBEG is walking around his estate, when the good party jumps out at him and starts slashing at him. Okay? That's evil, right? They're not giving him a chance to surrender. Or how's this? Mr. Goblin is standing guard in a dungeon when the party rushes in through the door and hacks him to pieces. That's evil too, right?
belthazzar1113 06-21-06, 12:55 PM	If you think the discussion is so unproductive, simply stop posting. Claiming that the discussion is over because nobody is listening to you, and appealing to a mod to close the thread from within the thread is unproductive and childish. this is precicely my point. Your post has nothing to do with the thread topic at all. It just a flame of me. Not only that i am not even the first person to suggest the thread be closed, however i am the first to get flamed for doing so. odd how that works isn't it? you don't say a word when others say something but the moment i agree you flame me. It unfortunitly shows you bias and since you don't have anything pertenent to the thread i don't see why you bothered to post at all. Speaking of repeating myself, you didn't respond to this, Bel.: there isn'ta point to this, and it was the same style example used on page 4 of this thread, so rather than get back into the same discussion, yet again, why don't you just head back a few pages and pat yourself on the back while re-reading the same disscussion. Your briliant logic isn't at all new, nor is it particularly briliant. make a point or cease to prattle.
shadow mage 06-21-06, 01:53 PM	I'd vote for a lock-down too, if the perpetuator of the thread continues to base his views of morals on his own apparent opinions of them rather than by the written guidelines presented in the core rulebooks. :rolleyes: I'm not fond of directly mentioning people unless it's constructive criticism. Belthazzar1113, none of your arguments have proven to be valid thus far if only because you are not attaching rules as are written in the core rulebooks to your arguments. Book of Exalted Deeds is one of the most poorly written splat books (right up there with 3.0 Psionics) and has enough contradictions within itself to invalidate it as an effective tool with which to argue rules from, especially since some of these rules also conflict with core rules. Start quoting from the core rulebooks and/or SRD. Show us, rather than tell us, that assassin abilities are purely evil. Show us, rather than tell us, that those abilities in the hands of nonevil characters are unbalancing (though I will forewarn you, as a C.O. forum frequenter, it's a common practice to snicker at people saying the assassin PrC as presented in the DMG is very powerful...). Here's a few tips to debating here. Man up and admit when you're wrong. Prove via rules, not observations or opinions, your points. Cease ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attacks, as they do nothing to assist your side of a debate or argument. And finally, if it becomes apparent to you that a thread is getting nowhere, stop posting. Alignment issues are to here as the word "katana" is to the Equipment and Combat forums, so sometimes it's better to just shake your head and walk away. Being the last man standing doesn't make you the winner. <back on topic> Man-o-war stings (of which I'm familiar with) are far worse than most jellyfish, but certainly not as debilitating as you make it out to be, nor is it a common poison. I think a better example of poison use in nature would be snakes, scorpions, and spiders, and many people can attest to the debilitating nature of most of those above mentioned venomous species' poisons. King cobra? Black widow? Leiurus quinquestriatus (death stalker)? Similarly, many poisons (as was mentioned earlier) are not even painful even if they can cause death. And, as of yet, no proof has been presented that they must be evil in use, since not all have the same effects and not all are even lethal or painful. On death attacks, if you really want to delve into logic, keep in mind that a death attack is simply a specialized sneak attack. Nobody knows the rogue they're fighting is gonna sneak attack them, just like they don't know the death-attack-user is going to use death attack on them. Similarly, it's not always lethal. Even the most vile, evil, cruel assassin might want to paralyze a victim to later torture them, just like a just assassin of the church (so to speak) might want to paralyze them to bind them and bring them back to the church for religious judgement. Again, no proof has been presented that specifically says death attacks must be evil. Magic-related, the only spell the assassin possesses in core rules that might be evil in use is poison, and even that isn't an [Evil] spell. In fact, like all of the other abilities (every other ability) an assassin possesses, you can use it for a nonevil purpose, even a benign purpose. We've said our piece, several times. Backed up with rules and examples even, specific quotations as well. If we're willing to restate our arguments, you should be courteous enough to do the same. Explain to us why your side is right, and more importantly, show us rules proving it. -Shadow Mage
GhostStepper 06-21-06, 03:30 PM	Lets recap the main points before we wrap this thing up (as if thats gonna happen): Official Policy on what sources are correct in a discussion of core RAW - official WotC policy states that when a secondary source contradicts a primary source, the primary source takes precedent. The BoED is a secondary source so when it contradicts a primary source (the PHB), the primary source is correct. This is not any particular individual's opinion, it's official WotC policy. - The PHB gives an example of a Lawfully Good paladin "fighting evil mercilessly". The PHB says that good can treat evil mercilessly. If the BoED contradicts this, the BoED is wrong as far as Core rules are concerned. Its there, as a 'supplement', to provide optional rules and in no way invalidates the PHB's assertion than LG "fights evil mercilessly" in an argument about core DnD mechanics. Anyone can choose to use the BoED's rules in their home game but any assertions it makes that contradict the PHB are invalid, as this is an argument involving 'official' wizards stance on alignment in DnD and not alternate rule systems presented in supplements. Death Attack - Death Attack has 2 options (as much as certain posters would like to pretend it doesnt), kill or paralyze. Even if ALL KILLING is evil in your campaign, the assassin can use Death Attack and not commit an evil act. - Nowhere in the core rules does it say killing with stealth is evil. A core paladin can kill from stealth and, as long as the death is justified, he remains lawfully good. This is because in DnD good "fights evil mercilessly". - Using DA to kill from stealth is in no meaningful way any different than a Lawful Good rogue killing a BBEG from hiding without mercy or a LG paladin jumping out in a surprise round and killing the BBEG without mercy. The above examples involve "fighting evil mercilessly" which according to the core RAW is perfectly in line with LG behavior. - Even if you are using the BoED and believe that a LG assassin would have to allow the BBEG to surrender, he is perfectly able to do that without changing any of his class abilities. The DA can be used to paralyze a creature and allow it to surrender instead of killing. - monks get a 'save or die' attack and they can be lawful good. - Since LG characters can kill from stealth then using DA to kill from stealth does not necessitate that the DA user be evil. Even if you think killing form stealth is evil, a core assassin can use the DA ability exactly how its written and paralyze his target in order to offer mercy. Nothing about the DA mechanic as it is written necessitates assassins be evil. Assassin Spells - None of the core assassin spells have the 'evil' descriptor. All of the core assassin spells can be cast by other classes that are not evil. None of the core assassin spells necessitate that the caster be evil to cast them. The assassin cannot be required to be evil based on his core spell list. Poison vs. Ravages - Ravages can have the exact same effect on BBEGs as poisons. Someone pointed out that if a paladin uses a ravage in a sadistic manner then the act is evil, thus supporting the position that it doesnt matter what the nature of the substance used is, its the moral reasoning of the individual who commits the act that determines if the act is good or evil. If it is the moral reasoning of the individual that determines if an act is evil then if using a ravage to achieve X effect against BBEG is a good act then using poison to achieve X effect against BBEG is a good act as well. This is the ridiculousness that is the BoED. - The BoED says poisons are evil because they inflict undue suffering. Swords inflict undue suffering. Fireballs inflict undue suffering. The BoED is full of ways to infict undue suffering that are supposedly 'good' because the fluff text says so. This is completely illogical. - The BoED says that because evil creatures are evil, that the suffering ravages infiict is not undue. If this is so then the suffering that poisons inflict on evil creatures is not undue when a LG employ poisons with the express purpose of punishing evil (that same reason they would use a ravage). Once again, the BoED makes no sense. - It has been argued even by those who think that poison use is evil that not all poisons are evil. If you take this position then you have no grounds to say that poison use requires that the assassin class be evil since a LG assassin could use his poison use class ability to use 'non evil' poison. - A LG ninja gets the same poison use class ability as the assassin can remain LG regardless of using the ability. Making a LG Assassin while keeping all the class abilities the same - Death Attack: By the core rules, killing from stealth is not evil and thus using Death Attack to kill is not evil since even a paladin could choose stealth as a tactic. Even if you do go by the BoED's optional rules on alignment that involve showing mercy, a LG assassin can simply use Death Attack to paralyze his prey and offer mercy. Death Attack does not need to change at allow for a LG assassin regardless of your position on killing = evil. - Poison Use: Using poison to inflict ailment X on an evil creature is logically equivalent to using ravages to inflict ailment X on an evil creature. Thus, if you find using ravages to inflict suffering on evil creatures is ok then using a poison to so the same thing has the exact same moral justification. It has been argued by people who still think poison use is evil than non-ability damage poison is not. Either way (poison is not not evi against BBEG vs. all poison use it evil accept non-ability damage poison), you dont have to change or remove the poison use class ability from the assassin to allow for a LG assassin: you either just use poison on BBEGs because you think that use of poison isnt evil or if you think that only non-ability damage poisons are evil and limit yourself to using 'nonevil' poisons. Either way the class ability does not have to change. - Spells: Theres no evil spells on the assassin's core spell list. If you want to play a core assassin and just change to alignment to LG just limit yourself to the core spell list. No change is required. Ultimately it comes down to this: if you drop the 'evil' class requirement from the Assassin prestige class, you make a LG assassin, use every single class ability and remain Good (as Good is protrayed in DnD).
belthazzar1113 06-21-06, 04:51 PM	There is nothing in the dmg that says an assassin can't be lawful good with two atonement seplls, one to account for the murder, one to account for the alignment change after taking a level of the class. Then you can go up ten levels as a lawful good assassin. There is nothing in the dmg that says you can't be a lawful good blackguard either. You could even be a paladin 10 / blackguard 10, an atonment spell for the alignment switch to evil and then one to account for the change back and then one to regain your paladin powers... and *poof* lawful good blackguard/paladin. There is no ex-blackguard section and no rules in "core" to say you can't do this. This of course it makes zero sense thematically, logically, and ethically and was thus addressed in a "non core" book the CW, which gave a specific rule regarding alignment and other requirments for PrCs and what happens when you no longer qualify. Thats a "non-core" book over ridding a "core" insinuation. So claiming that Core is the end-all-be-all of the dnd world is nonsensical. They are limited books with limited scope. They have limited space and thus can only put in a few concepts and ideas from which they build a new game and system. This means that with each new book the game is updated and adjusted to make sense and bring it in line more with the true representation of a fantasy world it is ment to represent. The example has come up and has become the main sticking point that the example description for lawful good includes the phrase "without mercy". A very reasoned board member explained this better than i could, and so i hope they do not mind i use their words. The example and the rule dont match. The definition of Good is that it is “altruistic and respects life and the dignity of sentient beings.” Slaughtering something “without mercy” is not respecting life. I think anyone would be hard pressed to make this example, and that is all it is, consistent with the actual rule. Those that do so will either twist the definition of respect beyond recognition or appeal to relativity, that one life is better than another. Evil can pick and choose which lives it finds worthy of life. Good respects the lives of sentient beings. the conflict exists within "Core" rules as written itself. To resolve this issue I went to the published books on alignment itself, the additions to the rules that clarify and explain the alignment system more in depth than was possible within "core" rules. However this was summarally dismissed because people didn't like the book or thought it was a "poorly written supplment book" and since it wasn't "core" it wasn't worth considering. This is sad because the conflict exists within "core" itself and is resolved in this suppliment. A poorly worded example in the PHB leads to this kind of heated debate, flamewar and personal attack of myself and the few others that had the patience to agree with me before giving up and leaving the thread. Some of them have been in contact Via PMs but refuse to post back on the thread because of its degeneration into such a insult trading contest and flamewar. I remain because I am stubborn and people keep coming after me. Ignoring published material only leads us back to the origonal conflict. This conflict is resolved in the BoED, and ignoring it ends in an impass with an irresolvable conflict. I have stated my opinions on death attack, poison use, and the requirments of the assassin class itself. My opinions are backed up with material from published WotC materials in the BoED. If you choose to ignore this proof and demand that things be proved with nothing more than the DMG then its impossible to do so because of inherent conflict within the PHB and lack of description and silence on several key issues in the DMG. I have tried to present my points, and logic without bias or confusion, differenciating between what has been said in published material and what is interpretation and what is opinion, but i have been consistantly flamed and attacked with each and every post i put up, including being called a bigot and threatened with attacks, name calling and other such disrespectful speech. I gave back insult for insult what i was given for a time, but i have been attempting to ignore the posts that attack me. It was certainly partially my fault for not starting to ignore such tripe and disrespect earlyer, but I can not take the blame for the flamewar that has ensued. It seems as if people are arguing with me rather than the points, and attempting to simply prove ME wrong rather than take issue with my ideas. Once the disscussion degenerates into a crusade to simply prove me wrong, any hope of reasoned debate has fled. With that in mind i ask that any personal attacks on me simply stop, I have refrained from responding as best I am able, but they remain consistant in their frequency. If anyone wishes to take issue with the ideas, then feel free, but I will not be responding to any personal vendetta style attempts to simply prove me wrong.
Ryu Katsuragi 06-21-06, 05:06 PM	There is nothing in the dmg that says you can't be a lawful good blackguard either. You could even be a paladin 10 / blackguard 10, an atonment spell for the alignment switch to evil and then one to account for the change back and then one to regain your paladin powers... and *poof* lawful good blackguard/paladin. There is no ex-blackguard section and no rules in "core" to say you can't do this. However, unlike the Assassin, you'd lose most of your class abilities. Most of the abilities a Blackguard gets (apart from sneak attack and poison use) are all granted by dark dieties, and fiends. If you atoned, and become good, you'd lose your Aura of Evil, Dark Blessing, spells, Aura of Despair, ability to command undead, and your fiendish servent. My opinions are backed up with material from published WotC materials in the BoED. If you choose to ignore this proof and demand that things be proved with nothing more than the DMG then its impossible to do so because of inherent conflict within the PHB and lack of description and silence on several key issues in the DMG. And if you bothered to read what has been quoted from an official source which at least four people have, if anything from outside the 'core' books contradicts core, core supercedes it.
belthazzar1113 06-21-06, 05:12 PM	However, unlike the Assassin, you'd lose most of your class abilities. Most of the abilities a Blackguard gets (apart from sneak attack and poison use) are all granted by dark dieties, and fiends. If you atoned, and become good, you'd lose your Aura of Evil, Dark Blessing, spells, Aura of Despair, ability to command undead, and your fiendish servent. to use your own arguments against you. show me in core RAW where there is an ex blackguard section, or where it says you will lose these powers if you change alignments. show me the rules that say you can't do this. they arn't there. core doesn't have everything you need. true blackguard bears a remarkable similarity to paladin, but then paladins have an ex-paladin section where blackguards dont. so obvious acording to your logic you can't lose your black guard abilities. assuming your just useing core raw. this is a very apt example of how the "use only core raw" is a flawed argument. core isn't infalable and isn't all comprehensive, something like this highlights it incontravertably.
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-21-06, 05:23 PM	For you information, Bel, no argument like mine is presented on page 4, as that was not my entire argument. Again, allow me to reiterate: So, Mr. BBEG is walking around his estate, when the good party jumps out at him and starts slashing at him. Okay? That's evil, right? They're not giving him a chance to surrender. Or how's this? Mr. Goblin is standing guard in a dungeon when the party rushes in through the door and hacks him to pieces. That's evil too, right? Humor me. Saying, "yes, yes," or "yes, no," or something is much less work than typing, "As Ive said before look at paeg 4 before you use the saem arguement." Additionally, it will get this done faster.
K 06-21-06, 05:31 PM	What exactly is the problem with an Ex-Blackguard running around righting wrongs and saving people while keeping all his old dark power? He is good, but he still detects as evil because of his past taint. He still has his knowledge of evil magic and can try to figure out which spells he can cast without bringing more evil into the world. We have whole TV shows about characters like this, and they are awesome. Angel, for instance, seems like a pretty solid "Ex-Blackgruard Paladin". Totally hardcore, still has all the evil power, stilll damaged by holy symbols, totally Good now. What exactly is the problem here? It's not like this isn't a character archetype that appears in fantasy literature constantly or something.
Kresalak 06-21-06, 05:37 PM	Belthazzar, your comparison between the BoED's rules on alignment and CW's PrC rule is flawed. There are no rules on what happens when you lose the requirements for a PrC in the DMG, which is the primary source. Because of that, Complete Warrior's additional rule contradicts nothing, and is counted among the Rules as Written. However, the BoED contradicts the PHB, which is the primary source on alignment and playing the game. It is therefor not valid.
GhostStepper 06-21-06, 05:52 PM	There is nothing in the dmg that says an assassin can't be lawful good with two atonement seplls, one to account for the murder, one to account for the alignment change after taking a level of the class. Then you can go up ten levels as a lawful good assassin. There is nothing in the dmg that says you can't be a lawful good blackguard either. You could even be a paladin 10 / blackguard 10, an atonment spell for the alignment switch to evil and then one to account for the change back and then one to regain your paladin powers... and *poof* lawful good blackguard/paladin. There is no ex-blackguard section and no rules in "core" to say you can't do this. This of course it makes zero sense thematically, logically, and ethically and was thus addressed in a "non core" book the CW, which gave a specific rule regarding alignment and other requirments for PrCs and what happens when you no longer qualify. Thats a "non-core" book over ridding a "core" insinuation. This isnt the point of this dscussion at all. We are not agruing that its totally legal to make a LG assassin by the core rules since 'evil' is an expicit requirement. We are aruging that you could technically make a LG assassin variant and the ONLY thing you would need to change is the 'evil' requirement. So claiming that Core is the end-all-be-all of the dnd world is nonsensical. They are limited books with limited scope. They have limited space and thus can only put in a few concepts and ideas from which they build a new game and system. This means that with each new book the game is updated and adjusted to make sense and bring it in line more with the true representation of a fantasy world it is ment to represent. New supplements can flesh out areas areas that the core books dont cover and can provide alternate rules if you dont wish to use all the core rules. This doesnt change WotC's official policy on primary vs secondary sources. The example and the rule dont match. The definition of Good is that it is “altruistic and respects life and the dignity of sentient beings.” Slaughtering something “without mercy” is not respecting life. I think anyone would be hard pressed to make this example, and that is all it is, consistent with the actual rule. Those that do so will either twist the definition of respect beyond recognition or appeal to relativity, that one life is better than another. Evil can pick and choose which lives it finds worthy of life. Good respects the lives of sentient beings. Who ever quoted this was being dishonest by taking his quote out of context. The full quote is: '"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings."' First, it does not say 'good requires' or 'good necessarily is', it says 'implies'. Good can 'imply' respect for life but its not necessary. This quote does not logically contradict the following text in the core: "A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Alhandra, a paladin who fights without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation is lawful good." When you actually quote the whole section there is no logical contradiction since it only says 'imlpies', not 'specifically entails'. Second, "respect for life" does not mean "wont take the life of a BBEG to save innocents". There is no logical contradiction by saying good implies "respect for life" and that good "fights evil mericlessly". the conflict exists within "Core" rules as written itself. As i just showed, there is no logical contradiction. Good can 'imply' respect for life and a good character can still kill evil creatures to protect innocents while "fighting evil mercilessly". And in fact this is exactly what all the mechanics and themes of DnD are based around. Paladins dont get stun guns, they get swords because they game revolves around inflicting harm on other things. However this was summarally dismissed because people didn't like the book or thought it was a "poorly written supplment book" and since it wasn't "core" it wasn't worth considering. It wasnt thrown out just because it wasnt core. It was thrown out because, first of all, it contradicts the core on some points, putting it in the same category as Unearthed Arcana (alternate rules, not policy-breaking core-overriding rules). Secondly, it contradicts itself. You have to choose which part of the BoED's morality you want to agrue from because if you take it as a whole it makes no sense. This is sad because the conflict exists within "core" itself and is resolved in this suppliment. First, there is no contradiction in the core rules. Second, the BoED didnt resovle anything; it just contradicts itself (inflicting pain and suffering is evil if you dont have to but using ravages to inflict pain and suffering is ok). A poorly worded example in the PHB leads to this kind of heated debate, flamewar and personal attack of myself and the few others that had the patience to agree with me before giving up and leaving the thread. Some of them have been in contact Via PMs but refuse to post back on the thread because of its degeneration into such a insult trading contest and flamewar. I remain because I am stubborn and people keep coming after me. No one has flamed you anymore than you have flamed anyone else as far as i have seen. Ignoring published material only leads us back to the origonal conflict. This conflict is resolved in the BoED, and ignoring it ends in an impass with an irresolvable conflict. It isnt resolved in the BoED, the book just muddied the waters. The official policy is that if the nonsensical secondary source contradicts the primary source you go with the primary source. The other issue is that the BoED contradicts ITSELF! If your going to argue that the BoED is a better source than the PHB you still have to pick which position in the BoED you want to support because if you argue "its all correct" its completely illogical. So the reasons we throw the BoED ruling out are 1. because official policy tells us that the PHB is the 'official' source as opposed to optional rules and 2. the BoED itself cant even decide what position it want to take (either its ok to inflict pain and suffering or its not, make up your mind). If you choose to ignore this proof and demand that things be proved with nothing more than the DMG then its impossible to do so because of inherent conflict within the PHB and lack of description and silence on several key issues in the DMG. I am perfectly fine with using the parts of the BoED as proof under 2 conditions: 1. It doesnt blatanly contradict a primary source (if it does its an alternate rule like UA and has no bearing on core arguments) or 2. It doesnt contradict itself and is logically consistant. Neither of these conditions has be met.
belthazzar1113 06-21-06, 05:53 PM	We have whole TV shows about characters like this, and they are awesome. Angel, for instance, seems like a pretty solid "Ex-Blackgruard Paladin". angel is a vampire, a typically evil race, recived atonement for his evil and changed to good. if he had class levels at all they would be fighter as he doens't have any holy granted powers and is more of the kick ass take names kind of hero. This is just something that breaks steriotype by having an evil race go against the norm. having a blackguard paladin litterally means you are getting power form the powers of good and evil at the same time. there is no Ex blackguard, or Ex paladina bout this. using nothing but core raw you can be both at the same time. the point is this doesn't make any sense at all and violates everything alignments are ment to represent. that you want to take issue with something this far out of bounds is really borderline argueing for the sake of argument. You don't have any logic to support what is obvisouly a misrepresentation of the intent and design of the rules. so lets push it a bit further... if you use core only you could be a talon of timat and a vassal of bahaumt at the same time litterally serving two mortal enemys at the same time getting granted powers from both. all you need is an atonement to account for the alignment switch and your good to go. or you could be a druid and grossly violate your code to become an ex druid, pick up a level of blighter and recive and atonement spell to be a druid / blighter. so you protect and destroy nature at the same time... you are granted power by nature to destroy it. You are holy and unholy at the same time. all it takes is one little atonement spell. these are things that make no sesne, they violate every pretense of following the rules while staying technically within the letter of Core Raw. core raw has inherent holes and contradictions, just like every single book out there. Saying "this book contradicts itself or core raw" is just calling it the same as every other book out there. its a matter of opinion which source you choose to trust and which source you choose to use. the assassin debate has reached an impass as neither side can even agree wether or not to use published material or not. And since there is an inherent contradiction within core there is no way to resolve things without going outside core. but since no one is willing to do that because it would prove them wrong, the debate simply continues in this pointless and endless form.
Kresalak 06-21-06, 06:00 PM	the assassin debate has reached an impass as neither side can even agree wether or not to use published material or not. And since there is an inherent contradiction within core there is no way to resolve things without going outside core. but since no one is willing to do that because it would prove them wrong, the debate simply continues in this pointless and endless form. Incorrect. There is an impass because you are completely ignoring every piece of evidence that you cannot pretend to refute, such as mine. There is no contradiction in Core rules. The Page 16 clause of Complete Warrior does not contradict the Core rules at all. The Book of Exalted Deeds does. The WotC policy is that the primary source is correct. Since the BoED contradicts the primary source, it is incorrect.
Prak, the Mad 06-21-06, 06:01 PM	personally i think its silly. i want to be able to study someone and kill them in cold blood, and i want to be able to use poision to cause suffering and death, and i would like to still ahve my selection of evil assasin spells... but i want to be good. Cold blooded murder and good alignment don't mix. Useing poision is an evil act. doesn't matter who you are murdering, and who you are making to suffer. Is it better to murder a guy who cheated on his wife or a guy who didn't? does it matter? murder is murder. It really doesn't matter who your targets are, your killing people for money. if an assasin goes after mob bosses does that make him good? what if he is getting paid by other mob bosses, does that make him evil? what if the assasins poision kills a criminal, does that make him good? or do the minutes of burning agony and suffering the man experiances make the assasin more evil? its not the target that determines the morality of the act, its the act itself. Some people would argue with moral certainty of any act. but cold blooded murder of someone for payment is quite simply an evil act. if you want to play a good aligned assasin, then stick with rogue or with the exalted slayer from the book of exhalted deeds. they don't use death attack but they use ravages and gain sneak attack and other slayer / assasin qualities. but as far as i am concerned the assasin is not, and will not ever be, good aligned. EXACTLY! there's been this movement lately to make all options available to all characters, Ravages and whatever-the-hell-good-poisons-got-called, people trying to copy VoP over directly to an evil option(of which, I am guilty), and people wanting to play good assassins, if you want you paladin to be able to kill things like an assassin, then roleplay it. Roleplaying should come first, then exceptions to rules can be made. in fact, if you want to have a poison that effects evil creatures, then expend a daily use of turn undead to channel positive energy(an option in Defenders of the Faith) and invest said positive energy into a poison.
Ryu Katsuragi 06-21-06, 06:02 PM	What exactly is the problem with an Ex-Blackguard running around righting wrongs and saving people while keeping all his old dark power? He is good, but he still detects as evil because of his past taint. He still has his knowledge of evil magic and can try to figure out which spells he can cast without bringing more evil into the world. We have whole TV shows about characters like this, and they are awesome. Angel, for instance, seems like a pretty solid "Ex-Blackgruard Paladin". Totally hardcore, still has all the evil power, stilll damaged by holy symbols, totally Good now. What exactly is the problem here? It's not like this isn't a character archetype that appears in fantasy literature constantly or something. Because according to the Blackguard's powers, they prepare their spells as Clerics. To me, this tells me that they are granted their supernatural powers from one of the dark dieties, or these devils and demons he consorts with. If you were an evil god, wanting to cause suffering, would you continue to give someone your power if they were using it for good? Also, why would Blackguards retain their powers of Aura of Evil and Aura of Despair if they're good? This goes against what Dungeons and Dragons morality says. You're a good guy, yet you register as being evil? If so, adventurers will still be hunting you down. You may say you're good, and say you're changed... but if you retain all abilities, you'd register as evil to all alignment detection. Also, why would a good guy have a malign aura? Why would a good character have the 'Smite Good' ability? Why would the dark dieties give them a 'Dark Blessing' if they're good? In this case, I'd allow the player to exchange his levels in Blackguard to Paladin (like how the Samurai can exchange these levels for levels in the Ronin PrC) As for Angel, the only reason he's good (in the beginning) is because he was forced to be good. The only time he is evil is when he is Angelus. Two totally different people.
Ryu Katsuragi 06-21-06, 06:07 PM	This is just something that breaks steriotype by having an evil race go against the norm. having a blackguard paladin litterally means you are getting power form the powers of good and evil at the same time. there is no Ex blackguard, or Ex paladina bout this. No ex-Paladin? Ex-Paladins: A paladin who ceases to be Lawful Good, who willing commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct losses all Paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armour or shield proficiencies). So no, you can't 'get powers from good and evil' at the same time. Unless 'powers of good' includes weapons and armour training. Paladin's are granted their powers from the good higher powers. If you go evil, they'll stop giving you them.
belthazzar1113 06-21-06, 07:08 PM	there is no Ex blackguard, or Ex paladina bout this. let me explain since you seem to be confused. start as a paladin lawful good. advance untill you meet requirments for blackguard except for alignment and meetin an evil outside. have a wizard conjure an evil outsider and say hello, hand it a cookie. you become an ex paladin now for associating with an evil creature. go eat a baby or just change your alignment to evil and recive an atonment spell to offset the penelty for changing alignment. then pick up a level of blackguard. change you alignment back to lawful good after you have a level of blackguard and recive an atonement spell to offset the penelty. then get another one to restore your paladin powers. you are now a paladin 10/ blackguard 1. advance 9 levels as a blackguard and you can have a chariot pulled by a unicorn and nightmare at the same time, have a shoulder devil from your feindish servent and dual weild holy and unholy blades. no it doesn't make sense, no its not right in any logical sene, but its CORE. the point of all of this is to illistrate that if you don't take in non core materials there are already alignment contradictions within core itself. there are contradictions with PrC requirments, and there are contradictions with logic within core raw. thats why there are supliments to correct and close these holes and to add to the game and expand and correct when nesseccary.
belthazzar1113 06-21-06, 07:14 PM	Because according to the Blackguard's powers, they prepare their spells as Clerics. To me, this tells me that they are granted their supernatural powers from one of the dark dieties, or these devils and demons he consorts with. If you were an evil god, wanting to cause suffering, would you continue to give someone your power if they were using it for good? Also, why would Blackguards retain their powers of Aura of Evil and Aura of Despair if they're good? This goes against what Dungeons and Dragons morality says. You're a good guy, yet you register as being evil? If so, adventurers will still be hunting you down. You may say you're good, and say you're changed... but if you retain all abilities, you'd register as evil to all alignment detection. Also, why would a good guy have a malign aura? Why would a good character have the 'Smite Good' ability? Why would the dark dieties give them a 'Dark Blessing' if they're good? your missing the point of all this. i totally agree, this shouldn't be done, this makes no sense. my point is you can do this in core. there is no rule saying you can't have divine blessing and dark blessing at the same time. there nothing that says you can't detect as evil and good at the same time. its CORE and my point with all this is CORE isn't enough because of things like this. You have to use things outside core to solve issues like this, so the argument of discounting a book as "non-core" doesn't fly. you can't ignore a book just because you don't like it, and you can't ignore a rule because you think its worded bad. people are using and EXAMPLE as a rule, when clearly the example was simply worded poorly, but its core so people are holding it as paramount and primary and irrefutable. what i have done is demonstrate the folly of this position by showing exactly what is possible with core alignment switching. you can be a champion of good and a champion of evil at the same time and there is nothing in CORE that says you can't. there is plenty outside core, but again, if you want to use this "core only" argument this is the kind of thing you are advocating. and that too me should prove beyond a doubt Core only is an invalid argument.
Kresalak 06-21-06, 07:25 PM	I see you're still ignoring my posts.
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-21-06, 07:37 PM	And mine. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9445857&postcount=311) (That's a link.)
Ryu Katsuragi 06-21-06, 07:52 PM	your missing the point of all this. i totally agree, this shouldn't be done, this makes no sense. my point is you can do this in core. there is no rule saying you can't have divine blessing and dark blessing at the same time. there nothing that says you can't detect as evil and good at the same time. its CORE and my point with all this is CORE isn't enough because of things like this. You have to use things outside core to solve issues like this, so the argument of discounting a book as "non-core" doesn't fly. you can't ignore a book just because you don't like it, and you can't ignore a rule because you think its worded bad. people are using and EXAMPLE as a rule, when clearly the example was simply worded poorly, but its core so people are holding it as paramount and primary and irrefutable. what i have done is demonstrate the folly of this position by showing exactly what is possible with core alignment switching. you can be a champion of good and a champion of evil at the same time and there is nothing in CORE that says you can't. there is plenty outside core, but again, if you want to use this "core only" argument this is the kind of thing you are advocating. and that too me should prove beyond a doubt Core only is an invalid argument. No, you don't need books outside core to rule this. This is where the DM steps in. Really. Just because it's possible, do you think a DM would allow it? As a DM, I wouldn't. Paladins and Blackguards are positive and negative. If you want to be a Blackguard, you lose the abilities of the Paladin. If you were a Paladin, you don't get the abilities of a Blackguard, other than poison use and sneak attack (which are taught through training, nothing supernatual and extraordinary). The point is, the core book isn't going to list everything. There are some things blatently obvious. Like someone else on the boards once said, 'The core rulebook doesn't imply that you need a head to actually breath', or something to that effect. By the logic you're using there, because the book doesn't say 'you need a head to breath', you could effectively be beheaded and continue to breath.
Kresalak 06-21-06, 07:54 PM	You don't need a head to breathe. You just need a way to get negative pressure in your lungs.
Ryu Katsuragi 06-21-06, 08:02 PM	You don't need a head to breathe. You just need a way to get negative pressure in your lungs. Well, you learn something new everyday. :D
Ryu Katsuragi 06-21-06, 08:14 PM	Also, I just remembered. As soon as you take that level of Blackguard, you can't then take levels in Paladin once again. If you do atone, and get back those Paladin skills, you can't keep them if you want to continue as a Blackguard (you'd need to become evil again, to progress).
belthazzar1113 06-21-06, 09:45 PM	If you do atone, and get back those Paladin skills, you can't keep them if you want to continue as a Blackguard (you'd need to become evil again, to progress). ahh so an alignment requirment IS checked each level then.... well since this is the point of the argument thank you. assassins require evil alignment the same way a black guard does. Switching out after your first level of assassin and then continuing to advance would be against what you just said. so thank you for proving my point on this matter. No, you don't need books outside core to rule this. This is where the DM steps in. and now you say your going to use DM discression to adjucate this matter? well when i suggested that the DM rule assassins always evil i was flamed and shot down for stating an opinion that wasn't supported by rules. It seems that we are engaging in a double standard here. If thats the case then there really isn't a debate. DM fiat wins. Blackguards have to be evil, paladins have to be good, and assassins get to break their own rules. Unless your with a dm who says that you have to actually follow the rules and then assassins do have to be evil. So i guess that ends that question. Its a judgment call on the part of each game, just like we decided 8 pages ago before the flame wars....
belthazzar1113 06-21-06, 09:49 PM	You don't need a head to breathe. You just need a way to get negative pressure in your lungs. off topic, but assuming you can find a way to get nutrition and stop the bleeding from losing your head i am pretty sure you could generate negitive pressure in the lungs with a bike chain attached on one end to a pair of shoes or strapped pedals and the other end attached to a simple water pump connected to the base of your lungs... you would end up being like a shark that always has to be in motion to surive but assuming you have a magic item that negates the need to sleep and something that prevents exhaustion you could certainly live headless... grab some blind sense, a one level dip in mind bender and all you really lose is hearing and smelling. oh and ther eis the whole loss of brain to consider... but we can work around that. mabey a barbarian... they don't need brains anyway. though i don't htink i would ever go to that length... i would rather just play the head. stick it in a jar like on futrureama and then attach it to a big old sheld guardian.... :)
Ryu Katsuragi 06-21-06, 09:57 PM	ahh so an alignment requirment IS checked each level then.... well since this is the point of the argument thank you. assassins require evil alignment the same way a black guard does. Switching out after your first level of assassin and then continuing to advance would be against what you just said. so thank you for proving my point on this matter. -Shrugs- I'll be honest with you, I don't know which one is true. I'm relatively new to Dungeons and Dragons, so, I do apologize on that front. and now you say your going to use DM discression to adjucate this matter? well when i suggested that the DM rule assassins always evil i was flamed and shot down for stating an opinion that wasn't supported by rules. It seems that we are engaging in a double standard here. If thats the case then there really isn't a debate. DM fiat wins. Blackguards have to be evil, paladins have to be good, and assassins get to break their own rules. Unless your with a dm who says that you have to actually follow the rules and then assassins do have to be evil. But you seem to think that the only way to be an assassin is the Assassin class. You said that assassination is evil, whereas a Paladin sent after the BBEG is an assassin, too. The whole point of Blackguard though, is that he is evil. Through and through. He's the anti-Paladin. Crusader of evil. He's the black knight of corruption, to the white knight of good. You'd have to be a pretty... ahem... DM to actually allow someone to take both classes, atone for one, and then allow the class features to stack, considering Blackguards get their powers from dark gods, and pacts with demons. And no, you were being flamed for saying Assassin's are evil for their abilities (which are not evil). First, you said it isn't a sneak attack... when it is. Then you said it's because it kills them instantly, with no chance to react... whereas even if it doesn't kill, it still does 5d6 sneak attack damage. Then, you said you can't be merciful with it, when you can paralyze someone. The difference is, an Assassin is taught is what I was trying to get across. All his powers are innate abilities. He's taught to use poison, taught how to kill, learns spells like a wizard - he wouldn't lose these for becoming Good. However, a Blackguard would lose most of his powers, as they are granted to him by evil beings for being evil.
Sunrider 06-21-06, 10:12 PM	and now you say your going to use DM discression to adjucate this matter? well when i suggested that the DM rule assassins always evil i was flamed and shot down for stating an opinion that wasn't supported by rules. It seems that we are engaging in a double standard here. If thats the case then there really isn't a debate. DM fiat wins. Blackguards have to be evil, paladins have to be good, and assassins get to break their own rules. Unless your with a dm who says that you have to actually follow the rules and then assassins do have to be evil. I don't think anyone has ever argued that, as it currently stands, members of the Assassin PrC (as opposed to assassins in general who don't have levels in the PrC) must be evil. And, with the requirement to 'kill someone for no reason other than to join the Assassins', that makes perfect sense. What the argument is about is whether an Assassin could be a good character (and thus the PrC available to non-evil characters) if that particular entry requirement was waived. As in, if someone didn't have to kill someone for no reason other than to take levels in the PrC, is there anything innately evil about the Assassin that would still require it to be 'evil only'. Therefore, this boils down to the Assassin's class abilities - namely, Death Attack, Sneak Attack, poison use and spells. I think it has been shown beyond reasonble doubt that, by RAW (as in, core RAW and splatbook RAW which do not contradict core rules) none of these abilities are evil. Hence, if it weren't for the entry requirement of killing someone for no reason other than to take levels in the PrC, there would be no reason for the Assassin PrC to be evil (just like any other assassin, without levels in the PrC, would not necessarily be evil). The Blackguard is different and, frankly, should never have been brought up. His class abilities (not the entry requirements), unlike the Assassin's class abilities, are all based around being evil. Many of their abilities are evil by nature, evil by game mechanics and evil by RAW. Even if you take away the entry requirements, the Blackguard, by the nature of his class features, would still have to be evil. Essentially, the difference boils down to this - as it stands, the Assassin PrC and the Blackguard PrC are both evil. With the Assassin's entry requirements, this makes sense. Apart from the entry requirement, however, there is no other reason for the Assassin PrC to be restricted to evil characters - therefore, if you take away the 'kill someone to join' requirement, there is no reason a Good assassin should not be permissible. With the Blackguard's entry requirements, it also makes sense for him to be evil (since, although a neutral, or even good, character could make peaceful contact with an evil outsider, there's no compulsion for such a character to become a Blackguard). The Blackguard's class abilities, however, are all tied in to evil powers - take away the entry requirement and the Blackguard's class abilities would still mandate that him or her be evil.
der_gogo 06-22-06, 05:00 AM	I try to put the whole question in other words: Is this "homebrew" PrC okay? STEALTHY AVENGER (okay, maybe needs a better name) Hit Die: d6. Requirements To qualify to become a stealthy avenger, a character must fulfill all the following criteria. Alignment: Any non-evil, non-lawful. Skills: Disguise 4 ranks, Hide 8 ranks, Move Silently 8 ranks. Special: The character must have killed a humaniod in cold blood in order to avenge or prevent an evil act by that individual. And all the rest exactly the same as the assassin PrC. My opinion is you could swap poison use with something else and rearrange the spellist a little bit in order to make it a bit more fitting...
Ryu Katsuragi 06-22-06, 11:21 AM	My opinion is you could swap poison use with something else and rearrange the spellist a little bit in order to make it a bit more fitting... How about a +1 on rolls pertaining to your target, like the Marshal (I think it was). +1 on attack rolls/damage, skill rolls and such against your target at level one. This improves to +2 at level 4, +3 at 7th, +4 at 10th?
GhostStepper 06-22-06, 02:19 PM	Anyone check out the rules FAQ update? Can a good-aligned ninja use poison without violating her alignment? In other words, using poison considered an evil act? Nothing in the alignment information in the Player's Handbook or the poison entry in the Dungeon Master's Guide specifically describes the use of poison as an evil act. It goes onto say that killing someone good is an evil act but no one here is arguing that it isnt. It also says that good aligned charcters (with the exception of the paladin) can occasionally commit evil acts without it effecting their alignment. So basically the entry does 2 things: - points out that in the core RAW, there is nothing that says using poison is always evil - says that other than for paladins, good characters can occasionally commit evil acts and remain good.
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-22-06, 03:23 PM	Was I not loud enough? Did you not hear the beginnings of my argument, Bel? And I remember your previous complaint about this sounding like yelling (it is), and my sounding like a child (by elven standards). However, if you refrain from answering this, it will be blatantly obvious that you ignored it, the reason for doing so being because you could not come up with a justifiable answer. Now that we're clear about that... The BBEG is walking around his estate, when the good party jumps out at him and starts slashing at him. The party isn't giving him a chance to surrender Or how's this? Mr. Goblin is standing guard in a dungeon when the party rushes in through the door and hacks him to pieces. That's evil too, right?
Dench 06-22-06, 03:28 PM	Has anyone heard of a way to make an Assassin character turn good? I was thinking something like Redeemed/Emancipated Assassin. Still get the Death Attack and all that but no longer has to be evil, kinda uses his abilities for death dealing for a more goodly cause. Anyone heard anything like this before? :confused: Yeah, It's called Slayer of Domiel, check out Book of Exalted Deeds.
Prak, the Mad 06-22-06, 04:08 PM	Was I not loud enough? Did you not hear the beginnings of my argument, Bel? And I remember your previous complaint about this sounding like yelling (it is), and my sounding like a child (by elven standards). However, if you refrain from answering this, it will be blatantly obvious that you ignored it, the reason for doing so being because you could not come up with a justifiable answer. Now that we're clear about that... The BBEG is walking around his estate, when the good party jumps out at him and starts slashing at him. The party isn't giving him a chance to surrender Or how's this? Mr. Goblin is standing guard in a dungeon when the party rushes in through the door and hacks him to pieces. That's evil too, right? lol, sorry, I for one didn't even read most of the thread, those are both good points, and very evil, or at least CN
vardock 06-22-06, 04:46 PM	if you want a good assasin type character get a Book of Exalted deeds and take levels in the slayer of domiel prestige class.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-22-06, 05:08 PM	if you want a good assasin type character get a Book of Exalted deeds and take levels in the slayer of domiel prestige class. But what if he specifically wants Death Attack, Poison Use and the Assassin spell list as a whole? Maybe he wants a bonus to Fortitude Saves against poison, too. Point is, it has been proven that the Assassin has no reason to have the "Alignment: Evil" requirement. Proven I tell you. Furthermore, the Slayer of Domiel has to be exalted, which is insanely hard to roleplay, and a dumb type of good, too.
GhostStepper 06-22-06, 05:33 PM	But what if he specifically wants Death Attack, Poison Use and the Assassin spell list as a whole? Maybe he wants a bonus to Fortitude Saves against poison, too. Point is, it has been proven that the Assassin has no reason to have the "Alignment: Evil" requirement. Proven I tell you. If we are going to make the Assassin class available to good charcters we're gonna have to make some major changes! - Death Attack: since some folks think killing is evil then we should change Death Attack to give you the option to paralyze your foe instead always killing! - Poison: since its been agreed in the this thread that non-ability damage poison can be used without being evil we should let the Assassin's Poison Use ability allow him to use non-ability damage poisons if he chooses! - Spell List: We are gonna have to take out all those spells on the core Assassin's spell list in the DMG with the 'evil' descriptor out! And after we do ALL this we can play a an LG Assas...what? What is that you say? The assassin is already written EXACLTY like that? ok never mind. LOL
Harmony 06-22-06, 06:09 PM	“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. Scary, everything about the "good" assassin that only kills evil persons seems to fit perfectly in on neutral evil. It's more convinient to assassinte. It's also much more convinient to call yourself good than evil. Noone likes being called evil, except possibly the truly excentric. ;p Also, if you check the SRD, you'll notice that the word "kill" only occurs on the evil alignments. Perhaps if you studied the alignments before arguing why assassins must be evil, you would notice it actually does make some sense...
GhostStepper 06-22-06, 06:30 PM	Scary, everything about the "good" assassin that only kills evil persons seems to fit perfectly in on neutral evil. It's more convinient to assassinte. It's also much more convinient to call yourself good than evil. Noone likes being called evil, except possibly the truly excentric. ;p And a CE assassin can say he's "good" but that has absolutely no bearing on whether an LG character can assassinate an evil creature. If your trying to match 'assassination' to alignment entries it also fits just fine with the LG description which describes an LG character as having "the discipline to fight relentlessly", as a being who "hates to see the guilty go unpunished" and who "fights evil without mercy". It makes perfect sense to think a character who hates to see evil go unpunished (being LG), so he trains to fight it with great discipline (being LG and training as an assassine), and attacks it without mercy (the act of assassination). Also, if you check the SRD, you'll notice that the word "kill" only occurs on the evil alignments. The word 'taboo' only occurs in the description for LE. Does that mean only LE characters can have taboos? Of course not. No other alignments say they cant have taboos. CN is the only alignment in which the phrase "do-gooder's zeal" appears. Does than mean that an LG character cannont have "do-gooder's zeal" because the words arent present in the alignment description? Of course not, thats just silly. Perhaps if you studied the alignments before arguing why assassins must be evil, you would notice it actually does make some sense... It makes perfect sense that there is nothing that that the assassin's class abilities grant goes against anything in the alignment descriptions regarding how to be a good character. Assassins kill things and theres nothing in the alignment descriptions that say good characters cant kill things.
Harmony 06-22-06, 07:22 PM	If your trying to match 'assassination' to alignment entries it also fits just fine with the LG description which describes an LG character as having "the discipline to fight relentlessly", as a being who "hates to see the guilty go unpunished" and who "fights evil without mercy". It makes perfect sense to think a character who hates to see evil go unpunished (being LG), so he trains to fight it with great discipline (being LG and training as an assassine), and attacks it without mercy (the act of assassination). It dosen't say that he preferes death as the solution. Killing someone because it's convinient is, by the RAW, an evil act. The character who hates seeing injustice and evil go unpunished, and decides to kill them would much more would be suiting as Lawful evil. You fight fire with fire. It makes a bunch of sense. To "fight" something dosen't neccarily have to be anything physical or in any way related to killing. It can, but it dosen't need too; kill is fairly straightforward. The word 'taboo' only occurs in the description for LE. Does that mean only LE characters can have taboos? Of course not. No other alignments say they cant have taboos. CN is the only alignment in which the phrase "do-gooder's zeal" appears. Does than mean that an LG character cannont have "do-gooder's zeal" because the words arent present in the alignment description? Of course not, thats just silly. Once is an occurance, thrice is a pattern. It makes perfect sense that there is nothing that that the assassin's class abilities grant goes against anything in the alignment descriptions regarding how to be a good character. Assassins kill things and theres nothing in the alignment descriptions that say good characters cant kill things. Of course not. It dosen't state that evil aligned characters don't have "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings". But since good and evil are opposed, with a bit of reading comprehension, one could figure out that they are just that, opposed.
GhostStepper 06-22-06, 07:38 PM	It dosen't say that he preferes death as the solution. Killing someone because it's convinient is, by the RAW, an evil act. No where in the assassin's class abilities does it say he must kill when its convenient. In fact, waiting 3 rounds to observe your foe isnt very convenient. The character who hates seeing injustice and evil go unpunished, and decides to kill them would much more would be suiting as Lawful evil. So a character the 'hates seeing injustice and evil go unpunished' is lawful evil? Ok, then why is that specific phrase in the LG description. I remind you that no where does it say that in DnD a LG character cant kill. You fight fire with fire. It makes a bunch of sense. To "fight" something dosen't neccarily have to be anything physical or in any way related to killing. It can, but it dosen't need too; kill is fairly straightforward. You do realize we are talking about DnD, right? Good fights evil with violence, thats how it works. Paladins get weapon proficiency because they kill things. They get Smite Evil in order to inflict bodily harm. They cast Holy Sword in order to kill things with more efficiency. Paladins dont get class abilities that grant them special ways to show mercy, they get special ways to kill evil creatures. Once is an occurance, thrice is a pattern. Just like the absence of "does not kill evil creatures" is a pattern in all the good entries. Of course not. It dosen't state that evil aligned characters don't have "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings". But since good and evil are opposed, with a bit of reading comprehension, one could figure out that they are just that, opposed. Yes they are opposed. And how does that in any way, shape or form mean that an LG paladin cant kill a blackguard he is opposed to?
Vestigial_Thumb 06-22-06, 07:47 PM	Scary, everything about the "good" assassin that only kills evil persons seems to fit perfectly in on neutral evil. You have to factor in why he does it, and what effect this has on his conscience. A Lawful Good Assassin might kill evil creatures, but he might feel guilty after having killed some evil baron. The baron may have been evil; the best way to deal with him may have been to kill him, but that does not change the fact that the same baron was still a sentient being. He was just a man. A man you killed. It's a strange feeling, guilt and satisfaction at the same time. It's more convinient to assassinte. It's also much more convinient to call yourself good than evil. Again, you must factor in the reason and the effect this has on your conscience. Noone likes being called evil, except possibly the truly excentric. ;p If you apply the Bible and D&D morality to me, I'm a fiend. Not in RL, though. :) Also, if you check the SRD, you'll notice that the word "kill" only occurs on the evil alignments. That's thin ice you're on. Good characters kill. Mercilessly. It's a fact in D&D. Perhaps if you studied the alignments before arguing why assassins must be evil, you would notice it actually does make some sense... Nope. To justify limiting the alignment to evil, you have to justify that it's abilities (Some of them, at least) are inherently evil. Let's review: Death Attack: This is only a special option for Sneak Attacks. Killing from out of hiding or without the creature recognizing you as a threat does not make it evil, only dishonorable (No, bel, dishonorable =/= evil). Paralyzing isn't even an issue. Poison Use: This was covered in the Main FAQ: Can a good-aligned ninja use poison without violating her alignment? In other words, using poison considered an evil act? Nothing in the alignment information in the Player's Handbook or the poison entry in the Dungeon Master's Guide specifically describes the use of poison as an evil act. Spell List: Only one spell on the Assassin spell list, splatbook, Core, or otherwise, has the [evil] descriptor. That spell is Fangs of the Vampire King. Even so: [Descriptor] Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor. The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water. Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on. A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says the spell fails. A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher. Emphasis mine. Where it says most... don't even bother. They explain the descriptors that have a mechanical effect in the two following paragraphs. The [evil] descriptor doesn't make a spell evil to cast. You could cast it all day, every day, and you wouldn't even slip an inch towards evil. Watch the back of my hand as it flies towards your face... with logic.
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-22-06, 08:23 PM	It dosen't say that he preferes death as the solution. Killing someone because it's convinient is, by the RAW, an evil act. The character who hates seeing injustice and evil go unpunished, and decides to kill them would much more would be suiting as Lawful evil. You fight fire with fire. It makes a bunch of sense. To "fight" something dosen't neccarily have to be anything physical or in any way related to killing. It can, but it dosen't need too; kill is fairly straightforward."Killing someone because it's convinient is...an evil act." Well, how about the party charging into the goblin's lair and defeating the evil priest of Goblingodius who plans to poison water supplies, slaughter entire villages, etc., in order to purify the world of all lesser races (nongoblins)? It's convenient and it's killing. Should the players walk into the lair with their hands up, unarmed, and ask to negotiate with the leader? Or should they cast Deep Slumber on all the guards and then, while they sleep, cast Temporal Stasis on the cleric? It's not killing. It just puts him in a little glass jar where he can wait for centuries, practically dying of boredom, growing ever more insane, hatching new plans for the destruction of the lesser races when he's finally released. Or how about a blood-crazed barbarian screaming in rage as he charges the PC's, getting close to the wizard to prevent spellcasting (Sleep, Hold Person), which the players then dispatch, while intending to knock him out and then stabilize him, but the paladin gets a crit and lops his head off? Evil? Yes, I know it's been brought up before, but does going to war (you're a reluctant conscript) and killing someone make you evil, because it was convenient for you to keep living and so you killed another person? That would make lots of altruistic people with respect for life and concern for the dignity of sentient beings evil, even though good implies it. It would also make one act define your alignment. Therefore, a chaotic evil person is lawful evil if his balor master orders him to infiltrate the good guys and he does so because he doesn't want to get fried. Heck, if he tips a barkeep to keep up his disguise, he's lawful good. What about the soldier (name is A) who, seeing his friend (B) losing a fight (in a big battle) against someone who's taunting the friend and killing him slowly (C), charges up and stabs C in the back, knowing that the enemy A was fighting would chase A and be able to attack A from behind, inflicting terrible damage, before A could spin around from hitting B in the back? Whoa there, hold on. He's being altruistic, quite possibly sacrificing his life for his friends. Thus, he's good. He's also killing someone because it's convenient (saving another person). Thus, he's evil. What about this? A rogue sneaks up to a clearing in the woods and sees someone performing sadistic, depraved, horrible tortures on dozens of tied-up innocents. Then he sneaks up and sneak attacks (hey, even death attacks) the guy, even though there was a risk of being heard, then fought and killed. He's altruistic and has a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. He also killed someone because it was convenient (I have no clue by what stretch of the imagination that's convenient, but neither do I see how death attacking the evil warlord who's going to invade a country, slaughtering everyone he sees, thus likely saving thousands of lives, is "convenient" and therefore evil). Of course not. It dosen't state that evil aligned characters don't have "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings". But since good and evil are opposed, with a bit of reading comprehension, one could figure out that they are just that, opposed.Let's say the rogue in my last example was good. Now lets say that instead of death attacking the torturer, an arrow whistled out of the woods and blasted through the torturer's head. The firer of that arrow was an evil assassin, who was hired to kill the guy because he would eventually have tortured to death somebody that the employer needed alive to research his powerful spell, the Super Fireball of Hurting People for No Real Reason Other Than Your Own Enjoyment and Laughing While They Suffer, Foolish Mortals Who Dare Oppose Your Plans of Taking Over the World and Oppressing the People for All Eternity. The assassin knows this reason and enjoys the job all the more. Now, the good and evil people both wanted the torturer dead (or at least not torturing). They were not opposed. Thus, you can't just assume that good and evil are always opposed in all things. It's like saying that because "good" and "evil" are both alignments, one with a bit of reading comprehension could figure out that they are just that; aligned.
Ryu Katsuragi 06-22-06, 08:30 PM	What about this? A rogue sneaks up to a clearing in the woods and sees someone performing sadistic, depraved, horrible tortures on dozens of tied-up innocents. Then he sneaks up and sneak attacks (hey, even death attacks) Remember, death attack'ers are Assassins. Who use poison. He didn't give the guy a chance for mercy, and attacked from stealth, so he is triple evil! ;)
belthazzar1113 06-23-06, 03:03 PM	you are all certainly correct. you have proven all your points beyond a reasonable doubt assuming that you only use rules that support you and ignore anything that might contravert you and interpret everything just the way you want to. Assuming that you don't listen to any other arguments then you are all exactly right. Congratulations. of course since no one has yet answered the fact that the behavior of an assassin is evil, and the class abilities are designed to commit evil acts, and the alternatives are certainly possilbe but ignored... well mabey you get the point mabey you don't. I left and someone else took up the argument and kept going, but now i can see the debate is really pointless. People ignore anything reasembeling reason in favor of their own position. a big deal was made that you can choose to paralize your victem rather than force them to die... well if you have to choose to paralize the victem then that certainly implies that killing them outirght is evil. and if your oging to be choosing to paralize anyway, then why not just remove the save or die option to make sure a good assassin remains good. people brought up poisions on both sides, so me saying they are evil, some saying not. well if there is debate why not just use ravages that are stated explicitly to be good and the non ability damage poisons that are stated explicitly to be not evil. that would solve things very easly but people don't want to hear that. they want to hear that using death lotus poison is perfectly acceptable for a paladin, LG, or anyone else that wants to. People brought up the spell list of the assassin as being indicitive of their evil natures. if your fine with the spell list take off poison and go with just whats in the dmg. nothing much there is more than a stealth trick and then your fine. and since your giving something up, death attack and standard poisons you probly shouldn't have the save vs poison, so replace it with a competence bonus to either hide or disgues depending on how you like to get close to your target, add a bonus feat track and skill focus hide or disguse, and there you go. assassin is modified to be good without any questionable abilities... the fact you want to argue and keep everything is just indicitive of the desire to get around the alignment system and play an evil character with the title of good. If you want an "Assassin" then that set up should be more than fine. If you want death attack and poisons and evil spells, then you are playing an evil character. get over it. as far as all the crazy examples and sideline arguments about wether its ok to kill in war, wether its ok to kill in defnse, wether its ok to ambust in defens eof another ect ect ect. you can debate all you want, but all of this was hashed out and printed in a published tome. all of those questions were answered. but since you want to ignore the book your free to dance around with "but what if... or what if..." you won't get anywhere, since anyone who wants the answer can just go look it up, but your certrainly free to THINK your proving some kind of point.
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-23-06, 03:48 PM	the class abilities are designed to commit evil actsPaladins get the ability to smite evil. That helps hurt stuff. Hurting stuff is evil. Why is that particular thing nonevil? Tell me how these two scenarios are different, Bel. 1. A paladin smears a ravage on his blade and stabs the enemy. 2. An assassin smears a poison with the exact same effect on his blade and stabs the enemy.
Sunrider 06-23-06, 03:57 PM	you are all certainly correct. you have proven all your points beyond a reasonable doubt assuming that you only use rules that support you and ignore anything that might contravert you and interpret everything just the way you want to. Assuming that you don't listen to any other arguments then you are all exactly right. Congratulations. No, we are arguing according to RAW - i.e. core rules come first, then splatbooks. Anything contained in the splatbooks that doesn't contradict RAW is valid. Whenever a conflict arises between core rules and splatbooks, core rules win. Your arguments rely solely on your interpretation that the rules presented in BoED override core rulings on alignment - an interpretation that has been directly struck down by the WotC ruling that core always overrules splatbooks, in the absence of errata. Without your erroneous interpretation (erroneous not just in my book, but according to WotC rulings), none of your arguments hold any water whatsoever. As for 'not listening to your arguments', we've been listening to the same tripe for 350-odd posts now, and have struck down every one of them, not only through philosophical arguments, but also through arguments based on RAW. You can debate the philosophy of good and evil endlessly but, in the world of D&D, RAW rulings are what determines who is right, who is wrong, what is good and what is evil, regardless of personal philosophies. In that legalistic context, your definitions have been proven clearly wrong and your interpretation of RAW incorrect, given that you haven't (and won't) acknowledge the fact that, when it comes to conflicts in RAW, core rules take precedence over splatbook material.
Kresalak 06-23-06, 04:18 PM	you are all certainly correct. you have proven all your points beyond a reasonable doubt assuming that you only use rules that support you and ignore anything that might contravert you and interpret everything just the way you want to. Assuming that you don't listen to any other arguments then you are all exactly right. Congratulations. Irony's a b****, huh? of course since no one has yet answered the fact that the behavior of an assassin is evil, and the class abilities are designed to commit evil acts, and the alternatives are certainly possilbe but ignored... well mabey you get the point mabey you don't. These are all assumptions, made by you, that contradict the Core rules. Where's my sarcastic thumbs up smiley? I left and someone else took up the argument and kept going, but now i can see the debate is really pointless. People ignore anything reasembeling reason in favor of their own position. And by "people", you mean "belthazzar1113". a big deal was made that you can choose to paralize your victem rather than force them to die... well if you have to choose to paralize the victem then that certainly implies that killing them outirght is evil. and if your oging to be choosing to paralize anyway, then why not just remove the save or die option to make sure a good assassin remains good. That was done because you keep insisting that hurting and/or killing is evil, so people pointed out that assassins don't need to kill people. people brought up poisions on both sides, so me saying they are evil, some saying not. well if there is debate why not just use ravages that are stated explicitly to be good and the non ability damage poisons that are stated explicitly to be not evil. that would solve things very easly but people don't want to hear that. they want to hear that using death lotus poison is perfectly acceptable for a paladin, LG, or anyone else that wants to. If ravages aren't evil, poisons aren't evil. If poisons are evil, ravages are evil. Why? Because poisons are called evil for causing pain. Ravages are explicitly stated to cause immense pain. Either causing pain is evil, and ravages are too, or it isn't, and neither are poisons. People brought up the spell list of the assassin as being indicitive of their evil natures. if your fine with the spell list take off poison and go with just whats in the dmg. nothing much there is more than a stealth trick and then your fine. Let's consult the SRD on the spell "Poison". Poison Necromancy Level: Clr 4, Drd 3 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Living creature touched Duration: Instantaneous; see text Saving Throw: Fortitude negates; see text Spell Resistance: Yes Calling upon the venomous powers of natural predators, you infect the subject with a horrible poison by making a successful melee touch attack. The poison deals 1d10 points of temporary Constitution damage immediately and another 1d10 points of temporary Constitution damage 1 minute later. Each instance of damage can be negated by a Fortitude save (DC 10 + ½ your caster level + your Wis modifier). That's interesting. Poison doesn't have the [Evil] descriptor. I wonder why... and since your giving something up, death attack and standard poisons you probly shouldn't have the save vs poison, so replace it with a competence bonus to either hide or disgues depending on how you like to get close to your target, add a bonus feat track and skill focus hide or disguse, and there you go. assassin is modified to be good without any questionable abilities... Or it can be kept as is, still without any abilities questionable by anyone who has a shred of reason. the fact you want to argue and keep everything is just indicitive of the desire to get around the alignment system and play an evil character with the title of good. If you want an "Assassin" then that set up should be more than fine. If you want death attack and poisons and evil spells, then you are playing an evil character. get over it. Tell me if this makes sense. A, B, and C are not at all evil. A+B+C=evil. There is 0% evil on the right side of the equation. Clearly, something is missing. as far as all the crazy examples and sideline arguments about wether its ok to kill in war, wether its ok to kill in defnse, wether its ok to ambust in defens eof another ect ect ect. you can debate all you want, but all of this was hashed out and printed in a published tome. all of those questions were answered. but since you want to ignore the book your free to dance around with "but what if... or what if..." you won't get anywhere, since anyone who wants the answer can just go look it up, but your certrainly free to THINK your proving some kind of point. The Book of Exalted Deeds is not a good source to base your arguments on. It contradicts the Core Rules as Written, and therefor, does not count. At all. It's a horrible book, and should be stabbed. In the face. With bullets.
GhostStepper 06-23-06, 04:23 PM	you are all certainly correct. you have proven all your points beyond a reasonable doubt assuming that you only use rules that support you and ignore anything that might contravert you and interpret everything just the way you want to. Assuming that you don't listen to any other arguments then you are all exactly right. Congratulations. you, belthazzar, are certainly correct. you have proven all your points beyond a reasonable doubt assuming that you only use rules that support you and ignore anything that might contravert you and interpret everything just the way you want to. Assuming that you don't listen to any other arguments then you are all exactly right. Congratulations. Now see how that applies wonderfully to you? Yes we ignore the BoED. Why? Because for one it contradicts core rules and thus is a set of alternate rules...thats like saying gestalt characters overrule regular charcter classes becaue UA came out after the PHB. Secondly, it contradicts itself. We can argue one side morality of the BoED vs. the BoED. You cant have all the views of the book together as one or it makes no sense. of course since no one has yet answered the fact that the behavior of an assassin is evil, and the class abilities are designed to commit evil acts, and the alternatives are certainly possilbe but ignored... well mabey you get the point mabey you don't. You havent shown how any of the class abilities are any more evil than any class abilities of good aligned characters. Yes you can use the assassin abilities to commit evil acts, but thats true of paladin class features. I left and someone else took up the argument and kept going, but now i can see the debate is really pointless. People ignore anything reasembeling reason in favor of their own position. And you are atleast as guilty of that as anyone else. a big deal was made that you can choose to paralize your victem rather than force them to die... well if you have to choose to paralize the victem then that certainly implies that killing them outirght is evil. If you think all killing is evil then paralyze them then. You dont even have to change a single thing on the assassin ability list to do that. And of course you always have the option to kill, just like every good character in the core rules does. Paladin get swords so they can kill. They get smite evil so they can kill more efficiently. They get no 'mercy' abilities because this is DnD, and in DnD good characters kill things all the time. and if your oging to be choosing to paralize anyway, then why not just remove the save or die option to make sure a good assassin remains good. Because killing things isnt evil. Show me anywhere in any book, BoED included, where it says its always evil to kill. people brought up poisions on both sides, so me saying they are evil, some saying not. well if there is debate why not just use ravages that are stated explicitly to be good and the non ability damage poisons that are stated explicitly to be not evil. that would solve things very easly but people don't want to hear that. they want to hear that using death lotus poison is perfectly acceptable for a paladin, LG, or anyone else that wants to. 1. Even you have admitted that using ravages can be evil (the sadistic paladin example) so forcing an assassin to use ravages doesnt magically make the class ability more good than poison use. 2. Just like a paladin can use his class abilities (martial weapon with a sword for example) to inflict undue pain and suffering, an LG assassin would be able to use 'evil' poison if he chooses. If in your campaign there are 'non-evil' poisons then the assassin should use those. Just because you can use a class ability for evil means that it should be changed so that you are totally unable to use it for evil. If it worked that way, the a paladin would a have a class feature where his sword magically missed any good creature he swings at and can never use smite evil against an evil creature who asks for mercy. It just doesnt work that way in DnD. People brought up the spell list of the assassin as being indicitive of their evil natures. if your fine with the spell list take off poison and go with just whats in the dmg. nothing much there is more than a stealth trick and then your fine. You do realize that good aligned clerics can cast poison right? Its not evil. the fact you want to argue and keep everything is just indicitive of the desire to get around the alignment system and play an evil character with the title of good. Just because you want a LG character that is good at killing it doesnt mean you want to play an evil character. This is DnD. Using assassin abilities to kill more efficiently is no different thatn the LG cleric casting pilar of flame to destroy enemies, the CGFrenzied Berserker using Supreme Power attack to kill things, the LG paladin using smite evil to kill the evil baron, the Slayer of Domiel using his death attack (yes thats a good class in the BoED that has a death attack) against an evil character, or a LG rogue that uses sneak attack to kill and evil tyrant. This is DnD, killing is not always evil and playing a character that is good at killing is not necessarily evil. If you want death attack and poisons and evil spells, then you are playing an evil character. get over it. The spells arent evil. Death attack is not evil (LG monk and Slayer of Domiel). Poison arent evil if using ravages sadistically is evil because then its obviously the character's motivation that is important. None of the assassin's class abilities necessitate evil. Get over it. as far as all the crazy examples and sideline arguments about wether its ok to kill in war, wether its ok to kill in defnse, wether its ok to ambust in defens eof another ect ect ect. Yes, all of these are crazy examples because they would never ever come up in a game of DnD....lol you can debate all you want, but all of this was hashed out and printed in a published tome. all of those questions were answered. Yes it was. Its called the PHB. Its a book where every single good aligne character gets a million options to kill things. This is how DnD works. but since you want to ignore the book your free to dance around with "but what if... or what if..." you won't get anywhere, since anyone who wants the answer can just go look it up, but your certrainly free to THINK your proving some kind of point. Even if it actually did say that killing is always evil in the BoED (which im sure it doesnt) that doesnt take precedence over the core rules. This is not any one person's opinion, its official policy. Assuming that the BoED overrides the core rules is as ridiculous as saying that all the stuff in UA supercedes the core rules. The only "what ifs" here are "what if the BoED actually said kiling is always evil" and "what if the BoED didnt totally contradict iteself". You havent proved a single point, you just keep saying youve proved a point.
heretic888 06-23-06, 05:43 PM	No, we are arguing according to RAW - i.e. core rules come first, then splatbooks. Anything contained in the splatbooks that doesn't contradict RAW is valid. Whenever a conflict arises between core rules and splatbooks, core rules win. Your arguments rely solely on your interpretation that the rules presented in BoED override core rulings on alignment - an interpretation that has been directly struck down by the WotC ruling that core always overrules splatbooks, in the absence of errata. Without your erroneous interpretation (erroneous not just in my book, but according to WotC rulings), none of your arguments hold any water whatsoever. As for 'not listening to your arguments', we've been listening to the same tripe for 350-odd posts now, and have struck down every one of them, not only through philosophical arguments, but also through arguments based on RAW. You can debate the philosophy of good and evil endlessly but, in the world of D&D, RAW rulings are what determines who is right, who is wrong, what is good and what is evil, regardless of personal philosophies. In that legalistic context, your definitions have been proven clearly wrong and your interpretation of RAW incorrect, given that you haven't (and won't) acknowledge the fact that, when it comes to conflicts in RAW, core rules take precedence over splatbook material. Well said. I should also point out that appealing to the Book of Exalted Deeds when discussing alignment is misguided because it assumes that a gaming group must the aforementioned tome to adequately deal with alignment in their games. This, in my opinion, is fallacious. Just as fallacious as saying one must have the Draconomicon to adequately deal with dragons, Complete Warrior to adequately deal with Fighters and melee combat, or Complete Adventurer to adequately deal with Rogues and skills. These are all optional splatbooks and you do not need them to play your D&D campaigns. All you need, strictly speaking, is the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master's Guide. You don't even need the Monster's Manual, as your campaign could consist solely of races and classes from the PHB and DMG. The assumption that one needs a splatbook to adequately address alignment is, therefore, very misguided. You may find it useful for your individual games, but that does not change the fact that it is entirely optional material to be used at the DM's discretion. Laterz.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-23-06, 05:48 PM	You havent shown how any of the class abilities are any more evil than any class abilities of good aligned characters. The following was belthazzar's "logic" for Death Attack being evil. I did not misquote or change the sentence in any way. Everyone in my two groups, everyone at the local games store, and a few of the more far flung friends i have around the states that i used to know. I haven't found anyone who would come right out and say "death attack is a good aligned ability" or even "using death attack isn't evil" only here on the boards have i found anyone to argue with something that I consider pretty obvious. It contains two logical fallacies, no less. This just has to be the worst, and funniest, piece of "logic" I've ever seen. The logical fallacies are: 1. Appeal to Majority (Because more people said it is, it is) 2. Argument from Ignorance (Since it hasn't been proven to be good, it is therefore evil) A third logical fallacy could be construed from the sentence: Appeal to Authority (You know those people better and assume that they are therefore correct) Logic, belthazzar. Logic is the key.
GhostStepper 06-23-06, 06:00 PM	It contains two logical fallacies, no less. This just has to be the worst, and funniest, piece of "logic" I've ever seen. The logical fallacies are: 1. Appeal to Majority (Because more people said it is, it is) 2. Argument from Ignorance (Since it hasn't been proven to be good, it is therefore evil) A third logical fallacy could be construed from the sentence: Appeal to Authority (You know those people better and assume that they are therefore correct) Logic, belthazzar. Logic is the key. LOL. Yeah, thats pretty bad. Here's my version just to reinforce the ridiculousness: "Everyone in my two groups, everyone at the local games store, and a few of the more far flung friends i have around the states that i used to know. I haven't found anyone who would come right out and say "martial weapon proficiency is a good aligned ability" or even "martial weapon proficiency isn't evil" only here on the boards have i found anyone to argue with something that I consider pretty obvious." or even better: "Everyone in my two groups, everyone at the local games store, and a few of the more far flung friends i have around the states that i used to know. I haven't found anyone who would come right out and say "the right to wear underwear is a good aligned ability" or even "the right to wear underwear isn't evil" only here on the boards have i found anyone to argue with something that I consider pretty obvious." Obviously martial weapons proficiency and wearing underwear MUST be evil since no one said it wasnt! And im sure by belthezzar's appeal to popular opinion 'logic' the earh was obviously flat in the middle ages because everyone in europe thought so.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-23-06, 06:10 PM	I don't think belthazzar realizes that he's already lost and we're just being bad winners. :)
Dolo 06-23-06, 10:33 PM	I have read most of this and a lot of you have danced around the basic question about an Assassin:: IF((And only if)) you knew that person was an Assassin, no matter for what reason, Would it bother you to be around that person? Would you be nervous? Would you trust them? I know that when I was growing up, drug dealers was to be advoided and shunned if you was not into that line of work....for the fact that no matter how they justified the reasons on WHY they do it, in the end (excluding the very few that got smart and got out) they brought nothing but ruin and death. I watched plenty of former friends say that "This a pretty good guy, he is cool and he watches out for me" Which is good until he gets a hole blown thru him by the rival drug dealer. Why did I put this up? For the fact that Assassins are of the same vein, there is a basic premise that comes down to this.....Once you know what they are and what they do, What is the first reaction you would get? I know that survival instincts tell me to move away and put space between me and him.
Kresalak 06-23-06, 10:57 PM	Soooo... Because assassins, whether good or evil, are dangerous, you shouldn't be around them? It's quite probable that a good aligned assassin would intentionally distance himself from other people to avoid endangering them.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-23-06, 11:03 PM	I have read most of this and a lot of you have danced around the basic question about an Assassin:: IF((And only if)) you knew that person was an Assassin, no matter for what reason, Would it bother you to be around that person? Would you be nervous? Would you trust them? Yes. Why wouldn't I? He only kills because he's paid to, and as long as you're on the straight and narrow, you'll very likely be pretty safe. Comfortability? I don't know... I tend not to judge people. I have a couple of friends that smoke pot regularly. It doesn't bother me, but I do ask them to not perform the ritual when I'm around (I don't like the smell). I also have an acquaintance who chronic tendency to steal stuff. He's mugged people, and more than a few times he got away with it. It doesn't bother me either. I know that when I was growing up, drug dealers was to be advoided and shunned if you was not into that line of work....for the fact that no matter how they justified the reasons on WHY they do it, in the end (excluding the very few that got smart and got out) they brought nothing but ruin and death. I watched plenty of former friends say that "This a pretty good guy, he is cool and he watches out for me" Which is good until he gets a hole blown thru him by the rival drug dealer. You have a point there, but it doesn't demonstrate how the "good guy" can't be trusted. It may also just be me and my "I don't care about what could happen, but I will if it does." Why did I put this up? For the fact that Assassins are of the same vein, there is a basic premise that comes down to this.....Once you know what they are and what they do, What is the first reaction you would get? I know that survival instincts tell me to move away and put space between me and him. There's a big difference between hitmen and drug dealers. Drug dealers tend to use their own product. It damages them. Depending on what they're dealing and what they're using, it may or may not be safe to trust them. Assassins kill what they're paid to kill. As long as they're not paid to kill you, it is unlikely that you'll have anything to fear from him.
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-23-06, 11:31 PM	<SNIP -- please play nice, thank you -- WizO the Hutt>
Sunrider 06-23-06, 11:56 PM	I have read most of this and a lot of you have danced around the basic question about an Assassin:: IF((And only if)) you knew that person was an Assassin, no matter for what reason, Would it bother you to be around that person? Would you be nervous? Would you trust them? I'm not saying this to be rude, but, your point, while valid (although it depends on the person), is entirely irrelevant in this discussion. In D&D, Good doesn't imply likeable or popular, or even trustworthy (although some might be one or the other, or even both). In the same vein, evil doesn't imply unpopular, unlikeable or untrustworthy. To quote the PHB, with regards to the Chaotic Good alignment: He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society. In other words, an unpopular, untrustworthy or even scary, person could be entirely good, while, conversely, an evil person could be the democratically-elected leader of a country, enjoy vast popularity, show kindness to those he considers loyal compatriots and even be, in a way, ascetic - just like the oft-mentioned German Chancellor from 1933 to 1945.
belthazzar1113 06-24-06, 12:26 AM	It contains two logical fallacies, no less. This just has to be the worst, and funniest, piece of "logic" I've ever seen. with the exception it wasn't presented as a logical argument but a statment of wonder that anyone would be as insane as people who say murder isn't evil. Deconstructing any statement as if it was presented as straight by the book logic is not any type of fallacy, its just spiteful and pointless. Now see how that applies wonderfully to you? yes actually. despite your small minded attempted as cruel jest, this boils down to a difference of OPINION. you choose to ignore an entire book since it contraverts your point. You point to an EXAMPLE rather than a rule to again prove your point. You point to lack of clarification in a "core" book to override explicit statement in a subsequent book. so how is this. Anything that doesn't contradict core is ok. Well BoED explicitly states that choosing to use poisions that cause ability damage is an evil act. Core rules do not state anything on the matter. So poison use is evil. The assumption that one needs a splatbook to adequately address alignment is, therefore, very misguided. you don't need the boed to play in core rules. In core rules assassins are evil because they require an evil alignment. period. But when you want to change an alignment and customize the game in a specific manner there is a book written explicitly to deal with this game mechanic. Ignoring it seems to be total ignorance and just a way to try and word twist a very skeletal section in core to meet your own needs. If you want to go outside core and change the rules, then it makes sense to take all the material presented on what you want to change into account. This means that you need to look at not just the assassin in the DMG but all later material that came out for the class, you need to look not only at the alignment descriptions presented in the PHB but also in the books written specifically to expand and explain the alignment system, BoED/BoVD. To do otherwize simply means taking selective data and selective quotes and placing something in the game that breaks the rules. And if your fine with that, and don't mind the incongruity or you can't see it for some reason, then your free to go ahead. But if your sitting here still arguing about it then the only explainations i can think to explain this act are that you are either unsure of your position, or you just want to attack and argue with me as a person. And given the nature and tone of the previous posts i tend to belive its the latter. Yes we ignore the BoED. Why? Because for one it contradicts core rules and thus is a set of alternate rules...thats like saying gestalt characters overrule regular charcter classes becaue UA came out after the PHB. Secondly, it contradicts itself. We can argue one side morality of the BoED vs. the BoED. You cant have all the views of the book together as one or it makes no sense. After discussing this off the boards It was presented to me that the conflict you are pointing to is between a poorly worded example in the core books, and an explicit statement and section of clarification in the BoED. Between a case of poor word choice and an essay, i think the essay is going ot hold presidence since it shows more thought and more conviction and thus leads me to the hint at intent. Taking two poorly picked words in the PB and using then to trump an entire book is wrong. The book wouldn't have been published if those two words invalidated the entire work. Not only that but taking that example as a rule leads to horrible ends. A paladin who fights without mercy is lawful good. then a paladin who fights with mercy is not lawful good, so if a paladin ever shows mercy in the least they lose their paladin powers. But one of the hallmarks of a paladin is their mercy and beneficence. So apparently paladins contradict themselves and can't exist. Mercy: Alleviation of distress; relief: Taking in the refugees was an act of mercy. from the definition of websters. Code of Conduct: a paladin’s code requires that they help those in need taken from the paladin code desciption. so paladins MUST show mercy, but if they fight without mercy then they have violated their code, but if they fight with mercy then they violate this "rule" you point to. So no paladin could ever pursue a criminal unles they planed to kill them, since letting them live and turning them over to legitimate authorities would be showing mercy. But then the paladin code requires that they respect legitimate authority. Seems core if rife with contradictions if you make the mistake of taking a single example as a rule. So either its a load of contradictions, or the example is just an example and not a rule. if its just an example and not ment to be taken as a rule then the BoED doesn't contravert your idea of whats a rule and thus stands as the authority on mercy, what is an is not a good act, and what constitutes the dnd alignment system. I don't see a need to go through all of this bickering since its pretty clear that the alginment system in the PHB is skimpy and ill worded, but since you all apparently take each and every word as a rule lets see where it leads. Yes you can use the assassin abilities to commit evil acts, but thats true of paladin class features I don't see a paladin ability that can be used for an evil act outside of the abilities of every sapient creature to commit murder with hands or knife. the paladin gets all healing special abilities, a few combat spells, and smite evil which has a moral context and detect evil to check and make sure... I don't see how your going to be evil unless you work at it. 1. Even you have admitted that using ravages can be evil (the sadistic paladin example) the ravages themselves are not evil. the intent is evil. You can take a holy symbol of pelor and beat kittens to death. its a good aligned item but its used for an evil purpose and thus is used to commit an evil act. I can take a holy avenger sword and use it to slaughter the first born sons of an entire city but that doesn't make it a good act. Items can be twisted by their weilders into evil acts. If you think all killing is evil then paralyze them then. You dont even have to change a single thing on the assassin ability list to do that. And of course you always have the option to kill, just like every good character in the core rules does. Paladin get swords so they can kill. They get smite evil so they can kill more efficiently. They get no 'mercy' abilities because this is DnD, and in DnD good characters kill things all the time. then why bother to have death attack at all? just paralyze them and be done with it. Replace that aspect of the class with something else, Track for example to find your foes. Even with paralyze you have the option to kill, you coup de grace them and they die. If you want to be evil then you can, but why give out death attack if your unsure wether its evil, just keep it off the table. Paladins get swords because they have arms. they don't get class features that are morally hazy. Smite evil doesn't work on anyone who isn't evil, just like a ravage. It has moral context. You can twist the intent and try to make it evil, but thats going to be the intent of the attack, not the smite evil ability. Meaning the attack itself would have to be an evil act to corrupt smite evil. and if i were dm the fact smite didn't work would be your first hint you just lost your paladinhood. and yes, actually they get mercy abilities... healing hands, removie desease, cure spells... i th ink those are the essence of mercy abilities. Assassin only get class abilities that are arguably evil. The fact that they require evil aignment leads credence to the fact that these abilities combine into a person that must be evil. Changing that and not changing the class abilities to a more morally neutral or good context just means you want to break the rules for the sole purpose of gaining power. If ravages aren't evil, poisons aren't evil. If poisons are evil, ravages are evil. Why? Because poisons are called evil for causing pain. Ravages are explicitly stated to cause immense pain. Either causing pain is evil, and ravages are too, or it isn't, and neither are poisons. the difference lies in their moral context. ravages have one, poisons don't. ravages don't cause new pain and suffering, they rebound moral corruption into physical corruption. Poisons don't care who you are, they simply hurt you. ravages are magically sensing substances that can only affect a morally corrupt target that you choose to make sure there are no mistakes about who is affected. poisons are natural substances that someone has to choose to use to cause pain and suffering irregardless of who may end up being on the reciving end. poisons and ravages are not identical, they arn't the same thing. they FUNCTION the same way. the same way a great sword and alchemist fire function the same basica way of attack roll hit damage roll, but they are not the same thing despite having similar mechanical function. That's interesting. Poison doesn't have the [Evil] descriptor. as was pointed out earlyer not all spells that lack the evil desciptor are non evil. This is one of them. the desciptor doesn't have anything to do with the moral context of the spell but rather how that spell interacts mechanically with other spells and effects. The evil descriptor is a good tell, but its not the only fact to consider. Most spells won't carry a hard and fact always good or always evil conotation, but there are some spells that will always be evil acts and thus are evil to cast. Just because you can use a class ability for evil means that it should be changed so that you are totally unable to use it for evil. If it worked that way, the a paladin would a have a class feature where his sword magically missed any good creature he swings at and can never use smite evil against an evil creature who asks for mercy. It just doesnt work that way in DnD. ahh but you see it does often work that way. Paladins DO get an ability that makes them unable to hurt a good creature. Smite evil. It can't affect a good creature and using it on an evil creature that acts for mercy is an alignment violation of the paladin code and would cause him to lose his powers thus negating the smite evils ability to work. In the world of dnd morality is more than just a philisophical debate, they are definit positions that you can draw power from. Mundane actions don't draw upon those powers but can be always good or always evil without actually drawing upon the power themselves. Slaying a helpless opponent or an innocent, or killing someone who has surrendered in good faith are all evil acts though they can be accomplished by mundane means. If you want a class that has no alignment restrictions then the class can't be designed around one particular alignment. The frnezied berzerker is one class that is not good or evil though their abilities are unquestionably violent. One can use the frenzy for good or ill and thus there are both good and evil FBs, Assassins, i contend, Must always use the lethal option of the death attack for evil ends, mundane poisons are always an evil act to use, and the evil spells an assassin can cast are also always evil. All of their class abilities are designed to be used towards selfish and evil ends. If you want to break from the steriotype and play the Good assassin then the class abilities need to be modified to change them to morally neutral acts that can be used for good or evil. If you want a Good only assassin then the abilities need to be made morally discriminate to make sure they can be used only for good ends. I have proposed both of those alternatives already, but they get ignored in favor of shouting and screaming that the evil abilities are fine for a good character to use.
Kresalak 06-24-06, 12:56 AM	Irony.
Sunrider 06-24-06, 01:11 AM	Belthazzar, you haven't, as yet, presented a shred of evidence supporting any of your arguments that aren't contradicted, thereby being ruled invalid, by the core rules. Despite all the evidence presented refuting your point of view, you haven't presented a single counterargument, based on logic and rules rather than opinions, and respecting the principle of the primacy of core rules, that would stand up in a court of RAW - instead, all you've done is repeated the mantra, 'Death attacks are evil... poison use is evil... I say they're evil, which means they are evil; therefore, since they're evil, I'll interpret them as evil, which means they are evil, etc. etc. ad nauseum. It's circular logic based on a false premise - nothing more. As for the 'use of poisons, unlike ravages, is always evil because they don't distinguish between good and evil targets', you still haven't demonstrated, through logical argument and RAW, why the use of poisons which can't distinguish between good and evil is more evil than the use of swords, arrows or fireballs which can't distinguish between good and evil. All you've done is launched opinionated, emotionally-based tirades (based largely around your 'honourable=good' theory) and ad hominem attacks without even attempting a counterargument.
Sunrider 06-24-06, 01:18 AM	as was pointed out earlyer not all spells that lack the evil desciptor are non evil. This is one of them. the desciptor doesn't have anything to do with the moral context of the spell but rather how that spell interacts mechanically with other spells and effects. The evil descriptor is a good tell, but its not the only fact to consider. Most spells won't carry a hard and fact always good or always evil conotation, but there are some spells that will always be evil acts and thus are evil to cast. And your basis for this is...??? (in RAW, not in your opinion - no-one cares what your opinion is, since the debate is about RAW)
GhostStepper 06-24-06, 04:43 AM	Anything that doesn't contradict core is ok. Well BoED explicitly states that choosing to use poisions that cause ability damage is an evil act. Core rules do not state anything on the matter. So poison use is evil. This is a good, sound logical arguement. I cant refute this based on core, though can logically refute this based on the BoED itself! An LG character can choose to use ravage X to inflict pain and suffering on an evil creature in order to punish him and this is a good act. The BoED obviously says its good to inflict pain and suffering on evil creatures if they deserve it. An LG creature can choose to use poison X to inflict pain and suffering on an evil creature in order to punish him. Using a poison to inflict pain and suffering on a creature who deserves it logically identical to using a ravage to inflict pain an suffering. The BoED totally contradicts itself. According to the BoED's 'ravage logic' it should be ok to use poison to punish evil. If you want to go outside core and change the rules, then it makes sense to take all the material presented on what you want to change into account. This means that you need to look at not just the assassin in the DMG but all later material that came out for the class, you need to look not only at the alignment descriptions presented in the PHB but also in the books written specifically to expand and explain the alignment system, BoED/BoVD. We are changing an aspect of the Core rules. Just as you said, you dont need the BoED to run core, and you dont need it if your dealing with changing a core class. And if your fine with that, and don't mind the incongruity or you can't see it for some reason, then your free to go ahead. But if your sitting here still arguing about it then the only explainations i can think to explain this act are that you are either unsure of your position, or you just want to attack and argue with me as a person. And given the nature and tone of the previous posts i tend to belive its the latter. Your being atleast as inflammitory as anyone else. Dont pretend like your a victim when your dishing it out. After discussing this off the boards It was presented to me that the conflict you are pointing to is between a poorly worded example in the core books, and an explicit statement and section of clarification in the BoED. Between a case of poor word choice and an essay, i think the essay is going ot hold presidence since it shows more thought and more conviction and thus leads me to the hint at intent. Taking two poorly picked words in the PB and using then to trump an entire book is wrong. The book wouldn't have been published if those two words invalidated the entire work. Unearthed Arcana. The whole book goes against the core rules and it got published. Its alternate OPTIONAL rules. Splat books dont trump core and thats WotC's official policy. Not only that but taking that example as a rule leads to horrible ends. A paladin who fights without mercy is lawful good. then a paladin who fights with mercy is not lawful good, so if a paladin ever shows mercy in the least they lose their paladin powers. Read the PHB again. Nowhere does it say a paladin MUST fight without mercy. It gives and example of a paladin who DOES, meaning a paladin who choses to do so is LG. No where does it say that paladin who fights without mercy breaks his vow. No where does it say that a paladin who shows mercy breaks his vow. There is no contradiction because your making things up. But one of the hallmarks of a paladin is their mercy and beneficence. So apparently paladins contradict themselves and can't exist. Maybe the BoED says that, but the PHB paladin's code says nothing about mercy or beneficence. Code of Conduct: a paladin’s code requires that they help those in need taken from the paladin code desciption. Killing a child molester who is torturing a basement full of little girls is helping those in need and not again the paladin's code. so paladins MUST show mercy, but if they fight without mercy then they have violated their code, but if they fight with mercy then they violate this "rule" you point to. So no paladin could ever pursue a criminal unles they planed to kill them, since letting them live and turning them over to legitimate authorities would be showing mercy. But then the paladin code requires that they respect legitimate authority. Seems core if rife with contradictions if you make the mistake of taking a single example as a rule. Once again your just making up this "paladins MUST be merciless" stuff that is supposedly in the PHB. It gives one example of a paladin who does in fact fight evil without mercy. Nowhere does it require that ALL paladins fight without mercy, it is merely an option which does not apparently go against the LG alignment in DnD. According to the PHB a paladin may pursue criminals with the intent to kill if it is not against ligitimate authority. They do have that option and it is not necessarily evil. Once again, there is no contracition since it never says they MUST fight mercilessly. So either its a load of contradictions, or the example is just an example and not a rule. Yes! It is an example and not a rule! But since they gave the example that a certain paladin "fights evil mercilessly" and is "lawful good", we must assume that being merciless to evil is an option for LG characters. if its just an example and not ment to be taken as a rule then the BoED doesn't contravert your idea of whats a rule and thus stands as the authority on mercy, what is an is not a good act, and what constitutes the dnd alignment system. Youve been saying that the BoED says you must show mercy as a rule. The PHB shows that you have the option not to since their prime example of what it is to be LG doesnt even show mercy. This is a contradiction. I don't see a paladin ability that can be used for an evil act outside of the abilities of every sapient creature to commit murder with hands or knife. Not all classes get martial weapon proficiency. In general, martial weapons are more efficient at killing things than simple weapons which most people get. A paladin can use a greatsword to commit evil acts more efficiently than a commoner. the paladin gets all healing special abilities, a few combat spells, and smite evil which has a moral context and detect evil to check and make sure... I don't see how your going to be evil unless you work at it. You said yourself that using ravages sadistically is an evil act. If a creature surrenders and a paladin uses smite evil to torture him anyway, by your own logic, that is an evil act. the ravages themselves are not evil. the intent is evil. You can take a holy symbol of pelor and beat kittens to death. its a good aligned item but its used for an evil purpose and thus is used to commit an evil act. I can take a holy avenger sword and use it to slaughter the first born sons of an entire city but that doesn't make it a good act. Items can be twisted by their weilders into evil acts. Youve just presented a great arguement for why using poison isnt always evil! Youve just pointed out that it doesnt matter what the tool is, its how you use it. You can be LG and use a poison to punish evil in the exact same way as a paladin uses a ravage because, according to your logic, its the moral justification of the user which is important, not the alignment of the tool used. Your arguing yourself that the BoED contradicts itself. then why bother to have death attack at all? just paralyze them and be done with it. Replace that aspect of the class with something else, Track for example to find your foes. Even with paralyze you have the option to kill, you coup de grace them and they die. So coup de grace is less evil than Death Attack...ok? Why dont we change the slayer of domiel's class ability so its not a death attack while we are at it since its good class in BoED with a death attack. If you want to be evil then you can, but why give out death attack if your unsure wether its evil, just keep it off the table. Paladins get swords because they have arms. they don't get class features that are morally hazy. Im sure that its not any more evil than martial weapon proficiency. Both are class features and both can be used for evil if you really felt like it. Smite evil doesn't work on anyone who isn't evil, just like a ravage. It has moral context. And if your sticking to your mercy policy, both can be used for evil. You can twist the intent and try to make it evil, but thats going to be the intent of the attack, not the smite evil ability. Exaclty! Just like the intent to use poison to inflict pain and suffering on evil creatures is the same as using ravages to inflict pain and suffering on evil creatures. Its all about intent. Changing that and not changing the class abilities to a more morally neutral or good context just means you want to break the rules for the sole purpose of gaining power. How is the class any more powerful that the 1000 other more powerful PrC that good characters can already take? Its not anywhere close to being game breaking, its all a matter of flavor and roleplaying. the difference lies in their moral context. ravages have one, poisons don't. ravages don't cause new pain and suffering, they rebound moral corruption into physical corruption. And paladins dont HAVE to use ravages to inflict pain and suffering...the choose to. If your going by the BoED, its logically evil to use ravages regardless of the fact that flavor text contradicts other flavor text. Poisons don't care who you are, they simply hurt you. ravages are magically sensing substances that can only affect a morally corrupt target that you choose to make sure there are no mistakes about who is affected. poisons are natural substances that someone has to choose to use to cause pain and suffering irregardless of who may end up being on the reciving end. poisons and ravages are not identical, they arn't the same thing. they FUNCTION the same way. the same way a great sword and alchemist fire function the same basica way of attack roll hit damage roll, but they are not the same thing despite having similar mechanical function. They have the same function, thats the important part. You yourself even argued that it the moral reasoning of the user that is important, not the substance you use. Your contradicting your earler statements. as was pointed out earlyer not all spells that lack the evil desciptor are non evil. This is one of them. the desciptor doesn't have anything to do with the moral context of the spell but rather how that spell interacts mechanically with other spells and effects. The evil descriptor is a good tell, but its not the only fact to consider. Most spells won't carry a hard and fact always good or always evil conotation, but there are some spells that will always be evil acts and thus are evil to cast. And none of the 'always evil' spells are on the core list. You yourself argued that its the moral motivation that is important, not the tool. By your logic then, no spell can always be evil. ahh but you see it does often work that way. Paladins DO get an ability that makes them unable to hurt a good creature. Smite evil. Did you read the smite evil ability...it does not make good creatures immune to paladin greatsword attacks. It can't affect a good creature and using it on an evil creature that acts for mercy is an alignment violation of the paladin code and would cause him to lose his powers thus negating the smite evils ability to work. Not according to the PHB. Alhandra is a paladin and she fights evil mercilessly. One can use the frenzy for good or ill and thus there are both good and evil FBs, Assassins, i contend, Must always use the lethal option of the death attack for evil ends, So FB gets abilities that let them kill stuff and you admit they can use this for good or evil and assassins get abilities that let them kill stuff but its always evil? Your contradicting yourself. mundane poisons are always an evil act to use You already said its the moral reasoning that is important when you commit an act (like the paladin using ravages sadistically). Your contradicting yourself. , and the evil spells an assassin can cast are also always evil. The assassin gets no evil spells. Once again, you admited that it the moral intention of the user of a tool that determines whether an act is good or evil. On the second point, your contradicting yourself. All of their class abilities are designed to be used towards selfish and evil ends. No more selfish or evil than any good class that kills. If you want to break from the steriotype and play the Good assassin then the class abilities need to be modified to change them to morally neutral acts that can be used for good or evil. None of the class's abilities requires him to kill innocents. What you propose is unneccesary. If you want a Good only assassin then the abilities need to be made morally discriminate to make sure they can be used only for good ends. I never agrued for a 'good' only assassin, only for an assissin that doesnt have the 'evil' requirement. A rogue can be good and none of its class abilities only work on evil creatures, a fighter can be good and none of its class abilities only work on evil creatures, a monk can be good and none of its class abilities only work on evil creatures, a barbarian can be good and none of its class abilities only work on evil creatures, a bard can be good and none of its class abilities only work on evil creatures... I could go on but you get my point. A class doesnt need to have class features that only work on evil creatures to allow for good characters. I have proposed both of those alternatives already, but they get ignored in favor of shouting and screaming that the evil abilities are fine for a good character to use. I know some folks are 'shouting' (hades, im lookin at you! lol) and i appoligize. As far as the 'evil' abilities...just like most abilities that classes get, they can be use for good or evil.
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-24-06, 11:39 AM	Heh heh. Neat. I didn't know the WizOs could do that. Though I don't see why it's any worse than the flame... not quite war, maybe fistfight that's been going on. Anyway... Paladins DO get an ability that makes them unable to hurt a good creature. Smite evil.Smite evil does not make paladins unable to hurt good creatures. It simply does not affect good creatures. A paladin can still swing his sword at an innocent villager. Just pointing that out. And I'm afraid to actually type this again, for fear of getting anonther mark in the WizO Book of Bad People, but you'll find that here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9443079&postcount=304), there is a still unanswered argument. It's interesting how you skip over it.
Harmony 06-24-06, 12:23 PM	You have to factor in why he does it, and what effect this has on his conscience. A Lawful Good Assassin might kill evil creatures, but he might feel guilty after having killed some evil baron. The baron may have been evil; the best way to deal with him may have been to kill him, but that does not change the fact that the same baron was still a sentient being. He was just a man. A man you killed. The easiest way. There's a diffrence. Noone ever said being good was easy. That's thin ice you're on. Good characters kill. Mercilessly. It's a fact in D&D. Is it? That's so scary much AD&D over it. Remember that you get experience for defeating an encounter, but defeating dosen't mean killing. Just like "fight" dosen't mean killing. Nope. To justify limiting the alignment to evil, you have to justify that it's abilities (Some of them, at least) are inherently evil. Why? Which abilites of the barbarian or bard requires them to be non-lawful to advance? Let's review: Death Attack: This is only a special option for Sneak Attacks. Killing from out of hiding or without the creature recognizing you as a threat does not make it evil, only dishonorable (No, bel, dishonorable =/= evil). Paralyzing isn't even an issue. Poison Use: This was covered in the Main FAQ: Spell List: Only one spell on the Assassin spell list, splatbook, Core, or otherwise, has the [evil] descriptor. That spell is Fangs of the Vampire King. Even so: Emphasis mine. Where it says most... don't even bother. They explain the descriptors that have a mechanical effect in the two following paragraphs. The [evil] descriptor doesn't make a spell evil to cast. You could cast it all day, every day, and you wouldn't even slip an inch towards evil. Watch the back of my hand as it flies towards your face... with logic. Just like the steel used in a sword isn't evil even if it's used to slaughter thousands of innocent villagers. It, like the assassins abilites, are tools - nothing more, nothing less. Just like the sneak attack ability of an evil rogue is nothing diffrent than that of the good rogue. I've never claimed spells make you good or evil by casting them, I've always pointed out the descriptors. ;p Well, how about the party charging into the goblin's lair and defeating the evil priest of Goblingodius who plans to poison water supplies, slaughter entire villages, etc., in order to purify the world of all lesser races (nongoblins)? It's convenient and it's killing. Should the players walk into the lair with their hands up, unarmed, and ask to negotiate with the leader? Or should they cast Deep Slumber on all the guards and then, while they sleep, cast Temporal Stasis on the cleric? It's not killing. It just puts him in a little glass jar where he can wait for centuries, practically dying of boredom, growing ever more insane, hatching new plans for the destruction of the lesser races when he's finally released. Well, like stated before, you don't need to kill to defeat an (or multiple) encounter to recieve experience. If the party is powerful enough to wipe out an entire goblin nest along with their evil priest, they are certainly powerful enough to negotiate with them. Does being good and negoitiate mean you're stupid? Hardly. Killing is the easiest way out. Genocide ("you're a goblin, you die") is hardly good. ;p Or how about a blood-crazed barbarian screaming in rage as he charges the PC's, getting close to the wizard to prevent spellcasting (Sleep, Hold Person), which the players then dispatch, while intending to knock him out and then stabilize him, but the paladin gets a crit and lops his head off? Wow, when we actually want to incapacitate someone in our games, we use non-lethal damage, and we usually have a mix of good, neutral and evil characters - and all are usually interested in taking enemies alive, be it for mercy, information or simply staying on the better side of the law. Broadsides of swords seldom decapacitate someone, even on a crit. Again, good dosen't equal stupid, nor simpleminded. Yes, I know it's been brought up before, but does going to war (you're a reluctant conscript) and killing someone make you evil, because it was convenient for you to keep living and so you killed another person? That would make lots of altruistic people with respect for life and concern for the dignity of sentient beings evil, even though good implies it. It would also make one act define your alignment. Therefore, a chaotic evil person is lawful evil if his balor master orders him to infiltrate the good guys and he does so because he doesn't want to get fried. Heck, if he tips a barkeep to keep up his disguise, he's lawful good. Where is it stated that a single act changes your alignment? A good character who makes it a habit to kill first and possibly speak later won't last very long with that alignement. What about the soldier (name is A) who, seeing his friend (B) losing a fight (in a big battle) against someone who's taunting the friend and killing him slowly (C), charges up and stabs C in the back, knowing that the enemy A was fighting would chase A and be able to attack A from behind, inflicting terrible damage, before A could spin around from hitting B in the back? Whoa there, hold on. He's being altruistic, quite possibly sacrificing his life for his friends. Thus, he's good. He's also killing someone because it's convenient (saving another person). Thus, he's evil. How does he both end up killing someone and then being chased by the same? But you're leaving lots of options. Is back the only way he can access or isn't he just being very opportunistic? He can't goad back "You <random insult>, can't you beat someone not defenseless?" Or perhaps, being good, you prefere to take the personal sacrifice of killing someone to make a friend live. People do that. People change, too. A lawful evil character might very well be the most party-loyal character of all. In general the old saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" rings very true. What about this? A rogue sneaks up to a clearing in the woods and sees someone performing sadistic, depraved, horrible tortures on dozens of tied-up innocents. Then he sneaks up and sneak attacks (hey, even death attacks) the guy, even though there was a risk of being heard, then fought and killed. He's altruistic and has a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. He also killed someone because it was convenient (I have no clue by what stretch of the imagination that's convenient, but neither do I see how death attacking the evil warlord who's going to invade a country, slaughtering everyone he sees, thus likely saving thousands of lives, is "convenient" and therefore evil). Again, you leave option A and option B, and nothing there between. Are they innocents and not condemened murderers (assassins? ;p)? Perhaps it's a ritual that must be performed each century or some evil power invades. Or perhaps they are truly innocent and the rogue would value taking a personal "hit" to save others. People do that. Eventually, they go on a crusade against evil, never noticing that they have become not better than what they fight, yet they claim to uphold the outmost virtue. But I suppose in general people have an issue seeing "evil" on their character sheet. Shrug. If you want, call yourself good and mindlessly wipe out tribe after tribe of non-likeminded races or kingdoms, then you surely wouldn't be the first...
Sunrider 06-24-06, 12:27 PM	This is a good, sound logical arguement. I cant refute this based on core, though can logically refute this based on the BoED itself! An LG character can choose to use ravage X to inflict pain and suffering on an evil creature in order to punish him and this is a good act. The BoED obviously says its good to inflict pain and suffering on evil creatures if they deserve it. An LG creature can choose to use poison X to inflict pain and suffering on an evil creature in order to punish him. Using a poison to inflict pain and suffering on a creature who deserves it logically identical to using a ravage to inflict pain an suffering. Actually, it can be refuted on core rules alone. Look under Couatl, in the Monster Manual (a core rulebook). Always Lawful Good. Uses ability-damage poison in combat. Has the moral capacity to choose not to use it, but uses it anyway. Under core rules, it's a poison, not a 'ravage'. Therefore, we can infer that, under core rules, poison use is not always an evil act. This is also supported by the rules governing the Poison spell, which inflicts Con damage, but can be cast by clerics of Good alignment. If it were always evil to use poison under core rules, the Couatl could not exist and the Poison spell would have the [Evil] descriptor, to prevent Good clerics from casting it (not implying in any way, of course, that a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is always evil to cast - in this case I'm simply referring to the mechanical effect it would have in terms of preventing Good clerics from casting it) - therefore, it is reasonable to infer that poison use is not an evil act.
heretic888 06-24-06, 01:00 PM	Actually, it can be refuted on core rules alone. Look under Couatl, in the Monster Manual (a core rulebook). Always Lawful Good. Uses ability-damage poison in combat. Has the moral capacity to choose not to use it, but uses it anyway. Under core rules, it's a poison, not a 'ravage'. Therefore, we can infer that, under core rules, poison use is not always an evil act. This is also supported by the rules governing the Poison spell, which inflicts Con damage, but can be cast by clerics of Good alignment. If it were always evil to use poison under core rules, the Couatl could not exist and the Poison spell would have the [Evil] descriptor, to prevent Good clerics from casting it - therefore, it is reasonable to infer that poison use is not an evil act. A few prestige classes from Oriental Adventures I'd like to mention here. . . Ninja Spy and Bayushi Deceiver. Both gain Poison Use as a class feature at first level. The former has "any nonchaotic, nongood" as an alignment restriction, while the latter has "any nonlawful" as an alignment restriction. I can play a true neutral Ninja Spy and use poisons. I can also play a chaotic good Bayushi Deceiver and use poisons. Still not seeing any correlation between poison use and alignment here. Laterz.
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-24-06, 05:31 PM	I just figured out how to show everyone who uses BoED as the basis for their arguments that killing is not evil. I refer you to the captions of the illustrations on pages 7 and 12. Respectively (emphasis put by me), "A paladin must coose between destroying evil and honoring love" and, "Good and evil battle to the death." And don't try telling me that "destroying" doesn't imply killing. On an unrelated note, is the infiltrator who sneaks into the evil warlord's castle, analyzes the defences, and tells the good guys everything they need to send in an assassin evil? He's not killing the warlord, but he is essential in the plan to kill him.
Fun_Elemental 06-25-06, 01:12 AM	Ok, how about the following situation: Deep inside the un-assailable fortress of the Legion of Doom, the High Necromacer of the Legion of Doom and 5 apprentices stand over the Princess Purity who they have bound to an altar stone and and in the middle of a ritual which requires the death of an innocent (read: Her). Right as the High Necromancer of the Legion of Doom is about to plunge his sacrifical blade into Princess Purity, one of the apprentices lunges forward with lighting speed and drives his poisoned dagger hilt deep into the High Necromancer's eye, killing him instantly. Before the other four apprentices can act, the assassin drops each one by throwing poisoned daggers into their heart. The assassin cuts Princess Purity free from her bonds, tosses her a blood stained apprentice's robe, and suggests that they make all due haste in getting to the one-way secret exit to the catacombs of darkness where an extraction team should should be waiting on the other side, and have cleared an escape path through the undead hordes of the catacombs of darkness. Point out the bits where the assassin is acting in an *inherently* evil manner. Fact of the matter is, his alignment could be *ANYTHING*. Despite his use of deception, cold-blooded murder, and poison. He could be working for the Legion of Dread, and he has orders to thwart the Legion of Doom, and kidnap the pricess so they can murder her in their own evil ritual. He could be Neutral and was offered a large ammount of money for saving the Princess. He could be good, and upon hearing of the plight of the princess he convinced his fellows to help him free her. The High Necromancer and his goons sealed their own fate by creating a situation where only catching them with their guard down and distracted, and unleashing a sudden and cold-blooded assault was the only realistic way to stop them from killing an innocent. The bottom line is that the ONLY thing inherently evil about the assassin PrC is the singular requirement to murder a random person free of coersion. If you change that ONE aspect of the class' pre-reqs (which is more than likely added because of close minded moral absolutists who would be screaming bloody murder about how 'DnD is training children to be satanic murderers'), the class would be fine for any PC of any alignment.
shadow mage 06-25-06, 01:41 AM	My vote for the most relevant thing mentioned in the thread thus far regarding the original topic/discussion goes to... ... The bottom line is that the ONLY thing inherently evil about the assassin PrC is the singular requirement to murder a random person free of coersion. If you change that ONE aspect of the class' pre-reqs <snip>, the class would be fine for any PC of any alignment. Removed the parenthetical part to emphasize the statement. -Shadow Mage
Majick 06-25-06, 02:04 AM	If i could close this thread i really freakin' would, cause this is just getting out of hand; The situation for which the question was originally asked has come and gone, delt with, and i called it how i saw it. If anyone else has a problem with my rulings (that the Assassin prestige class CAN apply as long as you don't kill for no reason but because killing for a bounty or for the greater good is still ok for good characters), take it up with your god/s, cause i sure ain't listening anymore after over 350 posts of THE SAME OLD ARGUMENT. Oh, and thank you for the input... up until it was just repatition :P
Elessar 06-25-06, 02:21 AM	IT'S A GAME. Will your DM allow it? Will you have fun playing it? Then draft a PrC for the job that has a backstory you find suitable and PLAY. You don't need moral consent from the forum at large to play the game you have in mind. If you're asking if the game will all the sudden become unbalanced if you play an Assassin in your good party, no it will not. Despite splatbook rules, or even if there were core rules against it, it would be stupid of you not to play the character you want to play. Chances are, your campaign is not as retentive about fantasy roleplaying game morals as people on this forum (I'm looking at you, belthazzar :P ). If you're looking for plot devices to use for the character you have in mind, discuss with your DM an opposing organization of assassins that wants you dead. Maybe you have to thwart assassination attempts by assassinating other (evil) assassins. Plus keep in mind that your assassin can still commit evil acts and not have to switch the alignment on his character sheet to evil. I lied on my tax forms today and I'm a beacon of holiness. (just kidding, IRS!) As long as your good assassin doesn't have a specific code of conduct (although it would be interesting if he did), he doesn't risk having to change alignment because of a few indiscretions as long as he's still basically good. If other people disagree with that, well maybe Sunrider will have some contradictory stories to tell after he actually roleplays it rather than sit here and let it get shot down in page after page of pedantry. Oh, and Sunrider... I don't think I have to tell you this, but just to make belthazzar feel better... don't kill anyone in real life, mkay?
Harmony 06-25-06, 11:29 AM	Ok, how about the following situation: Deep inside the un-assailable fortress of the Legion of Doom, the High Necromacer of the Legion of Doom and 5 apprentices stand over the Princess Purity who they have bound to an altar stone and and in the middle of a ritual which requires the death of an innocent (read: Her). Right as the High Necromancer of the Legion of Doom is about to plunge his sacrifical blade into Princess Purity, one of the apprentices lunges forward with lighting speed and drives his poisoned dagger hilt deep into the High Necromancer's eye, killing him instantly. Before the other four apprentices can act, the assassin drops each one by throwing poisoned daggers into their heart. The assassin cuts Princess Purity free from her bonds, tosses her a blood stained apprentice's robe, and suggests that they make all due haste in getting to the one-way secret exit to the catacombs of darkness where an extraction team should should be waiting on the other side, and have cleared an escape path through the undead hordes of the catacombs of darkness. Point out the bits where the assassin is acting in an *inherently* evil manner. Fact of the matter is, his alignment could be *ANYTHING*. Despite his use of deception, cold-blooded murder, and poison. He could be working for the Legion of Dread, and he has orders to thwart the Legion of Doom, and kidnap the pricess so they can murder her in their own evil ritual. He could be Neutral and was offered a large ammount of money for saving the Princess. He could be good, and upon hearing of the plight of the princess he convinced his fellows to help him free her. The High Necromancer and his goons sealed their own fate by creating a situation where only catching them with their guard down and distracted, and unleashing a sudden and cold-blooded assault was the only realistic way to stop them from killing an innocent. The bottom line is that the ONLY thing inherently evil about the assassin PrC is the singular requirement to murder a random person free of coersion. If you change that ONE aspect of the class' pre-reqs (which is more than likely added because of close minded moral absolutists who would be screaming bloody murder about how 'DnD is training children to be satanic murderers'), the class would be fine for any PC of any alignment. That's straw arguments; I'll give you a few of my own: The High Necromacer of the Legion of Doom gives someone a flower. Please indicate where in doing that he is evil. An orc rescues a few of his friends from captivity of some goblinoids. Please indiciate where the orc is evil. Evil can do good acts. Good can do evil acts. It's the majority that defines alignment. An evil character who commits a lot of good acts, will become good, a good character who commits a lot of evil acts will become evil. But if you just look at individual acts, you'll get a totally scewed picture.
Ulitharid 06-25-06, 01:08 PM	That fact is that your argueing about mechanics when the core rule beyond all others is that mechanics can be bent or broken if just role playing needs are met.. there are and will always be exceptions and simply stating the rules by the book without looking around the problem is flawed. Mechanical roleplay is bad roleplay where i come from, but its your choice how you choose to play and i wish you luck with it. lol /agree personally, i would liken a good assassin to a holy avenger or something like that; an individual who mercilessly hunts down and kills those who have wronged his deity, or brought suffering upon his people. lets say there is this fictitious character by the name of bob, bob was brought up in a small kingdom whose monarch was known for his kindliness and generosity unto his people. rather than maintaining a massive army and setting out to conquer his neighboring lands, the king put the royal treasury towards internal improvements, such as building and maintaing an infrastructure, and setting up craft schools for children of underprivileged families to go to, to learn a trade and increase one's personal prosperity as well as that of the nation itself. bob looked forward to the day that he could serve his good king, but such a day would never come; the kings advisors and generals, whose hearts were as black and corrupt as the abyss killed the king, his family, and his true allies in cold blood, with only his youngest son surviving unnoticed by the betrayers. the new dictatorship stripped the wealth from the population and imposed strict taxes, and even stricter laws that oftentimes result in the death sentence to those that would defy the new tyrants. after this massive shift in the nature of his country, bob found that the only way he could survive was on the streets, stealing from members of the new monarchy's secret police to purchase food for himself. as his skills as a thief advanced, he stole more and more to help those besides himself. eventually, word spread of bob's endeavors to the higher ups of the secret police, and the town in which bob lived was exterminated as an example unto the populace of how people who disobey will be handled. bob was griefstriken and guilty, having survived due to the skills he'd acquired, and eventually managed to focus his anger and grief, and turned down the path of the assassin, only with a twist: he uses his skills to clean his once great nation of those who have cast their blight over it. although bob is not proud of his dirty tactics(sneak attack), his poisons, or outright murder(deathattack), he has nonetheless been successful in stirring fear into the upper echelons of the tyranny, and he knows it. someday, he will be able to strike at the current king, and restore the monarchy to the true heir to the throne, a man he knows is worthy and whom he guards over until then.
Harmony 06-25-06, 02:10 PM	Evil methods for a good cause... Killing (some) those who have choosen (by force or choice) would lead to exactly the same as the rogue oppose, rule by fear and terror. Or are you of the belief that it's "intelligence" if you good pr, and "terrorism" is you have bad pr? If he killed them by fireballs or daggers in the night dosen't matter, premeditated murder is premeditated murder regardless of method. Say he overthrows old regime and places the righteous king back on the throne. Does he stop there? Or does he remain vigiliant of new enemies, prefering to continuing his old methods of fear and murder? It sounds rather lawful evil to me, a strict belief in the "righteous and fair king" but methods become secondary when a goal is to be achieved. Does it really make him a bad person? Not really. The good and honest kingdom probably fell in the first case because they lacked someone who could protect it with a zeal and not fearing using "evil" methods doing so! Just because you have evil alignment dosen't mean you're a drooling villian waiting for some adventurers to find a plothook to kill you.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-25-06, 02:42 PM	The easiest way. There's a diffrence. Noone ever said being good was easy. Being good is just as easy as being evil. Is it? That's so scary much AD&D over it. Remember that you get experience for defeating an encounter, but defeating dosen't mean killing. Just like "fight" dosen't mean killing. Another argument based on the BoED? 'Cause if it is... *frowns* Why? Which abilites of the barbarian or bard requires them to be non-lawful to advance? Well, it is a whole other can of worms, but I don't agree with those limitations either. I always look at where the classes' abilities come from (Given, trained or taken), and apply limitations based on that. Just like the steel used in a sword isn't evil even if it's used to slaughter thousands of innocent villagers. It, like the assassins abilites, are tools - nothing more, nothing less. Exactly. The purpose determines the alignment of an act. And before anyone brings up baby-eating into this, let me say: It's pretty damn hard to justify some things. Think about some things for yourselves. Think about whether you'd say they were good, evil, chaotic or lawful.. I would probably (D&D morally) agree. Just like the sneak attack ability of an evil rogue is nothing diffrent than that of the good rogue. I've never claimed spells make you good or evil by casting them, I've always pointed out the descriptors. ;p So we're pretty much on the same page, then? with the exception it wasn't presented as a logical argument but a statment of wonder that anyone would be as insane as people who say murder isn't evil. I thought it was an argument because it was written amidst a lot of arguments, it was posted in a debate, and it looked like an argument. If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were retracting the statement without us seeing through it. Oh, and you haven't proven that murder is evil. I, for one, have given good, solid and very much valid logic for murder being unaligned (See definition, remember that "without lawful excuse" is the key). Deconstructing any statement as if it was presented as straight by the book logic is not any type of fallacy, its just spiteful and pointless. No, it's misunderstood. By you.
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-25-06, 03:05 PM	That's straw arguments; *snip* Evil can do good acts. Good can do evil acts. It's the majority that defines alignment. An evil character who commits a lot of good acts, will become good, a good character who commits a lot of evil acts will become evil. But if you just look at individual acts, you'll get a totally scewed picture.Please tell me how killing a bunch of vile (not just evil) people to save an innocent implies that the majority of what the rescuer does is evil. 'Cause I could swear that what you said has nothing at all to do with what Fun said. Will your DM allow it? Will you have fun playing it?You know, even if everyone had brought up unassailable arguments that were sheer genius. Elessar would still be the only smart person here. I quit. And unlike Bel, I mean it. Elessar has won the argument without question.
Verelor 06-25-06, 03:12 PM	I think I've seen enough friends bickering. :) I have written a well-informed article in Regdar's Repository called "Assassins and Morality" that will address every questionable part of the assassin's class abilities and requirements. You can look forward to reading it in 1-2 days. ;)
heretic888 06-25-06, 04:27 PM	Evil methods for a good cause... Killing (some) those who have choosen (by force or choice) would lead to exactly the same as the rogue oppose, rule by fear and terror. Or are you of the belief that it's "intelligence" if you good pr, and "terrorism" is you have bad pr? If he killed them by fireballs or daggers in the night dosen't matter, premeditated murder is premeditated murder regardless of method. Say he overthrows old regime and places the righteous king back on the throne. Does he stop there? Or does he remain vigiliant of new enemies, prefering to continuing his old methods of fear and murder? It sounds rather lawful evil to me, a strict belief in the "righteous and fair king" but methods become secondary when a goal is to be achieved. Does it really make him a bad person? Not really. The good and honest kingdom probably fell in the first case because they lacked someone who could protect it with a zeal and not fearing using "evil" methods doing so! Just because you have evil alignment dosen't mean you're a drooling villian waiting for some adventurers to find a plothook to kill you. By these standards, pretty much every adventurer in the history of D&D has used "evil methods". Laterz.
Rulebook 06-25-06, 05:48 PM	80% of adventurers are horribly evil people, with delusions of goodness. i mean good people dont break into folks homes, kill every living thing inside, then take anything of any sort of value... but thats what most adventurers do when they invade dungeons. good people dont slaughter whole tribes of peoples, but replace peoples with "orcs" and suddenly you have a crusade to save potential villigars. i mean i could go on and on here...
Odhanan 06-25-06, 05:54 PM	personally i think its silly. i want to be able to study someone and kill them in cold blood, and i want to be able to use poision to cause suffering and death, and i would like to still ahve my selection of evil assasin spells... but i want to be good. You see a problem with that, that's fine. But that doesn't mean that people who want to do that are silly or illogical. They just have a different reasoning and different interests than yours. As for quoting BoVD, BoED or whatever "rule", rules aren't official laws, they're official opinions. Nuance.
Midnight_v 06-25-06, 07:21 PM	How do you adjucat alignment? Is it an evil act to kill other sentients for money? as opposed to ideals. And if so is alignment a sliding scale. Lets say I start my character as lawful good.... How many people can I rob, rape, murder before the Dm says paladins can smite me. ...? If you feel as though killing people for money isn't immoral well then yes you can play a good Assassin ... Though a brief historical not. Assassin = Hashashin a muslim word for people who killed christians and jews and (enemies of the faith) in stealth and through non direct means due to the fact that killing people openly could invite war... or because they were in a country ran by "heathens" and elimnating cetain people or destroying certain monuments was the best way to destablize an area and allow for thier religion to come in and set up shop... just a note....
Sunrider 06-25-06, 07:38 PM	personally i think its silly. i want to be able to study someone and kill them in cold blood, and i want to be able to use poision to cause suffering and death, and i would like to still ahve my selection of evil assasin spells... but i want to be good. Let me paraphrase that in a few ways... Ranger: 'I want to be able to study someone and kill them in cold blood (Favoured Enemy) and I want to be able to use arrows to cause suffering and death, and I would like to still have my selection of spells (no evil assassin spells in core)... but I want to be good.' Paladin: 'I want to be able to study someone (Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty - also works on evil tyrants, you know...) and cold-bloodedly hack them to pieces in open combat and I want to be able to use ravages and Holy Avengers to cause suffering and death, and I would still like to have my selection of spells... but I want to be good'
Verelor 06-25-06, 07:44 PM	You see a problem with that, that's fine. But that doesn't mean that people who want to do that are silly or illogical. Yes they are quite profoundly being rediculous. They can envision a "good" character that, as belthazzar said, "studies people and kills them in cold blood (and for money and power), and wants to be able to use poision to help cause suffering and death, and still have his selection of evil assasin spells... and still wants to be good." I say good luck... If, as-is, the DMG assassin can be good (which technically means he can also be exalted-good), then a Blackgaurd can be neutral. My new article, "Assassins and Morality", find it in Reg's Repository in 1-2 days, will address the morality of the assassin's abilities piece by piece, and give just two to three minor changes that can be made that allows the assassin PrC to be applicable to good-aligned (and even exalted-good) characters. ;)
Verelor 06-25-06, 07:52 PM	'I want to be able to study someone and kill them in cold blood (Favoured Enemy) and I want to be able to use arrows to cause suffering and death, and I would like to still have my selection of spells (no evil assassin spells in core)... but I want to be good.' What you described is an evil-aligned ranger. A good ranger is: 'I want to be able to track evil and fell razers of the wilderness and defend the wilderness from them if absolutely necessary (with the help of Favoured Enemy and Favored Terrain) and I use arrows if necessary to protect the lives of myself or innocent creatures, and I would like to still have my selection of spells (which are all non-evil)... I have the good alignment.' 'I want to be able to study someone (Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty - also works on evil tyrants, you know...) and cold-bloodedly hack them to pieces in open combat and I want to be able to use ravages and Holy Avengers to cause suffering and death, and I would still like to have my selection of spells... but I want to be good' Whyat you described is not a paladin. A paladin would be: 'I want to be able to study someone (Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty - helps me identify evil tyrants to defend innocent from, you know...) and, as a last resort, defend innocents and the helpless from their oppression in open combat and I want to be able to use ravages (which purify the body rather than poison it, and only work in the hands of good-aligned characters against evil) and Holy Avengers (which can help me to defeat fiends and undead, beings of inherent evil) to prevent the suffering and death of as many innocents as possible, and I would still like to have my selection of spells (many of which are holy, have the [good] descriptor, and help the weak)... I have the good alignment'
Kanachi 06-25-06, 08:04 PM	In real life Assassins don’t have to kill for money, they don’t even have to kill for personal gain of any kind at all, like any fighter they may act entirely for the purpose of preserving either good or evil (if they right or wrong in their interpretation of good/evil is a separate matter). Its also important to note that people can and have killed through covert means throughout history (special forces, terrorists/resistance fighters and even normal people persecuted by and group or individual), therefore while maybe dishonourable -and its by no means always 100% dishonourable- this is by no means entirely evil. Assassination is a weapon, and like any weapon it can be turned to good or evil uses. French resistance fighters (and other resistance fighters throughout history) have in effect used both poison and death attack style methods to achieve their goals. It’s frankly stupid and illogical for a small band of people who disagree with a tyrannical military force to march out and ask for open combat. Of course such people have to resort to terrorism, poison and assassination... even the very honourable have had to act in such a way when hopelessly outnumbered. Anyone who knows anything about history can quite easily tell you that under certain instances all these covert means of bringing victory have been used for what the vast majority would consider good. Its time we all realise that this really is a non-argument. Can the act of assassination be used for good in real life? Yes. Thus should such a role be playable within DnD? Yes. I don’t think I would involve myself in any game where a DM could not look at what I see as the obvious realities of both the world and the social history of the world. That’s not meant to be a slight on you belthazzar1113, as you obviously view both history and the world differently. I am merely saying that certain DMs can’t play with certain players if they both disagree on issues as fundamental as this. Your players are obviously happy and agree with you and that’s all that really mattes. I know however though that from what I’ve read our beliefs would differ so wildly from one another that we would both simply ruin the game for everyone else. Lets all remember that Dnd is fundamentally about players enjoying a role they want to play. If you find your DM is not allowing you to play such a role (or a role you enjoy) you have to have a conversation and come to some form of an agreement. Should this fails you are both just going to have to accept that while you may be good friends in real life your not really meant to be playing this game together. That’s my opinion anyway. Have fun all. and sorry for the spellings!!!
Verelor 06-25-06, 08:06 PM	The 2-3 optional changes to the assassin class that will be presented in teh article "Assassins and Morality" will make a good-aligned (or, once again, even exalted-good) assassin character completely viable.
Kanachi 06-25-06, 08:19 PM	The only thing that i see needing changing to make the assassin playable for good would be in the entry requirements and the flavour text (possibly a spell or 2). I dont really see the need for any removal or alteration of any of the abilities, perhaps in the flavour text, but not mechanically. I hope your artical does not pretend to be the official resolution to this debate either as its obvious to respect that others will disagree and should be allowed to disagree. I will of course reserve judgement untill i see the artical myself though natrally. I hope you enjoyed wrigting it :)
Sunrider 06-25-06, 08:21 PM	That's straw arguments; I'll give you a few of my own: The High Necromacer of the Legion of Doom gives someone a flower. Please indicate where in doing that he is evil. Nothing implies it's evil. Nothing implies it's good, chaotic or lawful either. You can't assign an alignment to an action until you have a motive for that action. An orc rescues a few of his friends from captivity of some goblinoids. Please indiciate where the orc is evil. See above. Evil can do good acts. Good can do evil acts. It's the majority that defines alignment. An evil character who commits a lot of good acts, will become good, a good character who commits a lot of evil acts will become evil. But if you just look at individual acts, you'll get a totally scewed picture. In that case, what alignment is a libertarian rogue who travels from place to place, in disguise, infiltrating the strongholds of tyrants and despots, killing them through sneak attacks, CDGs and poison, in order to bring them down and restore freedom to people? (I'd say CG) What alignment is the same rogue who travels from place to place, using the same methods to bring down the same tyrants, but does so not to restore lost liberties, but to take over their lands and enrich herself? (Probably CE) What if the rogue did exactly the same thing, but did so at the behest of her own master, who would then take over the lands, in return for patronage and a share of the profits? (Probably LE) What if the rogue did the same thing, but was a rabid environmentalist who opposed the tyrants not on moral or ethical grounds, but on the grounds that they continually cut down forests and denuded the countryside in order to build more war machines? She cares little for the people, but simply wants to stop the tyrants spoiling nature. (Probably N) What alignment is a ranger who ambushes an evil baron's tax collectors in opposition to his tyranny? (We already know this one - as per the PHB, it's chaotic good) What alignment is the same ranger who ambushes the same baron's tax collectors in the same way, but, instead of doing so to oppose tyranny, does so simply to rob them and get richer? (Probably CE) In short, actions don't tell you anything. Actions have no alignment. Motives do. Now, there are precious few motives for direct human sacrifice (i.e. sacrificing them on an altar, as opposed to sending soldiers to almost certain death in battle) which could be classified as good. But that doesn't make the action itself innately evil - rather, it makes the motives for the action, and the person performing said action, evil. Killing by stealth is a totally different matter. Evil methods for a good cause... Killing (some) those who have choosen (by force or choice) would lead to exactly the same as the rogue oppose, rule by fear and terror. Need I mention a certain popularly-elected German Chancellor? Killing a tyrant would only lead to further tyranny if the tyrant was replaced with another tyrannical regime. If it was replaced by a more libertarian or more benevolent government, that would hardly lead to tyranny. Or are you of the belief that it's "intelligence" if you good pr, and "terrorism" is you have bad pr? If he killed them by fireballs or daggers in the night dosen't matter, premeditated murder is premeditated murder regardless of method. Yes, it's premeditated killing. That doesn't make it evil. Sending an army into battle against the tyrant's army is also premeditated killing - you know that thousands of innocent soldiers on both sides (as opposed to a single, non-innocent tyrant) are going to die, possibly for no good end. If you lose the battle, thousands of people have died and the tyrant is still in power, probably able to conscript even more troops. Even if you win the battle, the tyrant may escape - you still haven't won the war. Declaring war on a tyrant, even with the intention of restoring liberty, is, essentially, premeditated killing - you make a conscious decision to declare war, in the full knowledge that thousands, or millions, will die. Is the paladin who leads the charge against the tyrant's army evil? Maybe according to your moral and ethical compass, but not that of D&D - such action seems to be the epitome of Lawful Good. Nevertheless, he or she will personally slaughter many hapless conscripts, who were probably entirely innocent and pressed into service by the tyrant. What makes such action, leading to the deaths of thousands of innocents on both sides, less evil than infiltration and assassination. Or, to put it another way, what makes a rogue who sneaks into the tyrant's stronghold and stealthily eliminates his inner circle, risking no innocent lives and ending his tyranny, any more evil than the paladin (or other 'good' combatants) who engage the tyrant's army on the battlefield, causing the deaths of thousands of innocents on both sides and possibly not ending the tyranny after all? As for 'pursuing the diplomatic action' being the 'good' alternative, chances are that it's already been done if war is the answer. If you care at all about the well-being of your soldiers and the life of innocents on either side, you would attempt negotiation before committing to battle. On the other hand, as an independent assassin/secret agent/infiltrator/whatever you want to call it, the only lives you're risking are your own, that of the (non-innocent) BBEG and those of his (non-innocent) inner circle. Risking innocent life? Hardly... Say he overthrows old regime and places the righteous king back on the throne. Does he stop there? Or does he remain vigiliant of new enemies, prefering to continuing his old methods of fear and murder? These are the motives which determine whether the action was done for good, chaos, evil or law. Returning the rightful king to the throne is, above all, a lawful act. If the motive was something different, the alignment would also be different. Killing a tyrant, or overthrowing a regime, has no alignment. It's why you do it that determines your alignment. Returning the rightful king to the throne? That's lawful (if the king was good, it may also be a good act, but this depends on why you want the 'rightful' king on the throne in the first place - is it because he's the 'rightful' king, or is it because he was a good king?). Easing the suffering of his subjects? That's good. Freeing his subjects to allow them to make their own choices? That's chaotic (and, if the intention is to alleviate their suffering as well, which would probably be the case here, it would also be good). Feeling power-hungry and wanting to replace him on the throne? That's evil. It sounds rather lawful evil to me, a strict belief in the "righteous and fair king" but methods become secondary when a goal is to be achieved. You still haven't presented an argument as to why it's evil - or, more to the point, why it's more evil than confronting the tyrant's army in open battle and causing (both directly and indirectly) the deaths of thousands of hapless soldiers. Unless, of course, you believe that all violence and all killing is evil, regardless of who is killed, in which case the rules don't leave you a leg to stand on anyway. Does it really make him a bad person? Not really. The good and honest kingdom probably fell in the first case because they lacked someone who could protect it with a zeal and not fearing using "evil" methods doing so! Just because you have evil alignment dosen't mean you're a drooling villian waiting for some adventurers to find a plothook to kill you. Or maybe you're not 'evil' after all? Given that your motives are good, your targets are evil and the outcomes are good, I'd say it makes a lot more sense for actions not to be innately aligned at all, with their motive being the determinant of whether those who perform said actions are good, chaotic, evil or lawful.
Sunrider 06-25-06, 08:31 PM	What you described is an evil-aligned ranger. A good ranger is: 'I want to be able to track evil and fell razers of the wilderness and defend the wilderness from them if absolutely necessary (with the help of Favoured Enemy and Favored Terrain) and I use arrows if necessary to protect the lives of myself or innocent creatures, and I would like to still have my selection of spells (which are all non-evil)... I have the good alignment.' Whyat you described is not a paladin. A paladin would be: 'I want to be able to study someone (Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty - helps me identify evil tyrants to defend innocent from, you know...) and, as a last resort, defend innocents and the helpless from their oppression in open combat and I want to be able to use ravages (which purify the body rather than poison it, and only work in the hands of good-aligned characters against evil) and Holy Avengers (which can help me to defeat fiends and undead, beings of inherent evil) to prevent the suffering and death of as many innocents as possible, and I would still like to have my selection of spells (many of which are holy, have the [good] descriptor, and help the weak)... I have the good alignment' My point entirely. This is what he said: personally i think its silly. i want to be able to study someone and kill them in cold blood, and i want to be able to use poision to cause suffering and death, and i would like to still ahve my selection of evil assasin spells... but i want to be good. That's an evil-aligned assassin. Just like the evil-aligned ranger and evil-aligned paladin I described (who, paraphasing his quote, also want to be 'good', but are betrayed by their motives). A good-aligned assassin would be: 'I want to be able to study and assassinate someone, so that I may use that ability to defend the lives and liberties of innocents against would-be tyrants, and I want to be able to use poison to further these good and beneficent goals. Furthermore, I would like the ability to cast assassin spells (none of which, as detailed in the DMG, are evil).' A lawful assassin: 'I want to be able to study and assassinate someone, so that I may use that ability to further the goals of those to whom I have pledged allegience, and I want to be able to use poison to further these goals, be they good or evil. Furthermore, I would like the ability to cast assassin spells (none of which, as detailed in the DMG, are evil).' A chaotic assassin: 'I want to be able to study and assassinate someone, so that I may use that ability to defend the liberty of people against those who would impinge upn them, and I want to be able to use poison to further these goals. Furthermore, I would like the ability to cast assassin spells (none of which, as detailed in the DMG, are evil).'
Roxlimn 06-25-06, 08:38 PM	heretic888: Frankly, I think that the PHB alignment system is a commentary on how gamers have been playing the game - that is, not altogether appropriately. For my part, I have no compunctions about slapping Evil alignments on supposedly heroic PCs if I feel they warrant the change (because they invariably start out as some form of Good). Invading people's homes and killing, raping, and stealing from them just because you don't like the way they look, believe you're superior, or don't like their beliefs is just plain Evil, by D&D standards. Justifiably, PCs in my games have become, well, more civilized. They don't take things that they know isn't theirs just because it's lying in a cave. If it looks as if it doesn't belong to anyone, they'll salvage it, but if it's in an altar they aren't familiar with, they won't touch it. In the same vein, they also now value nonlethal damage more than what seems to be the norm around here. They also won't attack with lethal damage without provocation. I have handled groups that insist on that, but I ruled their alignments Evil. There was some sort of argument about that, but I convinced them to just play along, and it's worked to their liking. Of course, people who like playing Evil characters kind of creep me out so I didn't DM that group for very long afterwards.
Sunrider 06-25-06, 08:51 PM	heretic888: Frankly, I think that the PHB alignment system is a commentary on how gamers have been playing the game - that is, not altogether appropriately. For my part, I have no compunctions about slapping Evil alignments on supposedly heroic PCs if I feel they warrant the change (because they invariably start out as some form of Good). Invading people's homes and killing, raping, and stealing from them just because you don't like the way they look, believe you're superior, or don't like their beliefs is just plain Evil, by D&D standards. Well, obviously... with regards to the killing and raping of innocents, at least. Home invasion and stealing aren't evil - they're chaotic. In the same vein, they also now value nonlethal damage more than what seems to be the norm around here. They also won't attack with lethal damage without provocation. I have handled groups that insist on that, but I ruled their alignments Evil. There was some sort of argument about that, but I convinced them to just play along, and it's worked to their liking. Of course, people who like playing Evil characters kind of creep me out so I didn't DM that group for very long afterwards. Depends on what you mean by 'provocation'. I don't see direct provocation as necessary for intervention - for me, a tyrant who oppresses his people or attacks other lands for personal gain has provided more than enough provocation to justify taking action (especially direct action against the tyrant himself, rather than his conscript soldiers). Civil-rights abuses are a crime against humanity (or dwarvenkind, or whatever) and an affront to civilisation - those who perform such actions have, in my eyes, provided more than enough provocationa and made themselves legitimate targets for assassination. After all, the Allies in WW2 didn't act until directly provoked (by the invasion of their ally, Poland) - and look where that ended up. If they'd attacked earlier (or assassinated Hitler and his goons), when Hitler had begun his oppression and annexation of non-allied countries but hadn't provoked them directly, they would have spared the world a lot of suffering.
heretic888 06-25-06, 08:54 PM	heretic888: Frankly, I think that the PHB alignment system is a commentary on how gamers have been playing the game - that is, not altogether appropriately. For my part, I have no compunctions about slapping Evil alignments on supposedly heroic PCs if I feel they warrant the change (because they invariably start out as some form of Good). Invading people's homes and killing, raping, and stealing from them just because you don't like the way they look, believe you're superior, or don't like their beliefs is just plain Evil, by D&D standards. Justifiably, PCs in my games have become, well, more civilized. They don't take things that they know isn't theirs just because it's lying in a cave. If it looks as if it doesn't belong to anyone, they'll salvage it, but if it's in an altar they aren't familiar with, they won't touch it. Can't disagree there. However, as others have consistently pointed out, alignment in D&D is largely a product of motivation and intention. Actions per se are not aligned, except with a few notable exceptions (say, Smite Good or Smite Evil). In essence, you have to look at the moral reasoning that underlines a person's actions (as opposed to ex post facto justifications after the deed is done). I don't think this is too tough in D&D. If you generally try to help people and see violence as a last resort, then you're good. If you generally enjoy causing harm to other and relish in violence, then you're evil. The actions you use to accomplish these aims is fairly irrelevant, as the same actions could harbor very different motivations (the rich man giving to charity for prestige vs the rich man giving to charity to help the poor). Laterz.
Roxlimn 06-25-06, 09:48 PM	Sunrider: My bad. Invasion and stealing and in themselves only Chaotic actions, as defined in the PHB, but if they are associated with oppression of the invaded and stolen from, then it becomes Evil, as per PHB also. Depends on what you mean by 'provocation'. I don't see direct provocation as necessary for intervention - for me, a tyrant who oppresses his people or attacks other lands for personal gain has provided more than enough provocation to justify taking action (especially direct action against the tyrant himself, rather than his conscript soldiers). The question isn't intervention. The question is alignment. The issue you raise is one of mistaken responsibility. It isn't the Paladin's fault if Evil creatures go around doing evil stuff, and I would hesitate to label as Good any agenda that involves massacreing all creatures with the Evil alignment descriptor. Killing a person just because he's Evil for oppressing his servants is not justifiable. It's not enough of a reason to justify using lethal force. Indeed, few reasons are. heretic888: Even so, rationales must be segregated from true reasons, and there's only a certain level of wiggle room you can have for premeditated murder. Almost any member of any race that does not have a fixed alignment can be redeemed, and you can't even be certain that the so-called tyrant is being himself. He could simply be a dominated individual, or otherwise magically compelled. Even being a tyrant cannot be said to justify such action. Indeed, killing "to make a profit, for pleasure, or to advance... ...a cause" is definition Evil by the PHB and there's no getting around that. This doesn't mean that Paladins don't Smite Evil, but only that they do so as the ultimate last resort. That is - they use lethal force when they're threatened with it (as is only natural), or as a deterrent against Evil action. But to use it proactively - that speaks more of the Evil alignment.
Verelor 06-25-06, 10:07 PM	The only thing that i see needing changing to make the assassin playable for good would be in the entry requirements and the flavour text (possibly a spell or 2). I dont really see the need for any removal or alteration of any of the abilities, perhaps in the flavour text, but not mechanically. I hope your artical does not pretend to be the official resolution to this debate either as its obvious to respect that others will disagree and should be allowed to disagree. I will of course reserve judgement untill i see the artical myself though natrally. I hope you enjoyed wrigting it The article will present an alternate entry requirement. Flavor is always between the DM, the players, and the campaign setting, so i didn't bother to change it. The only two spells on the assassin's list that can't easily be used for good-aligned purposes is false life and magic circle against good. DM's discretion on whether or not good assassins can cast the former. I also present a minor change to both the death attack and poison use, to make everyone happy and make an assassin equally accessable to even an exalted-good character. You ahve an inalienable right to disagree with me. :D Power to free speech and power to the people! I'm not sure a single article has ever changed the world's mind about anything, but at least I'll be representing a decent slice of the truth. And I very much enjoyed writing it. :)
Gwenfloor 06-25-06, 10:10 PM	I have a policy for non-evil assassins in my game; if Paladins can be hired to slay Dragons and stay Lawful Good, then Assassins are welcome to be Neutral or Good only if they do not kill innocents.
heretic888 06-25-06, 10:16 PM	Even so, rationales must be segregated from true reasons, and there's only a certain level of wiggle room you can have for premeditated murder. Well, yeah, that's kinda why I said: "In essence, you have to look at the moral reasoning that underlines a person's actions (as opposed to ex post facto justifications after the deed is done)." I draw a difference between moral reasoning and moral justifications. This doesn't mean that Paladins don't Smite Evil, but only that they do so as the ultimate last resort. That is - they use lethal force when they're threatened with it (as is only natural), or as a deterrent against Evil action. But to use it proactively - that speaks more of the Evil alignment. I agree completely. Good is about preserving and protecting life, period. As such, taking the life of another sentient being should only be employed by good characters as a last resort. I agree that "proactive" murder is essentially evil, no matter how it is rationalized. Laterz.
heretic888 06-25-06, 10:20 PM	I also present a minor change to both the death attack and poison use, to make everyone happy and make an assassin equally accessable to even an exalted-good character. Just a minor point. . . A number of sources (including the Sage) have ruled either directly or indirectly the use of poisons are being unaligned. The Book of Exalted Deeds is the only source that does otherwise and, as others have pointed out, its logic for doing so is fundamentally contradictory and impractical (by the logic it employs, a Rogue's crippling blow ability or a Wizard casting a ray of enfeeblement is always an evil act, as well). Laterz.
Verelor 06-25-06, 10:25 PM	Just a minor point. . . A number of sources (including the Sage) have ruled either directly or indirectly the use of poisons are being unaligned. The Book of Exalted Deeds is the only source that does otherwise and, as others have pointed out, its logic for doing so is fundamentally contradictory and impractical (by the logic it employs, a Rogue's crippling blow ability or a Wizard casting a ray of enfeeblement is always an evil act, as well). Laterz. Wonderful point. If you look at most of the Book of Exalted Deeds, good outsiders and good-aligned characters in general, you will notice how profoundly their combat style focuses on defense and protection, while most of the BoVD and fiends and undead happen to be very geared toward proactive killing and offense. It's sad that so many DMs' views of good is a neutral character wandering the countryside killing things and taking their stuff that uses a shiny weapon. Remember folks, nonlethal damage is nearly always an option.
belthazzar1113 06-25-06, 11:20 PM	I have noticed people going all the way back to my very first post and quoting it to try and either prove that i am being mean, or that i was saying assassins should be good, or quoting it to prove my own point. When you quote that and attack it bear in mind that there was no flame war, i didn't think people would get so up in arms at something i found funny. When this thread started i laughed at the idea of the assassin prc as a good class. Same way i would have laughed at a lawful good blackguard my response would have been "thats silly, go play a paladin" not because i was being insulted, but because i was saying it was a "for fun" style thread, or just a joke. the same way i would have said "thats funny". so please, we can stop ripping apart those words, they have been disintigrated and no long bear repeating. This is a good, sound logical arguement. I cant refute this based on core, though can logically refute this based on the BoED itself! An LG character can choose to use ravage X to inflict pain and suffering on an evil creature in order to punish him and this is a good act If logic were the determining factor then i would have been right ages ago. But since logic apparently fals before RAW. poisons are explicitly stated to be evil, ravages are stated to be good. Despite your drawing a paralell between them logically they are only mechanically alike and work in entirely different ways. A great sword and alchemist fire both deal 2d6 damage. If all you are talking about it damage to a level 1 commoner it doesn't really matter if the damge comes from a great word or a bottle of fire. But if you start talking about them specifically in other contexts then their differences start to show. A great sword is slashing melle physical damage. Alchemist fire is ranged continuous fire damage. They react in toally different manners to things like armor class, fire resistance, feats, effects, ect. Ravages and poisons share a simliar line. Posions and ravages both deal ability damage, and then one minute later deal another wave of ability damage, they both require fort saves to prevent their damage. However when you talk about them specifically they differenciate. Ravages are a supernatural ability that will not function in an anti magic feild; poisons are a natrual substance that will not effect constructs, outsiders, oozes or undead. ravages turn moral corruption into physical corruption only in evil aligned creatures and are fine for a good character to use, poisons cause pain and suffering to anyone that they effect regardless of alignment and are evil to use. This is not my opinion, these are statements directly paraphrased from the section on ravages and poisons in the BoED that has not and can not be contraverted by any core books. if nothing else this portion of the argument should be over. It's sad that so many DMs' views of good is a neutral character wandering the countryside killing things and taking their stuff that uses a shiny weapon. Remember folks, nonlethal damage is nearly always an option. Bravo my friend. The fact is most DMs and even most players don't bother to stop and consider the moral implications of the actions taken within the game. Most people play a very simple kick in the door, kill the monster, take the loot because we are being rewarded style of play. Thats fine for most games. I enjoy those games myself. And if your not worried about moral context or justifying morality or alignment issues beyond "i can't hold that sword because i am a good guy and its an evil sword" then the debate obviously isn't intended for you. This is more about the total lack of respect for the alignment system, and the numbers of people who say "ignore any and all references to alignment including restrictions on classes" because they think its "stupid, dumb", poorly written, or whatever else you want to call it. The alignment system is fine the way it is, all it requires is the individual group deciding on their level of interest in this aspect of the game. Alot of gamers don't like to bother RPing the shopping portions of the game, where you go to buy all your equipment and such before an adventure, some people don't like to worry about trail rations or waterskins or how many mundane arrows you have left or things like that and skip over them. Some people don't worry about encumberance (i know i have looked down at my character sheet to realize i was carrying several thousand coins in my belt pouch) and some games pay only bare lip service to alignment. This is fine. Each DM and Each game is played differently. But for those of us that go a bit more in depth, and for those of us that want to see how well the system really handles the moral aspects of theg ame we can do so here in disscussion. And when you talk about changing the moral aspect of what, for a long time, has been considered one of the few hallmark evil classes, then the issues are certainly going to come up and be explored in depth. Despire all the arguments, and all the name calling, and all the insane and crazy arguments, it really does biol down to each person will decide whats right on their own. RAW isn't going to directly resolve these issues, and logic can be refuted and made in either direction based on what you take as fact and what you don't. Its going to come down to what people want to belive and whats going to be the best for them. Please bear that in mind as this is debated back and forth, that no one is going to be 100% right, and screaming untill everyone leaves accomplishes nothing but ending any chance for real discussion. I am very pleased to see alot of people coming back to the thread and agreeing with my position, if only for selfish reasons. Its nice to not have to carry the weight on my own and to actually be able to agree with some posts on the thread rather than being attacked in them :) Good is about preserving and protecting life, period. As such, taking the life of another sentient being should only be employed by good characters as a last resort. I agree that "proactive" murder is essentially evil, no matter how it is rationalized. couldn't have said it better myself. However, as others have consistently pointed out, alignment in D&D is largely a product of motivation and intention. actually a great deal in dnd is not justified by motivation and intention... A huge number of spells, a good chunk of class abilities and actions are all quite solidly always good or always evil. Poison, ravages, smites, turning, rebuking, almost anything with undead, demons, devils, angels, eladrin, yugolth, avorials, paladins, blackguards, assassins, a good number of feats, magic items... there is a large portion of dnd that does have moral certainty, and claiming that there isn't, even if you claim it over and over, is just incorrect.
GhostStepper 06-25-06, 11:58 PM	If logic were the determining factor then i would have been right ages ago. That would assume that you actually used logic instead of going with one part of a contradictory rules set. But since logic apparently fals before RAW. poisons are explicitly stated to be evil, ravages are stated to be good. Despite your drawing a paralell between them logically they are only mechanically alike and work in entirely different ways. And it explictly states that inflicting pain and suffering is wrong if you dont have to. Using ravages inflicts pain and suffering even though you dont have to use them. The RAW in the BoED is illogical. Youve got is backwards, RAW fails before logic. Posions and ravages both deal ability damage, and then one minute later deal another wave of ability damage, they both require fort saves to prevent their damage. However when you talk about them specifically they differenciate. Ravages are a supernatural ability that will not function in an anti magic feild; poisons are a natrual substance that will not effect constructs, outsiders, oozes or undead. ravages turn moral corruption into physical corruption only in evil aligned creatures and are fine for a good character to use, poisons cause pain and suffering to anyone that they effect regardless of alignment and are evil to use. And you yourself admited that you can use ravages in an evil way so obviously it doesnt matter if they are supernatural or whatever since its the moral justification of the user which is important. This is not my opinion, these are statements directly paraphrased from the section on ravages and poisons in the BoED Sorry, but just saying 'ravages are good because theyre supernatural and the BoED says their good' is not logical when you have even admitted that they can be used in an evil manner. Using them at all directly contradicts the fact that the book itelf says its evil to inflict pain and suffering when you dont have to. You dont have to use ravages and thus, by the what is considered evil by the BoED, it is evil to use them. So which part of the BoED is 'wrong' then? The part that says its evil to inflict pain and suffering when you dont have to, or the part where it says using ravages isnt evil? Pick one, because you cant have both and claim that what you say is logical. that has not and can not be contraverted by any core books. But it can be contraverted by the BoED itself as it has been proven a over and over in the thread. And besides, the BoED is no more an official when it comes to determing what is 'core' than when the co-author of the PHB says using poison, in and of itself, is not evil. And he has said that. if nothing else this portion of the argument should be over. It should be, but you keep coming back with "the BoED says using ravages is good" when that logically contradicted by the book itself. Just saying 'ravages are good because theyre supernatural and the BoED says their good' is not logical when the BoED itself says that inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering is evil. The BoED has been proven to be illogical and contradictory and you havent shown other wise.
Sunrider 06-26-06, 02:05 AM	Wonderful point. If you look at most of the Book of Exalted Deeds, good outsiders and good-aligned characters in general, you will notice how profoundly their combat style focuses on defense and protection, while most of the BoVD and fiends and undead happen to be very geared toward proactive killing and offense. Just because most exalted classes are defensive in nature and most vile classes are offensive in nature doesn't make offense/killing evil and defence/protection good. Firstly, very few good characters are exalted, while very few evil characters are vile. Secondly the 'defensive' nature of such characters implies defending innocent people from evil (i.e. an active defence), not simply standing there and 'tanking' (since an evil cleric can do that just as well). Given the 'active defence' contention, what does that mean? I'd like to further subdivide that contention - how you defend, and who you defend. With regards to how you defend innocents, you can defend them by engaging in open combat against evil - that's what most paladins and non-sneaky types do. This necessarily leads to lots of casualties (many of them innocent soldiers and conscripts on both sides). You can also defend them through the assassin's means - by taking the fight to the heart of the enemy, assassinating the BBEG so that no innocent blood is shed. If 'goodness' is about protecting innocent life, I'd say the assassin who kills one vile BBEG and his evil inner circle, harming no innocents in the process, has done a far better job than the paladin who rallies the entire town into fighting a titanic battle against the BBEG's conscript army, resulting in massive casualties on both sides... With regards to who you defend, the answer is right there in the PHB. Good characters are altruistic, defending even innocent people to whom they have no connection (whether through kinship, through personal friendship or through shared nationality) - in other words, good characters are willing to intervene to stop a tyrant even when they themselves are not under any threat. Neutral characters, on the other hand, may defend those in whom they have an interest, but feel no urge to defend those to whom they have no connection. Therefore, it is implied in the PHB that active intervention for the benefit of innocents, even when there is no direct threat to oneself, is a good act, not an evil one. It's sad that so many DMs' views of good is a neutral character wandering the countryside killing things and taking their stuff that uses a shiny weapon. True... if killing things and looting them is an end in itself, you're little more than a bandit. On the other hand, if you're killing them for some higher purpose other than simply the thrill of killing, you're no longer a bandit - you may be good, evil, chaotic, lawful or neutral, but you're not simply a (usually) evil bandit. Remember folks, nonlethal damage is nearly always an option. Not if you're 200km behind enemy lines and don't have the means to drag a 200lb unconscious BBEG back to your base of operations for interrogation (prime operating territory for rogues, assassins, secret agents and other special-forces teams, i.e. adventuring parties)... Nonlethal damage is no more 'good' or 'evil' than lethal damage. A good character may use nonlethal damage to spare the life of a villain. An evil character may use nonlethal damage in order to capture someone for torture, sacrifice, interrogation or all three. Similarly, a good character may use lethal damage to kill a villain so that he can no longer oppress his subjects and so that his goons are unable to rescue him. An evil character may use lethal damage simply because he enjoys killing. Nonlethal damage, like everything else, is just a tool, which can be used for either good or evil. And, remember, 'Good' in D&D implies respect for innocent life - BBEGs are most certainly not innocent, and not always living either... In any case, for most characters, nonlethal damage is rarely a viable option - you either need the right equipment, or the right feats, or both. Without the right feats or a Merciful weapon, you take -4 on attack rolls - this could very well mean the difference between success and failure, and, if you fail and are killed, the BBEG can continue on his merry way, as if you had never existed and tried to intervene. Many spells are save-or-die, or can't deal subdual damage without the Subdual Substitution feat. You can't deal subdual damage with a sneak attack at all, unless you're using either a merciful weapon, a sap or an unarmed strike - these are unlikely to be your best weapons, so you're reducing your chance of success. And... guess what - after an unsuccessful kidnapping attempt, a BBEG is likely to become even more vigilant, more difficult to take down the next time and may crack down even further on dissent in areas under his control, subjecting his people to further oppression. So, no, nonlethal damage isn't always an option.
Sunrider 06-26-06, 02:30 AM	Sunrider: My bad. Invasion and stealing and in themselves only Chaotic actions, as defined in the PHB, but if they are associated with oppression of the invaded and stolen from, then it becomes Evil, as per PHB also. That's exactly what I'm saying. Home invasion in itself is generally Chaotic (but not always - law-enforcement officers searching a suspect's home are conducting home invasion under lawful circumstances). If it involves the oppression of those invaded and stolen from, the act of home invasion itself remains Chaotic (generally), but the 'oppression' part is evil. On the other hand, if you conduct a home invasion without authority (a chaotic act) but do so in order to steal documents exposing a corrupt official who is diverting public funds to his own coffers, at the expense of the needy (for whom the funds were initially intended), you're performing a Good act (as well as a Chaotic one). The question isn't intervention. The question is alignment. The issue you raise is one of mistaken responsibility. It isn't the Paladin's fault if Evil creatures go around doing evil stuff, and I would hesitate to label as Good any agenda that involves massacreing all creatures with the Evil alignment descriptor. Killing a person just because he's Evil for oppressing his servants is not justifiable. It's not enough of a reason to justify using lethal force. Indeed, few reasons are. I would have to disagree here, to an extent. Sure, someone who goes around killing anything with the Evil alignment is probably Evil themselves (or at least not good), since many people with that alignment have not actively oppressed or hurt any innocents - a greedy innkeeper, for example, may detect as evil. Similarly, slaughtering a den of goblins is not necessarily a good act, even if all the goblins within are evil - if they aren't hurting anyone else but merely act greedily and selfishly towards each other, there's no justification for action there. On the other hand, if someone is bent on genocide, or is taxing his people into starvation to build up a private army, or is using hired goons to make his people's lives a misery, forcing them into virtual slavery, I'd say that's enough justification for an outside force (whether overt or covert) to come in and kill him with lethal force. Even if the BBEG poses no direct threat to you or your compatriots, it behoves anyone who cares about the greater good and the welfare and dignity of innocent people to act when said BBEG is conducting gross human rights violations. After all, isn't that the sort of thing the UN calls 'intervention for humanitarian reasons'? This doesn't mean that Paladins don't Smite Evil, but only that they do so as the ultimate last resort. That is - they use lethal force when they're threatened with it (as is only natural), or as a deterrent against Evil action. But to use it proactively - that speaks more of the Evil alignment. Good is about preserving and protecting life, period. As such, taking the life of another sentient being should only be employed by good characters as a last resort. I agree that "proactive" murder is essentially evil, no matter how it is rationalized. Depends what you mean by 'proactive' murder. Simply going out there and killing someone for no good reason (detecting as Evil on a Detect Evil spell doesn't qualify) is obviously evil. On the other hand, assassinating a tyrant who's oppressing and starving his people for his own gain, or assassinating a serial murderer of innocent people, or assassinating a child molester, is not necessarily an evil act (although you may have evil motives - just as you may have good, chaotic or lawful motives - for assassinating such people). You may or may not consider that 'proactive' (since you're 'proactively' attacking someone who hasn't attacked you, but you're also attacking them in reaction to their gross violation of the rights of innocent people) but, regardless, I consider it justified and, evidently, so do the writers of the PHB ('fights evil without mercy', 'waylays the evil baron's tax collectors', etc. etc.). As for 'dragging them before the courts' versus 'vigilante justice' - you may disagree with the vigilante approach (although assassins may also be hired by legitimate authorities), but that's a question of chaos vs law, not good vs evil.
heretic888 06-26-06, 07:37 AM	If logic were the determining factor then i would have been right ages ago. But since logic apparently fals before RAW. poisons are explicitly stated to be evil, ravages are stated to be good. According to an optional splatbook that: 1) Is not required to play D&D in the first place. 2) Contradicts the rulings of the Sage and the existence of classes and prestige classes in other splatbooks that gain Poison Use and can be neutral or good. 3) Contradicts itself ("poisons are evil because they cause pain") and contradicts core material ("good creatures have poisons and use them"). Ravages and poisons share a simliar line. Posions and ravages both deal ability damage, and then one minute later deal another wave of ability damage, they both require fort saves to prevent their damage. However when you talk about them specifically they differenciate. Ravages are a supernatural ability that will not function in an anti magic feild; poisons are a natrual substance that will not effect constructs, outsiders, oozes or undead. ravages turn moral corruption into physical corruption only in evil aligned creatures and are fine for a good character to use, poisons cause pain and suffering to anyone that they effect regardless of alignment and are evil to use. This is not my opinion, these are statements directly paraphrased from the section on ravages and poisons in the BoED that has not and can not be contraverted by any core books. if nothing else this portion of the argument should be over. Please see above. I am very pleased to see alot of people coming back to the thread and agreeing with my position, if only for selfish reasons. Huh? actually a great deal in dnd is not justified by motivation and intention... A huge number of spells, a good chunk of class abilities and actions are all quite solidly always good or always evil. Poison, ravages, smites, turning, rebuking, almost anything with undead, demons, devils, angels, eladrin, yugolth, avorials, paladins, blackguards, assassins, a good number of feats, magic items... there is a large portion of dnd that does have moral certainty, and claiming that there isn't, even if you claim it over and over, is just incorrect. Perhaps so, but this applies to supernatural evil only, such as channeling negative energy or using Smite Good. Such actions hardly constitute a "great deal" or a "large portion" of actions within D&D. Laterz.
heretic888 06-26-06, 07:44 AM	Just because most exalted classes are defensive in nature and most vile classes are offensive in nature doesn't make offense/killing evil and defence/protection good. Firstly, very few good characters are exalted, while very few evil characters are vile. Secondly the 'defensive' nature of such characters implies defending innocent people from evil (i.e. an active defence), not simply standing there and 'tanking' (since an evil cleric can do that just as well). Given the 'active defence' contention, what does that mean? I'd like to further subdivide that contention - how you defend, and who you defend. With regards to how you defend innocents, you can defend them by engaging in open combat against evil - that's what most paladins and non-sneaky types do. This necessarily leads to lots of casualties (many of them innocent soldiers and conscripts on both sides). You can also defend them through the assassin's means - by taking the fight to the heart of the enemy, assassinating the BBEG so that no innocent blood is shed. If 'goodness' is about protecting innocent life, I'd say the assassin who kills one vile BBEG and his evil inner circle, harming no innocents in the process, has done a far better job than the paladin who rallies the entire town into fighting a titanic battle against the BBEG's conscript army, resulting in massive casualties on both sides... With regards to who you defend, the answer is right there in the PHB. Good characters are altruistic, defending even innocent people to whom they have no connection (whether through kinship, through personal friendship or through shared nationality) - in other words, good characters are willing to intervene to stop a tyrant even when they themselves are not under any threat. Neutral characters, on the other hand, may defend those in whom they have an interest, but feel no urge to defend those to whom they have no connection. Therefore, it is implied in the PHB that active intervention for the benefit of innocents, even when there is no direct threat to oneself, is a good act, not an evil one. Nonlethal damage is no more 'good' or 'evil' than lethal damage. A good character may use nonlethal damage to spare the life of a villain. An evil character may use nonlethal damage in order to capture someone for torture, sacrifice, interrogation or all three. Similarly, a good character may use lethal damage to kill a villain so that he can no longer oppress his subjects and so that his goons are unable to rescue him. An evil character may use lethal damage simply because he enjoys killing. Nonlethal damage, like everything else, is just a tool, which can be used for either good or evil. And, remember, 'Good' in D&D implies respect for innocent life - BBEGs are most certainly not innocent, and not always living either... Well said.
heretic888 06-26-06, 07:55 AM	That's exactly what I'm saying. Home invasion in itself is generally Chaotic (but not always - law-enforcement officers searching a suspect's home are conducting home invasion under lawful circumstances). If it involves the oppression of those invaded and stolen from, the act of home invasion itself remains Chaotic (generally), but the 'oppression' part is evil. On the other hand, if you conduct a home invasion without authority (a chaotic act) but do so in order to steal documents exposing a corrupt official who is diverting public funds to his own coffers, at the expense of the needy (for whom the funds were initially intended), you're performing a Good act (as well as a Chaotic one). I agree. However, I would also argue that stealing documents from the aforementioned official can be lawful, as well, depending on the context. Sure, someone who goes around killing anything with the Evil alignment is probably Evil themselves (or at least not good), since many people with that alignment have not actively oppressed or hurt any innocents - a greedy innkeeper, for example, may detect as evil. Similarly, slaughtering a den of goblins is not necessarily a good act, even if all the goblins within are evil - if they aren't hurting anyone else but merely act greedily and selfishly towards each other, there's no justification for action there. On the other hand, if someone is bent on genocide, or is taxing his people into starvation to build up a private army, or is using hired goons to make his people's lives a misery, forcing them into virtual slavery, I'd say that's enough justification for an outside force (whether overt or covert) to come in and kill him with lethal force. Even if the BBEG poses no direct threat to you or your compatriots, it behoves anyone who cares about the greater good and the welfare and dignity of innocent people to act when said BBEG is conducting gross human rights violations. After all, isn't that the sort of thing the UN calls 'intervention for humanitarian reasons'? Well said. I agree. However, I would also add that even in the aformentioned circumstances, good characters would at least attempt to stop the BBEG without taking his life. However, if it comes down to killing him or allowing him to do what he's doing, well. . . Depends what you mean by 'proactive' murder. Premeditatively killing another sentient being for a cause, ideal, or for political purposes. Such motivations are evil, in my opinion, and I think the PHB would agree. Simply going out there and killing someone for no good reason (detecting as Evil on a Detect Evil spell doesn't qualify) is obviously evil. On the other hand, assassinating a tyrant who's oppressing and starving his people for his own gain, or assassinating a serial murderer of innocent people, or assassinating a child molester, is not necessarily an evil act (although you may have evil motives - just as you may have good, chaotic or lawful motives - for assassinating such people). You may or may not consider that 'proactive' (since you're 'proactively' attacking someone who hasn't attacked you, but you're also attacking them in reaction to their gross violation of the rights of innocent people) but, regardless, I consider it justified and, evidently, so do the writers of the PHB ('fights evil without mercy', 'waylays the evil baron's tax collectors', etc. etc.). I would not consider that proactive murder, I would consider that reactionary murder. And, yes, I do feel it can be justified in certain circumstances. However, I would add once again that a good character would at least attempt to stop the aforementioned fiends without killing them. But, again, if it came down to it. . . As for 'dragging them before the courts' versus 'vigilante justice' - you may disagree with the vigilante approach (although assassins may also be hired by legitimate authorities), but that's a question of chaos vs law, not good vs evil. I also think the issue of law versus chaos depends mostly on motivations and intention, too. ;) Laterz.
Sunrider 06-26-06, 08:24 AM	However, I would also argue that stealing documents from the aforementioned official can be lawful, as well, depending on the context. I was speaking in general circumstances then... of course, if you had a search warrant or something of that nature, it would be a different matter. In that case, however, I would class such action as more Lawful than Good; even if the outcome turns out to be beneficial to the people, your primary motive was to expose a corrupt official and bring him to justice, not necessarily to help the people he was hurting through his corruption. However, I would also add that even in the aformentioned circumstances, good characters would at least attempt to stop the BBEG without taking his life. However, if it comes down to killing him or allowing him to do what he's doing, well. . . On a strategic level, before sending in the assassins, then maybe negotiations could work. As a lone assassin (or stealthy party), however, it's hardly possible or practical, for a number of reasons: a) If you're going in alone, without authorisation, you don't want to expose your mission before you've accomplished it. It's OK for the diplomats to talk, but you don't sneak deep into a BBEG's stronghold, jump out of the shadows and confront him with... a speech. Generally, you only get one shot at it - either you use the shot to eliminate the BBEG (e.g. CDGing him in his sleep, with extra Sneak Attack damage to ensure he won't make the Fortitude save), or you use it to deliver a speech which may or may not work... if it doesn't work, you're deep in the BBEG's stronghold, greatly outnumbered and have lost the element of surprise. If you want to talk, do it before sneaking in and, preferably, get someone else to do it (so that no-one recognises the assassins when they arrive). b) This depends on what exactly the BBEG is doing, but every minute you spend talking, more innocent people are dying/suffering due to the BBEG's activities. If it's a military buildup, you may be able to talk, but if it involves active oppression/starvation/slaughter of innocents, every minute you spend negotiating means more people are dying. Talking a BBEG into surrender may be an 'honourable' means of limiting the bloodshed, but, if your primary intention is saving innocent lives, honour be damned, a quick elimination of the BBEG and his inner circle of goons is probably your best bet (particularly since half of them will be bureaucrats who are easy to kill anyway...). Premeditatively killing another sentient being for a cause, ideal, or for political purposes. Such motivations are evil, in my opinion, and I think the PHB would agree. I would not consider that proactive murder, I would consider that reactionary murder. And, yes, I do feel it can be justified in certain circumstances. I think the line between the two is somewhat blurred - killing a tyrant who is oppressing his people into starvation is both reacting to a humanitarian crisis and arranging the premeditated killing of a sentient being for political purposes. That said, I would consider it a Good action, since it involves saving lots of innocent lives, at the expense of one very-guilty BBEG.
Roxlimn 06-26-06, 08:59 AM	Sunrider: On the other hand, if someone is bent on genocide, or is taxing his people into starvation to build up a private army, or is using hired goons to make his people's lives a misery, forcing them into virtual slavery, I'd say that's enough justification for an outside force (whether overt or covert) to come in and kill him with lethal force. Even if the BBEG poses no direct threat to you or your compatriots, it behoves anyone who cares about the greater good and the welfare and dignity of innocent people to act when said BBEG is conducting gross human rights violations. The PHB does not recognize human rights as Good. The right to freedom, for example, is Chaotic, not Good. Defending the freedom of people using lethal action as a preference would actually be Chaotic Evil in PHB terms. Similarly, the PHB does not recognize utilitarianism, and it would incorrect to necessarily include such provisions in alignment considerations. There is no "greater good" in D&D. While a Good character would care about the welfare and dignity of innocent people, he would also care about the personal welfare and dignity of everyone, even redeemable villains (and arguably, even nonredeemable ones). Thus, no assassinating or torturing your enemies. Confronting a villain bent on genocide doesn't necessarily mean killing him. Indeed, obsessed as villains usually are about other people killing them, it's usually much easier to foil his genocidal plans by doing something other than killing him. You can sabotage his organization, undermine his authority, raise a rebellion, or any of a hundred other things. Heck, you can kidnap him and demand action on the part of his subordinates that effectively erases his power. If you stop thinking of killing people as part of your method of doing things, there's usually something else you can do before something like that is unconditionally called for. On the other hand, assassinating a tyrant who's oppressing and starving his people for his own gain, or assassinating a serial murderer of innocent people, or assassinating a child molester, is not necessarily an evil act (although you may have evil motives - just as you may have good, chaotic or lawful motives - for assassinating such people). You may or may not consider that 'proactive' (since you're 'proactively' attacking someone who hasn't attacked you, but you're also attacking them in reaction to their gross violation of the rights of innocent people) but, regardless, I consider it justified and, evidently, so do the writers of the PHB ('fights evil without mercy', 'waylays the evil baron's tax collectors', etc. etc.). The PHB does nto agree with this interpretation. "Fighting evil without mercy," is not the same as "fighting evil creatures without mercy," and indeed, killing another simply with an absence of compassion (killing without mercy) counts as definition Evil (see PHB alignment definitions). A Paladin who fights without mercy had better not kill anyone while doing so! Is assassinating a tyrant Evil? Probably. It represents killing someone for a political, theological, religious, or personal agenda. It doesn't matter what the rationale is. As soon as you make killing people your modus operandi for handling every difficulty, you've lost respect for life. You can confront him in his throne room and kidnap him. That's doable. You can work to undermine his authority. Also doable. Heck, you can impersonate him and wreak havoc on his organization. You can challenge him to war or fair personal combat to settle succession. There's all sorts of things you can do. If it comes down to it, most tyrants will instigate a fight to the death anyway, before ceding any authority, so it's out of your hands. Seeking to kill him, as a preferred mode of solving the problem - that's not what I would call Good or even Neutral. What about a serial murderer of innocent people? You can geas him, put him under temporal stasis until you can purge him of Evil, put a Helm of Alignment Changing on him, cripple him so he can't do any more harm, blind him for the same effect, put him under lock and key, leave him on a deserted island (with survivable environs), or even just exile him into a known wilderness. All of these will put a probable end to his Evil ways without killing him. You can even put him under a Baleful Polymorph to a puppy, if you've a sense of irony. Again, thinking "kill people" is what makes murdering people so attractive. If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you believe that killing is at all acceptable, you won't ever use it as an ultimate last resort. You'll keep putting it forward over less convenient methods. Killing a child molester? I'm sorry, but having relations with a willing and capable "child" isn't evil by D&D standards. It gets particularly weird in D&D when a child might have the intellect, wisdom, and power of an archmage. Evil, no question. In any case, for most characters, nonlethal damage is rarely a viable option - you either need the right equipment, or the right feats, or both. Without the right feats or a Merciful weapon, you take -4 on attack rolls - this could very well mean the difference between success and failure, and, if you fail and are killed, the BBEG can continue on his merry way, as if you had never existed and tried to intervene. Many spells are save-or-die, or can't deal subdual damage without the Subdual Substitution feat. You can't deal subdual damage with a sneak attack at all, unless you're using either a merciful weapon, a sap or an unarmed strike - these are unlikely to be your best weapons, so you're reducing your chance of success. And... guess what - after an unsuccessful kidnapping attempt, a BBEG is likely to become even more vigilant, more difficult to take down the next time and may crack down even further on dissent in areas under his control, subjecting his people to further oppression. So, no, nonlethal damage isn't always an option. Disagree. Nonlethal damage is always an option. It's not the most convenient option, and it's not always the most effective option, but the alignment system isn't forgiving that way. It makes no compunctions. Killing people because it's more convenient, or because it's easier to solve problems by doing so is definition Evil. There are no levels of convenience that makes killing acceptable. You need Subdual Substitution? Well, then you can get it, if you choose to. Without it, you have to be more careful with where you level your lethal threats and for what reasons. You don't just bring out your gun and kill people indiscriminately, even if you're "on a war footing." That's why Subdual Substitution and Shockwave and Force Hammer are as valuable as they are - you can use a stun gun with way less discrimination than a lethal bullet, although doing so is probably being stupid. Same thing with Mercy bows and swords. A Mercy sword allows you to basically just draw it and attack. You won't kill anything with it, so it's not as bad as a lethal sword, alignment-wise. Besides, mercy is untyped damage so it probably does better than energy-typed bonuses later on (and you can turn it on and off). Failure to intervene because of a refusal to use Evil means does not mean that responsibility is transferred. It's not your fault that the BBEG chooses to massacre thousands. It's his fault. The responsibility stops with him. Failing to stop him isn't Evil. Similarly, using Evil means to succeed at a task (no matter how seemingly Good) makes the action Evil. Look, I torture and kill 10 people by allowing them to die of a horrible disease I easily have the power to cure. Worse, I actively prevent them from getting well by fooling them that I'm actually treating them. By watching them suffer and die by my power, I can formulate a spell that will eradicate the disease. Good? Not on your life. At least not by the PHB. That doesn't mean that Paladins can't use lethal force. Of course they can. They use the threat of lethal force and the actual use of such for defense. They defend the innocent. Using the same lethal force to seek out murderers to assassinate doesn't make the cut. Such a character would make an excellent, disturbed, twisted and playable anti-hero, but don't make any mistakes. He would be Evil by the PHB. See Fiend-Hunter, a non-Good class for some elaboration on that theme. Thus, using lethal weapons isn't necessarily Evil, but only for particular reasons. Doing do because it's the most convenient or the most likely to succeed aren't acceptable reasons. I don't see what's could be the problem with this. So the PC is Evil. So what? I've DM'd enough Evil PCs to know that Evil alignments can be compatible with good play. Greedy, murdering psychopaths make good mercenaries. Unfortunate, but actually true by D&D. I don't fool myself by labelling them as heroic - the Good alignment.
heretic888 06-26-06, 09:21 AM	Excellent post, Roxlimn. Just one little thing. . . [bFailure to intervene because of a refusal to use Evil means does not mean that responsibility is transferred. It's not your fault that the BBEG chooses to massacre thousands. It's his fault. The responsibility stops with him. Failing to stop him isn't Evil. I would argue that failing to stop the aforementioned BBEG isn't evil. However, if you just stand by and allow evil to happen, you can't be considered good, either. It is most likely neutral. Laterz.
Sunrider 06-26-06, 10:01 AM	Roxlimn: PHB definition of good (emphasis mine). From the PHB: Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. 'Good' implies altruism, respect for life and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. By the rules, good characters are only required to protect innocent life - in other words, not the lives of BBEGs. Therefore, by core RAW, a good character is free to hunt down and kill non-innocent evil people (I'm saying 'non-innocent' evil people, since not all evil people have actually caused harm to any innocents, or intend to do so). Good implies a respect for life, but the word 'implies' isn't a rock-solid requirement, while 'respect for life' is a general statement, not a specific one - in other words, a good character respects life in general (which is why she goes out of her way to kill those who would bring death and suffering to innocent civilians), but is under no compulsion to spare non-innocent BBEGS. Good also implies altruism, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. An assassin who kills tyrants, murderers, etc. in order to save the lives of innocent victims and/or to improve the lot of those languishing under their rule is certainly displaying altruism (provided, of course, that she doesn't have other, more sinister motives). As for the 'concern for the dignity of sentient beings' part... well, anyone with any concern for the dignity of sentient beings would be outraged at an enslaving overlord who allows his people to starve while he builds up his own coffers and/or territory and, if she could, would do something about it. For an assassin, that just happens to mean infiltrating the BBEG's stronghold and killing him (which also serves the 'protecting innocent lives' part of the Good alignment by protecting the population from such a monster, without breaching any requirement of the Good alignment, since the BBEG isn't 'innocent life'). Finally, good characters make sacrifices to help others. A good-aligned assassin can certainly do this (after all, what's more self-sacrificing than risking your own hide to bring down a tyrant who's terrorising people to whom you have no personal connection?). Sure, you could argue that such an assassin would not be exalted, but hardly anyone is. There's no question that she could not be good, as per core RAW - after all, she protects innocent life from those who would seek to inflict death and suffering upon them (by killing BBEGs and other villains), displays altruism (by seeking to relieve the suffering of innocent people), displays (in general) a respect for life (by seeking to protect innocents from those who would kill them, even if this means killing BBEGs), displays concern for the dignity of sentient beings (by seeking to restore the dignity of people starving and languishing in poverty under the corrupt rule of a tyrant) and makes personal sacrifices to help others (all of the above). Remember, 'respect for life' is only one part of the Good alignment, and it's an 'implied' part, not an explicit requirement (unlike the 'protects innocent life part). In my books, a character who protects innocent life, displays altruism, displays a (general) respect for life (most life, anyway - at least all innocent life), displays concern for the dignity of sentient beings and makes personal sacrifices to help others more than qualifies as 'Good'. You can confront him in his throne room and kidnap him. That's doable. You can work to undermine his authority. Also doable. Heck, you can impersonate him and wreak havoc on his organization. They're all options. So's killing him. Killing him is a certain way of ending his tyranny. Kidnapping him in his throne room has an uncertain outcome, at best. Undermining his authority? Given the track record of historical dictators, all that leads to is more oppression and more suffering for the people, before the tyrant is eventually overthrown. You can challenge him to war Thus condemning to death thousands or millions of soldiers on your own side, thousands or millions of innocent people conscripted by the BBEG to fight the war and condemning the country to years, possibly decades, of further poverty, suffering and rebuilding after the war. All that, when a quick bullet/arrow/dagger to the heart could have prevented it... or fair personal combat to settle succession. That's honourable, not good. In any case, a sneaky-type probably won't win in a fair fight against a warrior - that's why he's a warrior and you're a sneak. So, you have three options: a) Fight, and die. BBEG continues as before. b) Don't challenge him, and do nothing. BBEG continues as before. c) Kill him. Reign of terror is over. People are no longer starving or languishing in poverty. Situation is much improved. I don't see what's could be the problem with this. So the PC is Evil. So what? I've DM'd enough Evil PCs to know that Evil alignments can be compatible with good play. Greedy, murdering psychopaths make good mercenaries. Unfortunate, but actually true by D&D. I don't fool myself by labelling them as heroic - the Good alignment. That's half the problem there. 'Evil' characters are also labelled as psychopaths, greedy, etc. An assassin (i.e. 'person who hunts down and kills a specific target', not 'Assassin PrC') who kills tyrants to liberate nations and relieve the suffering of people is not a psychopath, doesn't necessarily perform such actions for personal benefit, may not be greedy and is probably entirely altruistic and self-sacrificing in her actions. That's hardly 'evil', whether by RAW or by logic.
belthazzar1113 06-26-06, 11:33 AM	That would assume that you actually used logic instead of going with one part of a contradictory rules set. as we see this is very much what you are trying to do. And it explictly states that inflicting pain and suffering is wrong if you dont have to. Using ravages inflicts pain and suffering even though you dont have to use them. The RAW in the BoED is illogical. Youve got is backwards, RAW fails before logic. your leaving out a very importaint word. UNDUE. causing undue pain and suffering is evil. Ravages do not cause undue suffering. this is suffering that is due to evil aligned creatures. in the dnd cosmology those who are evil are cast into the abyss or the nine hells to suffer for their alignment. Ravages are bringing about this same kind of moral justice. they are not causing new suffer and new pain to enter the world, they are magical forms of justice and karma that bring this corruption to its inevitable physical conclusion. The fact that this is exactly how ravages are explained is being completely and totally ignored. You are simply seeing what you want to see and not actually reading the description. There is no conflict save that which you are forcing. If you read the ruleset and the description this entire line of "logic" that you are using is dealt with and dismissed as faulty. please return to the book and reread the description before you continue arguing this false line of thinking. And you yourself admited that you can use ravages in an evil way so obviously it doesnt matter if they are supernatural or whatever since its the moral justification of the user which is important. An evil creature can weild a holy sword. they can then use that to torture and kill innocent victems. This doesn't make the holy sword evil, it just makes it abusable. Ravages are the same way. An evil creature can use ravages to evil ends, but that doesn't make ravages evil. One evil creature might use ravages to torment another evil creature, especially if they were creatures normally immune to regular poision (intelegent undead, devils, demons), they would be engaged in an evil act, but that wouldn't mean the ravage was evil. This is one of the primary differences between good and evil. Good things can be corrupted to evil uses because part of evil's definition is "selfishness". they are willing to use and abuse whatever they can get their hands on to reach their own personal ends. Good on the other hand will not use the powers and tools of evil to reach its ends. This is why Good aligned creatures can't torture, murder, or use evil spells or abilities without suffering alignment drift and eventual change. Evil on the other hand can use good spells, items and tactics and still remain evil if thats the fastest way to get themselves to their goals. Its always easyer to fall to the selfish and evil path than it is to remain on the rightous and good path. This is part of the nature of good and evil. This is represented in dnd by the fact that a single evil act is enough to revoke many good granted powers (from clerics, paladins, ect) but a single good act isn't enough to change alignments or gain any good aligned powers. So which part of the BoED is 'wrong' then? neither. But it can be contraverted by the BoED itself as it has been proven a over and over in the thread. And besides, the BoED is no more an official when it comes to determing what is 'core' than when the co-author of the PHB says using poison, in and of itself, is not evil. And he has said that. a blatent appeal to authority. "this guys says so and therefor it is" is not a valid argument. We are talking about published rules, the fact that one designer has a dissenting opinion from what was published means nothing. These issues are addressed in a published works, the stance of the work stands in contraversy to certain people, among them him and apparently you. You are of course free to houserule that poisions are good or ravages are evil, or that they don't even exist or whatever else you want, but since as people are so often fond os preaching at me "this is a debate about the rules" then the rules state that ravages are not evil, poisons are, and that is how it is. It should be, but you keep coming back with "the BoED says using ravages is good" when that logically contradicted by the book itself. Just saying 'ravages are good because theyre supernatural and the BoED says their good' is not logical when the BoED itself says that inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering is evil. The BoED has been proven to be illogical and contradictory and you havent shown other wise. again, you ignore parts of the text and it certainly will become illogical. just like if i ignore all the instances of the letter S and E then the text won't even make sense. but then again ignoring specific letters doesn't make sense, just like ignoreing what the rules actually say in their entirety. You almost got the word right, its undue, not unnecessary. If you look at the wording and actually look at the way ravages work, you will see ther eisn't some logic contradiction. If you stop trying to force one then the debate is over. But if you want to keep going and ignoring the rules and saying the rules are wrong because i can ignore the one addressing this point, then your right, they don't make sense. Look at the entire section before you continue and actually read it rather than skim it and you will see your "logic" is addressed and nullified. Remember folks, nonlethal damage is nearly always an option. Not if you're 200km behind enemy lines and don't have the means to drag a 200lb unconscious BBEG back to your base of operations for interrogation (prime operating territory for rogues, assassins, secret agents and other special-forces teams, i.e. adventuring parties)... yes, it still is an option. Being good isn't about taking the easy way out, its about taking the right way. You don't have to knock out the guy and drag him back. you could knock him out, tie him up and demand surrender on the spot. Your taking out a general, then demand he recall the armies. Demand surrender and an end to hostilities right there. You can try to do things without further bloodshed. For a good example of this type of thinking, Take a look at the movie Hero. He was an assassin style character sent to kill the emporer and lord and he didn't kill him, he showed that he COULD be killed and used that information to change the lords behavior. He was a good and moral man who wasn't willing to kill in cold blood in this manner. There are options beyond simply sneak in, kill the guy, sneak out. That is a job for an evil person. A lawful evil assassin would be great at that job, the goverment assassin who kills who he is told to kill and doesn't ask questions. Thats not a lawful good guy, thats not even lawful neutral, thats a paid murderer and thats evil. The lone crusader that wants to ends wars and take out evil is not a member of the Assassin PrC, there are certainly other PrCs that can encompas that character, slayer of domiel, my own slayer class that was put up, or a number of other ranger or rogue PrCs can be used to represent the crusading assassin. But the Assassin PrC has been a hallmark evil class since its inclusion in the DMG and to say oh yeah sure assassins can be good, means you are chucking any sembalence of what they represent just to grab mechanical advantage. Nonlethal damage is no more 'good' or 'evil' than lethal damage. yes actually it is. Dealing damage isn't qualified as an evil act, dealing non leathal damage isn't a good act. But in a compairison between the two choosing to deal non leathal damage instead of real damage is a good act. What you do with a knocked out opponent is good or evil on its own merits, but choosing to spare your opponent the lethal damage option is a good act. This goes to the argument that a single good act isn't enough to redeem evil, but a single evil act is enough to taint good. Dealing non leathal damage isn't going ot make you suddenly good, but rampant murder will cause you to lose any good powers and might even start your alignment drifting. The treatment of prisoners or knocked out or downed opponents is a seperate act and is dealt with in a seperate manner. and since it was so well put... Nonlethal damage is always an option. It's not the most convenient option, and it's not always the most effective option, but the alignment system isn't forgiving that way. It makes no compunctions. Killing people because it's more convenient, or because it's easier to solve problems by doing so is definition Evil. There are no levels of convenience that makes killing acceptable. Agree whole heartedly. On the other hand, if someone is bent on genocide, or is taxing his people into starvation to build up a private army, or is using hired goons to make his people's lives a misery, forcing them into virtual slavery, I'd say that's enough justification for an outside force (whether overt or covert) to come in and kill him with lethal force. Even if the BBEG poses no direct threat to you or your compatriots, it behoves anyone who cares about the greater good and the welfare and dignity of innocent people to act when said BBEG is conducting gross human rights violations. This to me screams off topic, from the assassin, but here goes anyway. What you descibe is a despot not a good leader. Someone that uses "hired goons" to make their subjects lives miserable is oppressing their people and thats an evil act. The leader is going to be evil despite any desire you want to have to make him be good. Even if he is crusading against demons or devils he is still going about it in an evil manner and your justified in trying to topple his regime and set up a just goverment to hold back the demons devils ect. Of course if he personally is holding back an invading horde of demons then you might not have a choice in the matter. you might be forced to live with an evil tyranical ruler untill you can eliminate the threat he holds back. This can be especially true if you ahve a mighty wizard that crafts a huge ward thats keeping out an army of demons. if he dies the ward goes down and the demons rampage in the city/nation/world/ect. You might have to find a way to recreate the wards or for the bold, eliminate the demon horde, before you can take down a tryanical and evil despot. There isn't anything saying you have to be stupid or non methodical about it. You do what you can when you can and try to make things better, this is part of the deinition of good. It brings up an interesting point about assassins though (just to bring this semi back on topic) you go assassinate a leader of an army, or a nation, or a huge group and that group is still there. The reason war is preferable to assassination is because the leader of the opposing army is still controlling that army. you deal with the army first becuse if you cut of the head then you just have a giant mob of evil creatures ready to loot pillage and cause mass destruction with no leader to stop them. Put into perspective in that manner, really... war seems like the lesser of the two evils between war and assassination. Its definitly a way to look at it in a new light. You can even put him under a Baleful Polymorph to a puppy, if you've a sense of irony. off topic but i laughed so hard reading this I am putting a "Maximum security Kennel" in my world for the most henious of criminals. :)
belthazzar1113 06-26-06, 11:52 AM	By the rules, good characters are only required to protect innocent life - in other words, not the lives of BBEGs. Therefore, by core RAW, a good character is free to hunt down and kill non-innocent evil people (I'm saying 'non-innocent' evil people, since not all evil people have actually caused harm to any innocents, or intend to do so). is it just me or is this exactly the defense a lawful evil character would use in court once he was apprehended? great application of the letter of the law while totally and completely twisting the intent and meaning to serve your own ends. This is exactly the reason there are two more books dealing with alignment, to clarify rules lawering like this and make sure that the intent is followed rather than the letter of the law. I honestly think you are wrong about his issue and that your focing a contradiction when there isn't one, but your certainly free to argue this line of thinking. non-innocent evil people since not all evil people have actually caused harm... yes.. they have. You don't just suddenly decide your evil and poof there is your alignment. Evil is a lifestyle and a choice. If you have the evil alignment descriptor that means that yes you in fact do cause suffering and harm in the world. By being evil you do intend to cause harm. Evil isn't just about waiting to launch some plot to take over a city or the world, or planning a murder for fifty years and then carrying it out. its a habit of putting negitivity into the world
Roxlimn 06-26-06, 11:58 AM	Sunrider: By the rules, good characters are only required to protect innocent life - in other words, not the lives of BBEGs. Therefore, by core RAW, a good character is free to hunt down and kill non-innocent evil people (I'm saying 'non-innocent' evil people, since not all evil people have actually caused harm to any innocents, or intend to do so). Your interpretation I would say is a rules-lawyer's point of view, and even then, it's wrong. Good doesn't only protect innocent life, and supposing that the Good alignment allows the killing of Evil creatures that are not innocent is just as valid as the opposite assumption. The statement you quote is inclusive, not exclusive. As in, Good must protect innocent life. Not "only." Good implies a respect for life, but the word 'implies' isn't a rock-solid requirement, while 'respect for life' is a general statement, not a specific one - in other words, a good character respects life in general (which is why she goes out of her way to kill those who would bring death and suffering to innocent civilians), but is under no compulsion to spare non-innocent BBEGS. "Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient." Combined, the two clearly imply that "respect for life" is inclusive, not selective. A Good character would have compunctions about killing in general, but less so if the situation absolutely demands it. Good also implies altruism, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. An assassin who kills tyrants, murderers, etc. in order to save the lives of innocent victims and/or to improve the lot of those languishing under their rule is certainly displaying altruism (provided, of course, that she doesn't have other, more sinister motives). Yes, but she is also displaying a desire to kill out of duty to some... ...deity or master. Her altruism is general, but her desire to kill is specific. I think that this constitutes using Evil means to acheive superficially Good ends. You don't know that killing this tyrant is the only way to save the innocent, and your actions could have serious and unforseen ramifications. You cannot hold credit for one, just as you cannot be held responsible for the other. Thus, the only certainty here is that this character is willing to kill to pursue her ends, and that labels her as Evil. Now, lest you object that "freeing the innocent," is not an "Evil master," one has to wonder whether any cause that agrees to killing people to advance itself isn't Evil by the PHB. Futher: For an assassin, that just happens to mean infiltrating the BBEG's stronghold and killing him (which also serves the 'protecting innocent lives' part of the Good alignment by protecting the population from such a monster, without breaching any requirement of the Good alignment, since the BBEG isn't 'innocent life'). Killing is this character's mode of operation. No matter how you justify that, living a life purposefully killing things as a preferred solution does not reflect a respect for life. Sure, you could argue that such an assassin would not be exalted, but hardly anyone is. There's no question that she could not be good, as per core RAW - after all, she protects innocent life from those who would seek to inflict death and suffering upon them (by killing BBEGs and other villains), displays altruism (by seeking to relieve the suffering of innocent people), displays (in general) a respect for life (by seeking to protect innocents from those who would kill them, even if this means killing BBEGs), displays concern for the dignity of sentient beings (by seeking to restore the dignity of people starving and languishing in poverty under the corrupt rule of a tyrant) and makes personal sacrifices to help others (all of the above). She is good only by a very convoluted and very questionable line of reasoning. In contrast, she's Evil by a very direct rendering of the Evil definition. I would say that she thinks she's Good, but she's actually Evil. You can justify anything if you think hard enough. Even the genocide of an entire race. They're all options. So's killing him. Killing him is a certain way of ending his tyranny. Kidnapping him in his throne room has an uncertain outcome, at best. Undermining his authority? Given the track record of historical dictators, all that leads to is more oppression and more suffering for the people, before the tyrant is eventually overthrown. The focus here is on killing something, not on bettering the lives of the people. Killing a tyrant doesn't mean that the people will be better off. It only means that one person killed another for personal reasons. Another tyrant may take his place, or civil war may result, leading to even more loss and suffering than the tyrant could have done. Kidnapping a tyrant is more stabilizing because he's still there. You can always put him back if things aren't going well. You can use his own influence to effect or demand changes. Historically, overthrowing dictators usually results in anarchy and civil war, unless you already have another power in place, in which case killing the tyrant is rarely necessary - you merely have to oust him. The only thing you're managing to show here is that you, personally, think that killing is acceptable and desireable. That is not the case. There are better ways to do things, and I can dispassionately say when killing is absolutely the best choice, even when Good characters won't resort to it. Finally, you talk of uncertainty and options. Then you advance killing as the first and best. That does not speak of respect for life, no matter how general. Thus condemning to death thousands or millions of soldiers on your own side, thousands or millions of innocent people conscripted by the BBEG to fight the war and condemning the country to years, possibly decades, of further poverty, suffering and rebuilding after the war. All that, when a quick bullet/arrow/dagger to the heart could have prevented it... It depends on the kind of war, obviously. The 1986 Philippine Revolution was something of a war, and no one was killed by that conflict. Wars can be fast. Indeed, the Spanish-American War was relatively fast, and it resulted in relatively few casualties on the Spanish and American sides. A tyrant understands force best, and beset by an obviously overwhelming force, you can offer him options to change. That's honourable, not good. In any case, a sneaky-type probably won't win in a fair fight against a warrior - that's why he's a warrior and you're a sneak. So, you have three options: No, it's merely a guarded statement to protect against a barely concealed murder. Offering to fight a blinded and crippled opponent is no contest. It's barely better than murdering him in his sleep. If you can't win in a fair fight against a tyrant, don't fight him. Who says you have to be Good anyway? That's half the problem there. 'Evil' characters are also labelled as psychopaths, greedy, etc. An assassin (i.e. 'person who hunts down and kills a specific target', not 'Assassin PrC') who kills tyrants to liberate nations and relieve the suffering of people is not a psychopath, doesn't necessarily perform such actions for personal benefit, may not be greedy and is probably entirely altruistic and self-sacrificing in her actions. That's hardly 'evil', whether by RAW or by logic. I'm sorry, Sunrider, but I view anyone who thinks of killing first and other options later as a psychopath. If I don't like my wife, I don't think about killing her, and anyone who does is a psychopath who needs extensive psychiatric treatment, possibly lifelong guardianship. An assassin who can justify to himself purposefully premeditatedly killing people because he's "defending a nation," "advancing his beliefs," or any such justification is little better. Such a person would choke you in your sleep if he recieved an order to do so, even if he's your friend. I wouldn't classify that as Good in any sense, PHB or no. The fact that his actions may or may not result in benefitting others does not change who he is and what he does. A Fiend-Hunter hunts fiends for the benefit of all mankind. All he does is kill fiends. That PrC has a non-Good requirement, just as the Assassin class has an Evil requirement. On the other hand, the Knight of the Sacred Chalice banishes fiends from mortal realms, and in general protects the mortal realm from fiend incursion. Superficially similar, but oceans apart. A person who thinks that killing people can solve problems is deluded. Killing people never helped anyone. If Hitler had been killed, would the Jews have survived? Who knows? Saying that Hitler himself is solely responsible for the Holocaust is perverse and unjustified. One man could not have moved a nation had the nation itself not been amenable to how he's moving it. He was powerful, of course, but you can't tell how he would have acted before he did anything. It wouldn't have been Good (in the PHB sense) to kill him in his infancy because you don't know what that event would have done. Just as the death of one butterfly in the prehistoric era has unknown ramifications, so does the death of one man also have unforseen ramifications. Even if you could fortell the future, killing people as a mode of changing it reflects lack of respect for life, since with that kind of power, you could probably change the world with but a word said at exactly the right time. The sum of this is, no, killing people to solve problems is NOT justifiable, it's NOT sane. Indeed, the only way you can be absolved in a murder trial is through very limited defenses - insanity, self defense, and several others depending on state and country. I do not believe that the Good definition is more flexible than a criminal state in regards to murdering people. To be honest, I'm getting more than a little scared of you.
simon_tage 06-26-06, 11:58 AM	Is it just me or has this thread lost all significance to the OP's post? This is an alignment debate. This is not a way for the OP to have a good aligned Assassin PRC.
Sunrider 06-26-06, 12:01 PM	It brings up an interesting point about assassins though (just to bring this semi back on topic) you go assassinate a leader of an army, or a nation, or a huge group and that group is still there. The huge group is still there... but not for long. A typical BBEG's army will be 95% unwilling conscripts, with maybe a 5% group of evil, fanatical followers. Kind of like Hitler's SS versus the ordinary Wehrmacht (although many Wehrmacht members were not unwilling, they were hardly fanatical and eager to fight just for the sake of it). The conscripts may commit evil acts while under the command of the BBEG (either because they're forced to, or because everyone else is doing it) but are not in themselves evil - by taking out the head, most of these conscripts would rather go home and try to restore what was lost. As for the fanatical followers... well, it's easier to root out 5% of the army than 95% (not to mention that it would result in many more deaths), and the population they had terrorised will probably be more than willing to help you track them down. The reason war is preferable to assassination is because the leader of the opposing army is still controlling that army. Generally, the commander-inchief of the army is the BBEG himself, or part of his inner circle (who you also assassinate). you deal with the army first becuse if you cut of the head then you just have a giant mob of evil creatures ready to loot pillage and cause mass destruction with no leader to stop them. Most of a BBEG's army will consist of either unwilling conscripts, or professional soldiers, who would rather go home and rebuild their lives than throw themselves away in an orgy of destruction and pillaging. Deal with the evil head and the body tends to disperse... of course, that's why you need a decent post-assassination plan to install a new, effective government. Because, chances are, most people in the previous army (at least the professional soldiers) will be perfectly willing to cooperate with the new government and help rebuild their country - more so than throwing themselves away fighting for the greater glory of a tyrant, anyway. In fact, rather than disbanding the professional core of the BBEG's army, it's probably a good idea to use them as the basis of the new army, using them to fight the fanatical remnants of the now-dead BBEG's organisation (which they'll be more than willing to do, being professional soldiers loyal to their country, rather than to any particular leader). It's only when you don't have a solid nation-rebuilding plan that you run into this sort of trouble (case in point - West Germany and Japan recovered well after World War 2, due to good Allied plans. Without a decent rebuilding plan, Iraq is falling into chaos...). And, anyway, in the rare case that the BBEG's army actually is entirely evil, if you take away the head, various factions will start turning against each other... essentially, an evil army (as opposed to an army led by evil leaders) will self-destruct with no-one to hold it together. No need for outside forces to get involved, apart from maybe peacekeeping forces to keep civilian populations safe... Put into perspective in that manner, really... war seems like the lesser of the two evils between war and assassination. Its definitly a way to look at it in a new light. War between two evenly-matched powers results in millions of casualties among combatants on both sides, most of them people who signed up for a good cause, professional soldiers just doing their jobs or hapless conscripts forced to fight by a tyrant. Not only that, but many civilians will die (from attacks on cities, starvation due to conscription of farmers or destruction of crops, disease due to the use of primitive biological weapons) and many more will lose their homes, their jobs, their livestock and their livelihoods. Furthermore, the economies of both nations will be devastated, with recovery possibly taking decades, leaving them open to attack by outside powers. None of these are desirable outcomes. In contrast, the assassination of the tyrant and his inner circle, combined with a solid recovery plan (e.g. a competent government in exile) makes for a much smoother, less painful transition from tyranny to a benevolent government, whatever form that may take - a much better option, in my opinion. Finally, war simply isn't an option for a smaller power, or an adventuring party, or a lone, Chaotic Good vigilante.
Roxlimn 06-26-06, 12:21 PM	So... When you kill people, events magically fall into place to benefit everyone? When you don't kill people, everyone suffers? That doesn't sound like it makes a lot of sense to me. Militarily, it's occasionally useful to kill particular targets on the field. That's a proven effective strategy. It's not Good, but there it is. Assassinating people - that's a sketchier proposition. As for the OP, you can have a Good aligned assassin as in the BoED type LG assassin. Such a character only kills the vilest of vile fiends, and only in response to particular and unavoidable circumstances. One imagines that in the middle of all this killing, such a Good person finds time to actually positively benefit others on a more direct level.
Sunrider 06-26-06, 01:15 PM	Your interpretation I would say is a rules-lawyer's point of view, and even then, it's wrong. Good doesn't only protect innocent life, and supposing that the Good alignment allows the killing of Evil creatures that are not innocent is just as valid as the opposite assumption. The statement you quote is inclusive, not exclusive. As in, Good must protect innocent life. Not "only." In other words, Good characters protect innocent life. That's all that the statement implies. It doesn't say anything about killing non-innocent BBEGs - therefore, we can presume that the killing of non-innocent BBEGs is neither good nor evil. On top of that, we have the precedent of many Good-aligned NPCs in FR (and other D&D settings) who literally make a career out of killing BBEGs, gaining heroic status through their deeds. They protect innocent life by killing BBEGs. They show altruism. They show a (general) respect for life. Not all of them negotiate with BBEGs before attacking them. Their alignment is listed as 'Good'. Therefore, we have a precent to go by - good characters can kill non-innocent BBEGs without losing their 'good' status, provided they do it with good intentions (e.g. alleviating the suffering of those languishing under a tyrant's iron fist, rather than killing a tyrant just to replace him on the throne). "Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient." Combined, the two clearly imply that "respect for life" is inclusive, not selective. A Good character would have compunctions about killing in general, but less so if the situation absolutely demands it. No, a Good character has a general respect for life, not necessarily 'compunctions about killing'. She values the lives of her fellow human beings. She hates seeing them led to the slaughter in death camps, or dragged off to languish in labour camps, or simply starving in the streets, since all the farmers have been conscripted into the military. Therefore, in accordance with this respect for life, she realises that the best way to save lives and to improve the quality of lives for people is to end the lives of those causing the misery and hardship - i.e. the BBEG and his inner circle (e.g. Hitler, Hess, Himmler Heydrich, the rest of them - probably not the professional military officers though, since most of them will be LN and willing to work with a new government). She does not enjoy killing them. But it's the best way to save as many lives as possible - after all, civil war or foreign invasion would cost the lives of millions on both sides, while negotiations would probably take many months (more time for people to starve, be slaughtered or otherwise suffer), assuming the tyrant could be negotiated with at all. Therefore, assassination is a good solution in this case (provided the motive for the assassination is good). Yes, but she is also displaying a desire to kill out of duty to some... ...deity or master. Not necessarily. She may not display any desire to kill at all - her intentions, pure and simple, may be to alleviate the suffering of the tyrant's subjects, using any means that does not involve the killing of innocents (e.g. war). A higher power need not be involved. Her altruism is general, but her desire to kill is specific. I think that this constitutes using Evil means to acheive superficially Good ends. She has no desire to kill. In fact, she has the desire to save lives - that's why she's doing what she does. She has the ability to kill. She chooses to use this ability to bring down the tyrant and his inner circle, thus sparing the lives of countless people who would most probably have died under the tyrant's rule. Killing in itself is not an Evil act in D&D - that much is clear. Otherwise, exalted characters would not be able to kill at all, nor could most Good outsiders. It's who and why you kill that associates any particular action with an alignment. You don't know that killing this tyrant is the only way to save the innocent Just like everything else, you can never have 100% certainty of anything. But, if killing the tyrant seems like the best way to save as many innocent lives as possible, then it's the 'good' thing to do. and your actions could have serious and unforseen ramifications. As can any other action. To sit back and do nothing is, at best, neutral. If the BBEG's motives are clear - for example, genocide, or a war for personal glory - sitting back and doing nothing, while the slaughter continues, could be considered, under RAW, to be an evil act due to inaction, when you have the ability to do something about it (as you said, 'having no compassion for others' - seeing people being dragged off to their doom, having the ability to do something about it, yet sitting back and doing nothing, is clearly showing no compassion for people in general). You cannot hold credit for one, just as you cannot be held responsible for the other. This shouldn't prevent you from doing what you can to save as many people as possible. You don't have to claim credit for killing the BBEG - it's a shame that someone had to die, but better a vile tyrant and his henchmen (who have killed many innocent people) than thousands of innocents. You can't be held directly responsible for the slaughter if you do nothing, but, as the saying goes, 'Evil triumphs when great men do nothing'. If you have the capacity to stop the slaughter by killing the BBEG, yet decide to do nothing about it, I can't see any good in your actions (or lack thereof)... Thus, the only certainty here is that this character is willing to kill to pursue her ends, and that labels her as Evil. A paladin is also willing to kill to pursue her ends. So is the good-aligned ranger used as the archetypal Chaotic Good character. Solars have Vorpal swords. Killing in itself is not evil - it's who, why and when you kill that make you evil. Now, lest you object that "freeing the innocent," is not an "Evil master," one has to wonder whether any cause that agrees to killing people to advance itself isn't Evil by the PHB. Killing is this character's mode of operation. No matter how you justify that, living a life purposefully killing things as a preferred solution does not reflect a respect for life. It's not a 'preferred solution'. The ideal solution would be for the BBEG to not be a BBEG in the first place. But, obviously, that's not going to happen. Therefore, either someone puts an early end to his career, or he goes on a rampage and ruins millions of lives. A good assassin is the good side's 'get out of jail free' card. Diplomacy fails (as it so often does), so the alternatives are war (costly to both sides, with the vast majority of casualties being innocents) or assassination (kills the BBEG, no harm to any innocents). A good assassin kills neither for pleasure nor profit. She kills to prevent evildoers from killing innocent people and causing others to suffer. In effect, she's the last line of defence between diplomacy and war, and a very useful tool during a time of conflict. She is good only by a very convoluted and very questionable line of reasoning. In contrast, she's Evil by a very direct rendering of the Evil definition. I would say that she thinks she's Good, but she's actually Evil. You can justify anything if you think hard enough. Even the genocide of an entire race. She displays all the characteristics of Good - protection of innocent life, altruism, a general respect for life (otherwise she wouldn't be risking her own life to save the lives of innocents), concern for the dignity of sentient beings (hence, she wouldn't torture someone to death) and a willingness to sacrifice herself for the good of others. She also happens to kill. Evil people kill. So do good people. On the balance of things, she's probably Good. But, then again, the real problem is the black-and-white alignment system of D&D - one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, one nation's nemesis is another nation's last hope. It really doesn't deal too well with shades of grey, either on the moral scale or on the ethical scale. The focus here is on killing something, not on bettering the lives of the people. The action is killing a tyrant. Depending on why you kill the tyrant, that could be a good, evil, chaotic, lawful or neutral act. The action itself is unaligned. Killing a tyrant doesn't mean that the people will be better off. It's a good start, though. With the tyrant alive and in power, the people will continue to suffer. Killing the tyrant is the assassin's job. Restoring the nation may be the job of the assassin (or her organisation, whether she's one of the leaders, or a mere operative) or of another organisation, or even of a government in exile. It only means that one person killed another for personal reasons. These are hardly personal reasons... Another tyrant may take his place, or civil war may result, leading to even more loss and suffering than the tyrant could have done. This is why the toppling of governments, whether through assassination or invasion, must be followed by a good nation-building plan. That, however, is not the primary role of the assassin, nor her responsibility. The fact is, in the toppling of a tyrant, assassination results in far less bloodshed than military conflict and far less suffering than allowing a genocidal tyrant to remain in power. Kidnapping a tyrant is more stabilizing because he's still there. You can always put him back if things aren't going well. You can use his own influence to effect or demand changes. Unless the tyrant's position is tenuous at best, kidnapping doesn't work. You can kill the tyrant's entire inner circle. You can't realistically hope to kidnap them all. If you kidnap the tyrant, his goons, if loyal, may attempt a rescue (sacrificing innocent professional soldiers or conscripts to do so) or may attempt a further crackdown on the population (or certain sections of it) as collective punishment for the plight of their leader. If they're disloyal, they may simply take power themselves, leaving you with a captured leader who's now of no value whatsoever, as well as a nation ruled by his former inner circle (who may very well be fighting each other for power, throwing hapless conscripts at each other in an orgy of bloodshed and destruction, in a battle for the empty throne). Historically, overthrowing dictators usually results in anarchy and civil war, unless you already have another power in place, in which case killing the tyrant is rarely necessary - you merely have to oust him. With regards to the 'other power' ready to take over - that's what preparations are for. That's why you have governments in exile, or political wings of (good) insurgency groups. Remember, you can oust a dictator in one of two ways - you can't talk him into stepping down. You have a choice of assassination (risking only a few secret agents and spies, killing only a few very-guilty BBEGs and their goons) or war and invasion (condemning to death thousands or millions of innocent soldiers and civilians and causing damage which may take damage to repair). Clearly, assassination is the logical choice... Finally, you talk of uncertainty and options. Then you advance killing as the first and best. That does not speak of respect for life, no matter how general. I never said that killing was the first and best option. I said that killing was the first and best option for an assassin. A good assassin doesn't kill unless that's the best way to save lives or avert a war - she doesn't simply go in and kill someone just because of a minor disagreement. And, yes, it does speak of respect for life. Respect for the lives of those languishing under the rule of a tyrant. Respect for the lives of those who would otherwise have died in a war to overthrow the tyrant. When the choice is between killing one BBEG and his inner circle, or allowing millions of innocents to die, clearly, assassination is the better choice. It depends on the kind of war, obviously. The 1986 Philippine Revolution was something of a war, and no one was killed by that conflict. Wars can be fast. Indeed, the Spanish-American War was relatively fast, and it resulted in relatively few casualties on the Spanish and American sides. A tyrant understands force best, and beset by an obviously overwhelming force, you can offer him options to change. Only if you have that overwhelming force, in the right area, at the right time. We're not talking America overthrowing Saddam Hussein (the initial road to Baghdad, at least). We're talking Allies versus Axis in World War 2. Could a good person give an order condemning millions to death, when a few bullets from a sniper's rifle, coupled with a well-formulated reconstruction plan, could have ended it quickly and painlessly? No, it's merely a guarded statement to protect against a barely concealed murder. Offering to fight a blinded and crippled opponent is no contest. It's barely better than murdering him in his sleep. If you can't win in a fair fight against a tyrant, don't fight him. Who says you have to be Good anyway? You mean, who says you have to be honourable? If you can't win in a fair fight against a tyrant, then fight unfairly. As a Good character, your primary objective is to alleviate suffering and save lives, not to fight fairly. If this means killing him in his sleep, then so be it. An assassin who can justify to himself purposefully premeditatedly killing people because he's "defending a nation," "advancing his beliefs," or any such justification is little better. Such a person would choke you in your sleep if he recieved an order to do so, even if he's your friend. I wouldn't classify that as Good in any sense, PHB or no. I'd classify that as Lawful, since said assassin is operating under someone else's orders. A (neutral or chaotic) good assassin would form her own opinions and choose her own targets, doing what is necesary to alleviate as much suffering of innocent people as possible. Remember, assassins tend to have a lot of skills - they can do many things other than just kill. But, when the chips are down, killing is her area of expertise. If Hitler had been killed, would the Jews have survived? Who knows? Saying that Hitler himself is solely responsible for the Holocaust is perverse and unjustified. One man could not have moved a nation had the nation itself not been amenable to how he's moving it. He was powerful, of course, but you can't tell how he would have acted before he did anything. It wouldn't have been Good (in the PHB sense) to kill him in his infancy because you don't know what that event would have done. No, but assassinating him in 1938 (after Kristallnacht, all his anti-Jewish speeches, the Anschluss, his annexation of the Sudetenland, the formation of concentration camps etc.) would have been totally justified. The Jews may or may not have survived - clearly, however, they would have had a better chance, since Hitler's agenda was so clear. The sum of this is, no, killing people to solve problems is NOT justifiable, it's NOT sane. Indeed, the only way you can be absolved in a murder trial is through very limited defenses - insanity, self defense, and several others depending on state and country. I do not believe that the Good definition is more flexible than a criminal state in regards to murdering people. We are talking about killing, not murder. Lawful societies tend to frown upon vigilante justice. At the same time, killing in the name of the state - whether through war or through a state-sanctioned assassination - is considered acceptable in these societies. Lawful is a very different animal from Good. If killing people to solve problems is not justifiable, then every D&D adventurer, every soldier, every political leader, etc. must be evil...
Sunrider 06-26-06, 01:25 PM	So... When you kill people, events magically fall into place to benefit everyone? No, but eliminating the tyrant is the first step. While the tyrant's in power, there's not much you can do to alleviate the suffering of his people... it's either assassination or war, and war costs far more lives - therefore, if you cared at all about saving innocent lives, assassination is far preferable to war. When you don't kill people, everyone suffers? In the case of tyrants, then, yes. If they weren't making people suffer, then they're not tyrants and wouldn't be a target for a good assassin... As for the OP, you can have a Good aligned assassin as in the BoED type LG assassin. Such a character only kills the vilest of vile fiends, and only in response to particular and unavoidable circumstances. One imagines that in the middle of all this killing, such a Good person finds time to actually positively benefit others on a more direct level. Seems like your Good assassin is simply a more restricted version of my Good assassin. They have exactly the same goals - to act in the best interests of the common people. Mine is simply more willing to act, having a looser standard of 'provocation' than yours. Possibly more morally debatable (killing more targets, and killing in reaction to events which do not directly affect the assassin, e.g. genocide or human rights abuses), but probably also saves more lives (since she's more wiling to act, acts earlier and gives BBEGs less time to do their dirty work before eliminating them). Perhaps it's a matter of perspective. You (and a few others) see such assassins as evil, since they kill people. I (and many others) see them as good, since they save many lives and alleviate much suffering. They certainly don't fit the mould of the traditional, 'chivalrous' hero - after all, the traditional hero confronts opponents directly, in the open. They don't however, fit the mould of the traditional villain either - after all, their prime motives are to save lives and alleviate the suffering of innocents. Their exploits are certainly heroic and their motives noble; their actions are questionable yet, in the greater scheme of things, probably good. D&D's rigid alignment system doesn't do a particularly good job of categorising such 'antiheroes' - they're certainly not evil villains, make powerful allies and provide great benefit to the common people, but are difficult to fully trust, and their actions (although not their motives) may, at times, seem questionable and not in agreement with popular sentiment. Perhaps CG would be the best fit for such characters, although even that is a long shot (given all the possible variants of the good assassin).
Verelor 06-26-06, 03:54 PM	Sunrider, your view of "good" is highly destructive and is frightening. You actually believe that murder (which, despite justification, is the act of premeditatively stalking up to someone and killing them) is an acceptable action for a good character if it can be "justified". Good-aligned characters abstain from such acts at any rate. Noone deserves to be murdered; such a tyrant should be bound and captured to disable him rather than assassinated outright.
heretic888 06-26-06, 05:16 PM	Sunrider, your view of "good" is highly destructive and is frightening. You actually believe that murder (which, despite justification, is the act of premeditatively stalking up to someone and killing them) is an acceptable action for a good character if it can be "justified". Well, not to be dismissive. . . But, the vast majority of "good" adventurers in the history of D&D make a career of tracking down and killing various evil beings --- dragons, orcs, undead, demons, oni, whatever --- so, I'm not sure how what Sunrider is suggesting is all that different. My guess is probably because the BBEG in question is a human, not an orc. Then, of course, there's the little wrinkle that a number of assassin-esque classes and prestige classes --- Ninja of the Crescent Moon, Ninja Spy, Bayushi Deceiver, and so on --- do not have "evil only" alignment restrictions. As has been mentioned before, there is even an exalted assassin prestige class in the Book of Exalted Deeds. However, I do believe that people are confusing moral reasoning with moral justification. They ain't the same thing, in my book. Laterz.
GhostStepper 06-26-06, 06:14 PM	your leaving out a very importaint word. UNDUE. causing undue pain and suffering is evil. Ravages do not cause undue suffering. this is suffering that is due to evil aligned creatures. So your saying that when you inflict pain and suffering on a creature that deserves it is not an evil act. Then using poison to inflict pain and suffering on creature that deserves is is not an evil act. This why you cant have it both ways..its illogical in the dnd cosmology those who are evil are cast into the abyss or the nine hells to suffer for their alignment. Ravages are bringing about this same kind of moral justice. they are not causing new suffer and new pain to enter the world, they are magical forms of justice and karma that bring this corruption to its inevitable physical conclusion. The fact that this is exactly how ravages are explained is being completely and totally ignored. It says that how ravages work and its completely illogical. Everytime an evil creature inflicts pain and suffering he doesnt automatically 'magically' get that pain and suffering back unless someone chooses to inflict that pain and suffering back on it. Using ravages inflicts pain and suffering that would not occur if you didnt use the ravage, it IS creating new pain and suffering in the universe because you did not have to inflict that pain and suffering. The ravage explaination is illogical. You are simply seeing what you want to see and not actually reading the description. There is no conflict save that which you are forcing. If you read the ruleset and the description this entire line of "logic" that you are using is dealt with and dismissed as faulty. please return to the book and reread the description before you continue arguing this false line of thinking. You keep reading but your not thinking about what it says. Read it again and try logic. An evil creature can weild a holy sword. they can then use that to torture and kill innocent victems. This doesn't make the holy sword evil, it just makes it abusable. So your saying that even if a tool is 'magically good' its really the moral justification of the person who uses that is important. If you think that it is the moral justification of the creature using the tool that is important then obviously its not always evil to use poison. Ravages are the same way. An evil creature can use ravages to evil ends, but that doesn't make ravages evil. One evil creature might use ravages to torment another evil creature, especially if they were creatures normally immune to regular poision (intelegent undead, devils, demons), they would be engaged in an evil act, but that wouldn't mean the ravage was evil. So your saying that using ravages can be evil. Ok. This is one of the primary differences between good and evil. Good things can be corrupted to evil uses because part of evil's definition is "selfishness". they are willing to use and abuse whatever they can get their hands on to reach their own personal ends. Good on the other hand will not use the powers and tools of evil to reach its ends. A paladin could use an Unholy Avenger to kill satain himself and according to your logic that would be an evil act, but if he used a Holy Avenger it would be a good one. Your not making sense here. a blatent appeal to authority. "this guys says so and therefor it is" is not a valid argument.We are talking about published rules, the fact that one designer has a dissenting opinion from what was published means nothing. The BoED has no more authority over the 'core' determination that poison is evil that the author of the PHB. And his determination that poison use is unaligned is published in Dragon and the official rule FAQ. The BoED has no more authority over core rules that the offical rule FAQ. More back to the assassin topic...OA and the CAd are published works that contain classes that can be good and have the use poison ability. Obviously if your willing to accept that supplementary books are as valid as 'core' you can see that having the Poison Use class ability is not grounds for requiring the assassin class to be evil. These issues are addressed in a published works, the stance of the work stands in contraversy to certain people, among them him and apparently you. Dragon is a published work. The official rule FAQ is a published work. Neither of them has any less say on what is 'core' than the BoED. OA is a published work. Complete Adventerer is a published work. Both of them have classes with poison use as a class feature while still allowing characters to be good. Obviously there is no grounds to think that the Poison Use ability should require a class to be evil. again, you ignore parts of the text and it certainly will become illogical. just like if i ignore all the instances of the letter S and E then the text won't even make sense. but then again ignoring specific letters doesn't make sense, just like ignoreing what the rules actually say in their entirety. No, if you igore parts then it is logical. You just have to pick which part you want to ignore if you want it to make sense. You almost got the word right, its undue, not unnecessary. If you look at the wording and actually look at the way ravages work, you will see ther eisn't some logic contradiction. If you stop trying to force one then the debate is over. But if you want to keep going and ignoring the rules and saying the rules are wrong because i can ignore the one addressing this point, then your right, they don't make sense. Look at the entire section before you continue and actually read it rather than skim it and you will see your "logic" is addressed and nullified. 1. The BoED says some poisons are evil because they inflict undue pain and suffering. 2. The BoED says using ravage is not evil because the pain and suffering they inflict is due pain and suffering because of a creature's evil acts. 3. A poison can be used to inflict due pain and suffering to an evil creature because of a creature's evil acts. It is obviously illogical to say using a poison to inflict ailment X against an evil creature is always evil when its not evil to inflict ailment X against an evil creature when the moral justifiction may be identical. You read the 'poison is always evil for doing X' and 'ravages do X but are not evil' and simply arent putting 2 and 2 together and seeing how, as a whole the section makes no sense. Lets look at it another way: - Using a poison is evil because it inflicts undue pain and suffering. - Ravages are not evil because they inflict pain and suffering on creautures who are 'due' for pain and suffering. - Apparently evil creatures are 'due' for pain and suffering. - Using poison against evil creatures is not evil because the evil creatures are 'due' for some pain and suffering. If poisons inflict pain and suffering and evil creauture are 'due' their pain and suffering then they logically do not always inflict 'undue' pain and suffering and thus dont even fit the BoED's idea of poison. This is contradictory. You have alsow argued the following point: - Using poison evil because they have the potential to be used to inflict pain and suffering on innocents. by that same logic: - Using swords are evil because they can be used to inflict pain and suffering on innocents. - Using sneak attack is evil beccause it can be used to inflict pain and suffering on innocents. - Using a broomstick is evil because it has the potential be used to inflict pain and suffering on a innocent. - Using Draino is evil because it has the potential to inflict pain and suffering on innocents. Its like saying its evil for a paladin to use his sword on a demon because its mundane, has no moral compass of its own, and could potentially be used against innocents. But its ok to use smite evil on a demon because it supernaturally knows right from wrong, regardless of whether the paladin is being sadistic with it or not. This makes no sense and is pretty much what your saying. Lets look at this another way so you can more clearly see: - Bob uses liquid A on a demon, hoping that it will inflict affliction X on it as just punishment for the creature's evil deeds. - Joe uses liquid B on a demon, hoping that it will inflict affliction X on it as just punishment for the creature's evil deeds. One of the mystery liquids is a poison and one is a ravage, so which character commited an evil act? If you cant figure it out, that means that using poison is not always evil if using a ravage is not always evil. Obviously its the moral justification of the character which is important, not the tool they use.
belthazzar1113 06-26-06, 07:07 PM	Sunrider is very easy to figure out. He won't come right out and say it but go back and look at all of his arguments with this idea in mind. The ends justify the means. everything he says and argues for is in this same vein. Its ok to murder if the ends result is good. Its ok to assassinate a leader if its for the best. Its ok to use poison and whatever means nessecary if your working for a higher good. Its a pretty scarey line of thought. One which the world's leading ethisists have examined, evaluated and found wanting in any kind of practical applications. Its a bad way to live, and a bad way to run a universe. It leads to horror and atrocity on a massive scale, and cruelty and indifference to suffering on the small scale. But Sunrider is arguing its ok. Thats his warped opinion and there isn't anything thats going to change him away from it. I have seen people try just about everything from logic to emotion to screaming, and none of it has worked. It says that how ravages work and its completely illogical. Everytime an evil creature inflicts pain and suffering he doesnt automatically 'magically' get that pain and suffering back unless someone chooses to inflict that pain and suffering back on it. Using ravages inflicts pain and suffering that would not occur if you didnt use the ravage, it IS creating new pain and suffering in the universe because you did not have to inflict that pain and suffering. The ravage explaination is illogical. This is wrong. In DnD the evil, the pain, and the suffering you inflict upon the world IS inflicted magically on you. Unlike real life we know what happens to souls when the body dies in the dnd world. You go to be judged and are sent to your reward. The reward for putting pain and suffering in the world (ie having an evil alignment) is you are cast into one of the three hell planes and left there to be tormented for the evil you did in life. This isn't real life remember, this is dnd. these are things we know for facts because they are in the rules, you can cast a commune spell and ask, or cast a planar binding and ask an angel. Your moral actions are magically rebounded upon you. A ravage simply does this before final judgment. Bear in mind that INFLICT is the wrong word for what a ravage does. Inflict brings about images of inflict light wounds, or inflict a hit, ravages transmute. They turn moral corruption into phyisical corruption. The fact this is painful is a by product that is unavoidable, the ravage isn't generating pain, the corrupted morality is generating the pain. In effect the creature is in pain because its evil. Good is allowed to fight evil and to try and curb its behavior, ravages allow for this. Imagine it like an equasion. You have the person commiting the act, the act itself, the item used in the act, the reason for the act, and the effect of the act. If any of those are evil, then the act is probly evil, if more than one of them is evil then the at is almost definitly evil, and if one of them is listed as ALWAYS evil then the act is going to be evil. If the target is evil you might be able to mitigate a single hazy portion, but normally any evil ruins the batch. Good is harder to be than evil. Evil is pretty easy, just take the fastest route to whatever your goal is and don't worry about anyone but yourself and you can be pretty sure your going to end up seeing its faster to kill and you will end up evil. being good means you have to consider your actions and choose every time to make sure what you are going is the best action it can be. Its not easy, and its not always a sure thing, but the alignment system isn't forgiving in this way. You have to live up to the high standards if you want to be called good. Ravages can be twisted to evil ends, like anyting good can be. But ravages themselves are good and if used properly are alright for even a paladin to use. This isn't illogical, its magic. Thats why ravages are good and fireballs are nutral. Its why holy sword is good and keen weapon is nutral. Magic can be morally sensitive and thus be labed as good, or it can be morally nutral and thus be labeled nutral. However if the otherwize morally nutral magic meets the criteria for evil then it steps down again into being evil. The same is true for acts, substances, choices, ect. Poison is morally neutral as a substance, humans choosing to use it means we have made an evil choice and thus an evil act. A paladin could use an Unholy Avenger to kill satain himself and according to your logic that would be an evil act, but if he used a Holy Avenger it would be a good one. Your not making sense here. a paladin can't use an Unholy Avenger... if he tried he would lose his paladin powers and not be a paladin anymore. And yes, a paladin weilding a holy sword against an army of demons or a demon prince himself is doing good even if he goes hog wild and slays demons for a week straight. Your talking about some serious moral imperitives with this example. Demons are always evil and irredemable. You can't do anything but slay them and they will never do anything that isn't designed to have corrupt and evil ends. Even when you kill them they arn't dead, they just get banished back to their home plane, or if on their homeplace they join with the essense of the plane and start over as new larve or dretches. A paladin can't weild an unholy sword without losing his paladin powers and killing a demon prince is generally impossible. But hey, its just a really bad example. mabey you should try again, or just admit that your having to try and force things and realize you can't come up with a good example for this. Obviously if your willing to accept that supplementary books are as valid as 'core' you can see that having the Poison Use class ability is not grounds for requiring the assassin class to be evil. Poison is evil, plain and simple. The fact that the assassin has this isn't enough to make him evil. Its just one of the determining factos when looking at the class. It alone wouldn't be enough to make the class evil, but its certainly pushing things in that direction, and combined with the other evil aspects of the class it is something that needs to be changed if you want to have a LG assassin class. 3. A poison can be used to inflict due pain and suffering to an evil creature because of a creature's evil acts. incorret, a poison inflicts its pain and suffering independent of any morality of the victem. Posion has no moral discrimination and will affect anyone. Ravages will only affect those that have made a pattern of being evil as a life style. You can use poison to punish someone for jay walking, but there is no way that poison is going to be any kind of just punishment. If you tried to use a ravage on someone for jaywalking it wouldn't work as long as they were a good person. Ravages can only affect those who have chosen to be evil while poison relys on potentially flawed judgement. taking that risk when there are obviously more sure ways to go about things, and inflicting undue pain and suffering are evil. Useing poison is evil. - Using poison evil because they have the potential to be used to inflict pain and suffering on innocents. This makes a poison a neutral substance. it has no moral discriminator. I have tried to say this often enough so you will finally see it. Poison itself is not a morally aligned substance. Poison itself is not a morally aligned substance. Poison itself is not a morally aligned substance. THE CHOICE to use that substance is evil, theirfore the act of using poison is always evil. Its the CHOICE that is making that act evil, not the substance. The substance causes random pain and suffering, and if you choose to use this poison you are chooseing to inflict pain and suffering and are thus commiting an evil act. Natural animals don't have the capacity to make a choice and are thus neutral in useing a neutral substance. The oft pointed to Coutal is a lawful good creature that has poison... And they use it to make a ravage. Purified Coatul venom. Take a look and see what happens. If you want to play your birds as charge in and poision everything in sight go ahead, but thats not a good act. One of the mystery liquids is a poison and one is a ravage, so which character commited an evil act? If you cant figure it out, that means that using poison is not always evil if using a ravage is not always evil. Obviously its the moral justification of the character which is important, not the tool they use. the one that actually affected the demon didn't commit an evil act assuming that all other motivating factors were good. Demons are immune to poision so the other guy was not only stupid, but trying to be evil since obviously ravages were avalible. If they were in a fight to drive a demon from the plane and you wanted to use a ravage to help thats fine. if you just had a captive demon and you were tormenting it for fun then they both commited evil acts. Ravages can be used for good, posions can't. Ravages are mostly used for good, posions are always evil. Ravages can be corrupted, poisons can not be used for good, but they can be purified into ravages. Sunrider, your view of "good" is highly destructive and is frightening. You actually believe that murder (which, despite justification, is the act of premeditatively stalking up to someone and killing them) is an acceptable action for a good character if it can be "justified". Good-aligned characters abstain from such acts at any rate. Noone deserves to be murdered; such a tyrant should be bound and captured to disable him rather than assassinated outright. because it sums up everything i have been talking about here.
heretic888 06-26-06, 07:27 PM	Sunrider is very easy to figure out. He won't come right out and say it but go back and look at all of his arguments with this idea in mind. The ends justify the means. everything he says and argues for is in this same vein. Its ok to murder if the ends result is good. Its ok to assassinate a leader if its for the best. Its ok to use poison and whatever means nessecary if your working for a higher good. Its a pretty scarey line of thought. One which the world's leading ethisists have examined, evaluated and found wanting in any kind of practical applications. Its a bad way to live, and a bad way to run a universe. It leads to horror and atrocity on a massive scale, and cruelty and indifference to suffering on the small scale. But Sunrider is arguing its ok. Thats his warped opinion and there isn't anything thats going to change him away from it. I have seen people try just about everything from logic to emotion to screaming, and none of it has worked. Actually, that's not what Sunrider is saying at all. You're constructing a Straw Man argument here. Well, an Ad Hominem, actually, since you are impugning that Sunrider is somehow a morally lacking individual and therefore his arguments about morality and/or alignment are irrelevant. You are both misrepresenting this individual's arguments as well as making not-so-veiled attacks on his moral character to justify your own position. That's a few too many non-sequiters for my tastes. Just so we're clear, what Sunrider is actually saying is that the moral reasoning or motivations behind an action is what determines its alignment. This is not to be confused with an ex post facto rationalization. Laterz.
K 06-26-06, 07:47 PM	If people are still interested in playing an assasin, we have one in the Dungeonomicon (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=659653) . Its not morally tagged. Enjoy.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-26-06, 08:26 PM	This is wrong. In DnD the evil, the pain, and the suffering you inflict upon the world IS inflicted magically on you. Unlike real life we know what happens to souls when the body dies in the dnd world. You go to be judged and are sent to your reward. The reward for putting pain and suffering in the world (ie having an evil alignment) is you are cast into one of the three hell planes and left there to be tormented for the evil you did in life. No. In D&D, if you have been evil, you're cast into a lower plane that befits your alignment. You are turned into a petitioner. Petitioners then rise in the hierarchy to become full-fledged fiends. They are only tormented if they are caught by other, stronger fiends that may want to bash them a little bit. See, unlike real life, 'Evil' is not, in and of itself, wrong; it's a different point of view. It counteracts good in the Great Wheel. There's a reason that good creatures don't get to police the Multiiverse. They are just as much an imbalance as evil. They're arrogant because they are selfless, seeing selflessness as 'better' than selfishness. But without selfishness, selflessness wouldn't exist as a concept; we wouldn't notice that particular trait in anyone. Good overcoming evil would be just as bad for the Mulitverse as evil overcoming good. This isn't real life remember, this is dnd. these are things we know for facts because they are in the rules, you can cast a commune spell and ask, or cast a planar binding and ask an angel. Your moral actions are magically rebounded upon you. A ravage simply does this before final judgment. Wrong. See above. Bear in mind that INFLICT is the wrong word for what a ravage does. Inflict brings about images of inflict light wounds, or inflict a hit, ravages transmute. They turn moral corruption into phyisical corruption. The fact this is painful is a by product that is unavoidable, the ravage isn't generating pain, the corrupted morality is generating the pain. I'll give you an example of an evil innocent. An innkeeper that finds a way to overprice everything he sells. People often pay the ridiculous price just so they don't have to go looking for another inn (maybe the inn's secluded). He's bullied competition out of the way, and has found way to take money from passers by, even. But maybe, just maybe, the innkeeper has a family. A family that he loves very much, and is willing to do anything to give them a life he feels they deserve. He'd still count as evil. But throwing a dose of ravage on him would probably count as an evil act. Poor example? I'll let other people judge that since you seem to be too keen on winning this discussion to admit any fault on your own behalf. In effect the creature is in pain because its evil. Good is allowed to fight evil and to try and curb its behavior, ravages allow for this. That proves that exalted people (not good people) are fascists. "Because they're evil..." Exalted people should be ashamed of themselves :nonono: Imagine it like an equasion. You have the person commiting the act, the act itself, the item used in the act, the reason for the act, and the effect of the act. But what about the intent. The intent should count double, or even triple, to counteract the other crap in the equation. If any of those are evil, then the act is probly evil, if more than one of them is evil then the at is almost definitly evil, and if one of them is listed as ALWAYS evil then the act is going to be evil. Basic math. One negative doesn't make the whole equation negative, unless it is a multiplication factor. Let's say that evil is negative: x + y - z = -a <=> - z = - x - z - a You can see that the z may have to be a bit more negative than the rest of the equation. Of course, this might be an oversimplification (and maybe even an overcomplication at the same time!), but it's almost midnight where I'm located and I should have gone to bed an hour ago (I have to be up at 6:15. Yes, my job sucks, but at least it pays good) If the target is evil you might be able to mitigate a single hazy portion, but normally any evil ruins the batch. So targets can be discriminated against based on their philosophical outlook. Oh wait, they can. That's why they have smite evil. You aslo seem to ignore the fact that a small portion of evil outweighs a ton of good. In D&D, this is not true. Good and evil, law and chaos, all have the same weight. Good is harder to be than evil. Evil is pretty easy, just take the fastest route to whatever your goal is and don't worry about anyone but yourself and you can be pretty sure your going to end up seeing its faster to kill and you will end up evil. That sounds like Chaotic Neutral. It also sounds like something I'd do. being good means you have to consider your actions and choose every time to make sure what you are going is the best action it can be. That sounds like Lawful Good to me. Its not easy, and its not always a sure thing, but the alignment system isn't forgiving in this way. You have to live up to the high standards if you want to be called good. No. You have to live up to high standards to be exalted. Being good is just as easy as being evil, good, lawful or chaotic. It's as easy as being yourself. If you have a good alignment, you're probably going to have an easy time being yourself. Ravages can be twisted to evil ends, like anyting good can be. But ravages themselves are good and if used properly are alright for even a paladin to use. This isn't illogical, its magic. Thats why ravages are good and fireballs are nutral. Its why holy sword is good and keen weapon is nutral. It's also why poison is neutral. Like swords, poison doesn't have an intelligence score, or the moral capacity to decide the "right" action to take. It enters the immune system and harasses it. If you say that poison is inherently evil, then scorpions and snakes are aslo inherently evil, because they use it. Because of the poison's inherent evil, venomous animals would detect as evil, regardless of their moral capacity. Why? Because they had a source of evil in their body. Also, ravages are evil. They force their morality on evil creatures, torturing them because they don't agree with their values. That's opression. Opression is evil in D&D. Magic can be morally sensitive and thus be labed as good, or it can be morally nutral and thus be labeled nutral. However if the otherwize morally nutral magic meets the criteria for evil then it steps down again into being evil. And if neutral magic meets the criteria for morally good magic, then it steps up into being evil, right? The same is true for acts, substances, choices, ect. Poison is morally neutral as a substance, humans choosing to use it means we have made an evil choice and thus an evil act. No, it's not an evil act. It's unaligned. Plain and simple. a paladin can't use an Unholy Avenger... if he tried he would lose his paladin powers and not be a paladin anymore. And yes, a paladin weilding a holy sword against an army of demons or a demon prince himself is doing good even if he goes hog wild and slays demons for a week straight. Your talking about some serious moral imperitives with this example. Demons are always evil and irredemable. You can't do anything but slay them and they will never do anything that isn't designed to have corrupt and evil ends. Even when you kill them they arn't dead, they just get banished back to their home plane, or if on their homeplace they join with the essense of the plane and start over as new larve or dretches. A paladin can't weild an unholy sword without losing his paladin powers and killing a demon prince is generally impossible. But hey, its just a really bad example. mabey you should try again, or just admit that your having to try and force things and realize you can't come up with a good example for this. You didn't even address the example. You just said "a paladin can't use an Unholy Avenger. This is a bad example". Try thinking outside the box and address the point anyway. It's a good point. Poison is evil, plain and simple. The fact that the assassin has this isn't enough to make him evil. Its just one of the determining factos when looking at the class. It alone wouldn't be enough to make the class evil, but its certainly pushing things in that direction, and combined with the other evil aspects of the class it is something that needs to be changed if you want to have a LG assassin class. Poison Use is not an evil ability. Poison is not evil. Plain and simple. incorret, a poison inflicts its pain and suffering independent of any morality of the victem. Posion has no moral discrimination and will affect anyone. Ravages will only affect those that have made a pattern of being evil as a life style. That's why ravages are evil. They are no better than gay-bashers. They attack evil creatures just for being evil. You can use poison to punish someone for jay walking, but there is no way that poison is going to be any kind of just punishment. If you tried to use a ravage on someone for jaywalking it wouldn't work as long as they were a good person. Not that this isn't a good, though irrelevant point, but why would anyone punish someone for jaywalking with poison? Ravages can only affect those who have chosen to be evil while poison relys on potentially flawed judgement. taking that risk when there are obviously more sure ways to go about things, and inflicting undue pain and suffering are evil. Then ravages don't affect fiends. Fiends are evil by nature, not by choice. Their home plane has corrupted them to what they are now. Ravages also don't affect Mind Flayers. Mind Flayers have alien minds. They think differently. They can't help it. Ravages also don't affect antisocials. No one actually makes a conscious choice to embrace an "evil lifestyle". Useing poison is evil. Nope. This makes a poison a neutral substance. You frequently jump between "poison is evil" and "poison is neutral". Let's keep it simple and go with the Core RAW, the only thing that matters, and assume it's unaligned. It's not your call anyway. Poison itself is not a morally aligned substance. THE INTENT to use that substance can make the act of using it evil, theirfore the act of using poison is not always always evil. Its the INTENT that is making that act sometimes evil, not the substance. Fixed the statement to fit the Core RAW. The substance causes random pain and suffering, and if you choose to use this poison you are chooseing to inflict pain and suffering and are thus commiting an evil act. But then again, choosing to use a ravage is choosing to inflict pain and suffering. This was an excellent piece of logic to prove that ravages are inherently evil. The oft pointed to Coutal is a lawful good creature that has poison... And they use it to make a ravage. Purified Coatul venom. That's only if you're using the BoED, a set of alternative rules. BoED was not written to expand upon the idea of good; it was written to promote uber-good people, AKA differently evil people. Take a look and see what happens. If you want to play your birds as charge in and poision everything in sight go ahead, but thats not a good act. It can be. The intent determines the alignment. the one that actually affected the demon didn't commit an evil act assuming that all other motivating factors were good. I'll let you have this one... Demons are immune to poision so the other guy was not only stupid, but trying to be evil since obviously ravages were avalible. ... but this one is full of ****. Why don't you just address the point instead of saying "demons are immune to poison". If someone gives an example like this, then assume he's correct and address the ****ing point. And no, poison use is not evil. Your opinion is obviously wrong according to RAW. The BoED is crap. It's self-contradicting, it contradicts RAW, and it has been on numerous occasions been discredited. If they were in a fight to drive a demon from the plane and you wanted to use a ravage to help thats fine. if you just had a captive demon and you were tormenting it for fun then they both commited evil acts. Using ravages is always an evil act. Ravages can be used for good, posions can't. That's bull. Ravages are mostly used for good, posions are always evil. See? There you go again, switching positions on whether poison is evil or neutral. Poison is unaligned. It has no alignment. The preceding sentence overrules all other sentence I've written concerning the alignment of poison. Ravages can be corrupted, poisons can not be used for good, but they can be purified into ravages. You just made this up. because it sums up everything i have been talking about here. Yes. And after reading this post, I see you need to be less zealous, and more laid-back about the BoED. Don't take that book seriously unless you intend to use it. In which case, use about half of it.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-26-06, 08:30 PM	You're constructing a Straw Man argument here. Well, an Ad Hominem, actually, since you are impugning that Sunrider is somehow a morally lacking individual and therefore his arguments about morality and/or alignment are irrelevant. You are both misrepresenting this individual's arguments as well as making not-so-veiled attacks on his moral character to justify your own position. That's a few too many non-sequiters for my tastes. This is pretty much exactly how belthazzar argued with me during the first few pages of this thread. It also qualified as hate-speech because I'm antisocial.
Kobold_Avenger 06-26-06, 09:46 PM	Heh... Most good aligned outsiders would be considered evil by bel if they didn't have alignment subtype 'Good'. After all the they kill to have my probablem with killing evil creatures. And about ravages cant be used to harm innocents... Refer to my pregnate evil tiefling. (second post is correct)
Kobold_Avenger 06-26-06, 09:47 PM	Heh... Most good aligned outsiders would be considered evil by bel if they didn't have alignment subtype 'Good'. After all they seem to have no problem with killing evil creatures. And about ravages cant be used to harm innocents... Refer to my pregnate evil tiefling.
heretic888 06-26-06, 09:48 PM	Regarding the sub-discussion of ravages versus poisons, an interesting point has been brought up. . . Namely, the issue of "punishment". Now, this one is interesting because, according to core rules, good isn't concerned with punishing. Punishment is completely outside of the purview of good. Good's only concern is the helping and protecting of innocent life. "Punishing" evil for its misdeeds isn't gonna do that, no matter how your rationalize it. However, exacting punishments makes perfect sense from the point-of-view of law. In fact, lawful good is the only good alignment that has a description of "punishing the wicked". Neutral good and chaotic good don't mention it. Good is concerned with stopping evil from doing its thang, but it isn't all that concerned with "retribution" or "getting even" or "punishment" or any such concepts. Lawful, sure. Good, no. So, this brings up an interesting question: as ravages "punish" the evil by transmuting their spiritual corruption into physical corruption, in what sense is this actually "good"?? After all, it doesn't protect, defend, or better the lives of innocents any more than using a poison would. But, it does provide a form of "retribution" along the lawful axis. And there's the rub. . . Laterz.
GhostStepper 06-26-06, 10:06 PM	This is wrong. In DnD the evil, the pain, and the suffering you inflict upon the world IS inflicted magically on you. Unlike real life we know what happens to souls when the body dies in the dnd world. You go to be judged and are sent to your reward. The reward for putting pain and suffering in the world (ie having an evil alignment) is you are cast into one of the three hell planes and left there to be tormented for the evil you did in life. Where are you getting this from? In DnD you can whorship and evil diety, die, and go serve him in the afterlife without pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is totally avoidable by many evil creatures. If your getting this out of something in the BoED then let me know what page. Even if this was universaly true it has no bearing on immortal things that may not die of natural causes anyway like liches or demons. If you dont kill them they would never get any kind of 'just punishment" so if you use a ravage on them your just being mean. Your moral actions are magically rebounded upon you. A ravage simply does this before final judgment. Not necessarily. Only if you get a ravage used on you. Bear in mind that INFLICT is the wrong word for what a ravage does. Inflict brings about images of inflict light wounds, or inflict a hit, ravages transmute. Ravages are categorized in with afflictions and the terms are used almost interchangably in the BoED. Now lets look at the word 'inflict': in·flict Pronunciation Key (n-flkt) tr.v. in·flict·ed, in·flict·ing, in·flicts 1. To deal or mete out (something punishing or burdensome); impose: inflicted heavy losses on the enemy; a storm that inflicted widespread damage. 2. To afflict. Yep, we are using the right word. They turn moral corruption into phyisical corruption. The fact this is painful is a by product that is unavoidable, the ravage isn't generating pain, the corrupted morality is generating the pain. In effect the creature is in pain because its evil. And no where can i find, in any books that im looking at, where it says that the evil that evil things do is always turned back on them unavoidably. Can you tell me where it says this? a paladin can't use an Unholy Avenger... if he tried he would lose his paladin powers and not be a paladin anymore. It does not say anything about this in the PHB or DMG. I cant find it even in the BoED. Where are you getting this? Even if it were true, a paladin could still kill satan with an unholy avenger and it would not automatically be an evil act. Even when you kill them they arn't dead, they just get banished back to their home plane, or if on their homeplace they join with the essense of the plane and start over as new larve or dretches. I thought you said evil stuff died and when to hell to suffer? lol Your contradicting your earlier statement. Demons going back to their home plane would go to the abyss (not hell as you claimed evil things go) and wouldnt necessarily undure pain and suffering automatically. Obviously if you use a ravage on a demon youre are inflicting pain and suffering that you didnt have to inflict and that the demon may have never suffered through out all of eternity. A paladin can't weild an unholy sword without losing his paladin powers and killing a demon prince is generally impossible. But hey, its just a really bad example. mabey you should try again, or just admit that your having to try and force things and realize you can't come up with a good example for this. Its a great example and you would understand it if you understood the paladin's code in the PHB. And it doesnt even matter if its not a paladin and just some random LG guy. He can use an unholy avenger and not automatically be evil. incorret, a poison inflicts its pain and suffering independent of any morality of the victem. Read what i said again: "3. A poison can be used to inflict due pain and suffering to an evil creature because of a creature's evil acts." Your statement in no way condradicts mine. You can use a poison on a creature to punish it because of its evil acts. This has nothing to do with poison being independent of the morality of the vicitim. You say 'incorrect' then dont even bother trying to actually refute the stament. We can even combined your statement and mine into a single perfectly logical sentence: "A poison can be used to inflict due pain and suffering to an evil creature because of a creature's evil acts, even though a poison inflicts its pain and suffering independent of any morality of the victim." See how you did absolutely nothing to actually counter my statement or show that it was illogical? Posion has no moral discrimination and will affect anyone. Ravages will only affect those that have made a pattern of being evil as a life style. Swords have no moral discrimination and will affect anyone. Sneak attacks have no moral discrimination and will affect anyone. A vial of acid has no moral discrimition and will affect anyone. Fireball has no moral discrimination. If your arguing for this kind of logic it follows that 99% of things in DnD are evil to use. You can use poison to punish someone for jay walking, but there is no way that poison is going to be any kind of just punishment. If you tried to use a ravage on someone for jaywalking it wouldn't work as long as they were a good person. No one is agruing that using poison to punish misdemeanors is a good act. If we had an LG assassin he's be using it for the exact same reasons a paladin would use a ravage. Further more it would not be just to punish someone for jaywalking with a stab with a knife. Does that mean that using a knife is always evil? Ravages can only affect those who have chosen to be evil while poison relys on potentially flawed judgement. And thus by this logic, swords are evil because they rely on potentially flawed judgement. Every core class that uses a sword is now evil. This makes a poison a neutral substance. it has no moral discriminator. I have tried to say this often enough so you will finally see it. Poison itself is not a morally aligned substance. Poison itself is not a morally aligned substance. Poison itself is not a morally aligned substance. And swords are not morally aligned. Fireball is not morally aligned. Sneak Attack is not morally aligned. These things can inflict atleast as much pain and suffering as poison, so by your logic using all these things should be evil. The substance causes random pain and suffering, and if you choose to use this poison you are chooseing to inflict pain and suffering and are thus commiting an evil act. A sword causes random pain and suffering, and if you choose to use this sword you are chooseing to inflict pain and suffering and are thus commiting an evil act. the one that actually affected the demon didn't commit an evil act assuming that all other motivating factors were good. Demons are immune to poision so the other guy was not only stupid, but trying to be evil since obviously ravages were avalible. If they were in a fight to drive a demon from the plane and you wanted to use a ravage to help thats fine. if you just had a captive demon and you were tormenting it for fun then they both commited evil acts. LOL Busted! You did totally catch me with my bad demon example (totally forgot they are immune to poison). Let me try that one more time. - Bob uses item X to inflict pain and suffering on an evil tyrant because of his evil acts - Joe uses item Y to inflict pain and suffering on an evil tyrant because of his evil acts. - John uses item Z to inflict pain and suffering on an evil tyrant because of his evil acts. One of the substances is a poison, one is a ravage, and one is a sword. They all have the same moral justification and so all the actions are morally identical (one is not 'more evil' that the other, atleast logically).
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-26-06, 10:38 PM	Yeah, I know I said I'd stay out of it from now on. I'm weak. Bel's post is full of stuff I'd like to contradict, but when I point out too many fallacies at once, Bel ignores the things he can't think of a way to refute, logical or otherwise, and focuses on the arguments he can think of a way (otherwise) to refute. No, that's not flaming. It's true. The ends justify the means. *snip* Its a pretty scarey line of thought. One which the world's leading ethisists have examined, evaluated and found wanting in any kind of practical applications. Its a bad way to live, and a bad way to run a universe. It leads to horror and atrocity on a massive scale, and cruelty and indifference to suffering on the small scale. But Sunrider is arguing its ok. Thats his warped opinion and there isn't anything thats going to change him away from it. I have seen people try just about everything from logic to emotion to screaming, and none of it has worked.Are you planning to back your opinion, and supposedly that of the world's leading ethicists, with any proof? And how is the rogue who runs around using ravages on his blade any different from the rogue who runs around using poisons on his blade? It's the same effect. Let's use your morality to analyze that.Imagine it like an equasion. You have the person commiting the act, the act itself, the item used in the act, the reason for the act, and the effect of the act. If any of those are evil, then the act is probly evil, if more than one of them is evil then the at is almost definitly evil, and if one of them is listed as ALWAYS evil then the act is going to be evil.Okay. Person: some good rogue (good). Item: poison/ravages (neutral/good, as proven by the quote below). Act itself: punishing evil (just as angels do). Reason: same reason angels fight evil, whatever you think that is. Effect: evil is punished (good, or angels are evil). No evil, therefore, not evil. For the "item" entry: Poison is morally neutral as a substance Oh, and at one point you said that poisons could hurt babies as easily as a blackguard (as you ask us; find it yourself), with that exact statement, thus they were evil. Guess who else is evil. That's right! Zaphkiel, leader of the Celestial Hebdomad, lord of the Illuminated Heaven! Why, you ask? Simple: order's wrath, sound burst, blindness/deafness, searing light, blade barrier, dictum, fire storm, and ray of suffering. He could use any of these to hurt a baby as easily as a blackguard. It doesn't matter that he doesn't; he can, and that's what makes him evil. Oh, oh, oh! And while I was flipping through the BoED, I noticed Kharash the Stalker, "Talisid's Shadow." He's neutral good. He has an ability. The ability's name starts with "d" and ends with "eath attack." Not only does he have it, but here's the first sentence in his "combat" section. Ahem: "Kharash prefers to study his foes for a few rounds before springing into battle, giving him the chance to use his death strike." Ooph! Not only does he have death attack, but he prefers to use it! Oh, man. Let's read on. "Kharash usually attacks the most vulnerable opponent first..." He even prefers to use it on the weakest and most defenseless creatures he can! Come on. Tell me Kharash isn't evil and why he isn't, although he has death attack and uses it on the weak.
Sunrider 06-26-06, 11:29 PM	- Bob uses item X to inflict pain and suffering on an evil tyrant because of his evil acts - Joe uses item Y to inflict pain and suffering on an evil tyrant because of his evil acts. - John uses item Z to inflict pain and suffering on an evil tyrant because of his evil acts. One of the substances is a poison, one is a ravage, and one is a sword. They all have the same moral justification and so all the actions are morally identical (one is not 'more evil' that the other, atleast logically). Actually, I would classify all three actions as evilly (and lawfully) motivated (although the actions are not evil in themselves, since actions are unaligned, their associated alignment being determined by the motive for which their performed). The reason I say this is your reason for using the poison, the ravage or the sword - namenly, to inflict pain and suffering (evil motive) as punishment for his evil acts (lawful motive). I'm assuming you're talking about cutting him to pieces in open combat with a sword or using a pain-inducing poison, since there's no 'pain and suffering' involved with a CDG or non-painful poison; ravages, however, always cause pain and suffering. If however, you had said that the characters used items X, Y and Z for the purposes of preventing the tyrant from terrorising his people and to rescue them from the misery and poverty in which they're languishing, I would classify the actions as good - although pain and suffering (to the non-innocent BBEG) may be a side-effect of this, it's not the motive behind your actions. One thing to remember (and this is to everyone) is that 'divine retribution', or the notion of 'justice', isn't a Good concept - it's a lawful one. Good characters (who are not Lawful Good) care little for justice, rules and regulations (although they may cooperate with them for the purposes of the advancement of Good), their prime motives being that of bettering the lot of people in general, alleviating suffering and preventing the killing and/or subjugation of innocent people. Diplomacy, war and assassination are simply tools by which Good can be accomplished; given that Good implies a respect for life as well as a duty to protect innocent life, diplomacy leads to the least bloodshed, followed by assassination, followed by war. As for those who argue that it's better to do nothing, since assassinating the BBEG is evil and it's not your fault he's going on a killing spree... well, that's hardly holding to the ideals of Good, is it? By doing nothing (when you have the capacity to do something effective), you're not protecting innocent life, you're not displaying altruism, you're not displaying any self-sacrifice, you're not displaying a general respect for life in general and you're not showing any concern for the dignity of sentient beings (by allowing them to languish in misery). On the other hand, you are showing a general lack of compassion for others - one of the implied ideals of the Evil alignment.
Sunrider 06-26-06, 11:36 PM	Would you care to name this 'leading ethicist'? Even ignoring the fact that this is a blatant appeal to authority (which has no implications whatsoever in D&D RAW) remember that ethicists and moral philosophers are not a single, monolithic bloc - for every 'leading ethicist' expousing a certain point of view, there are several other 'leading ethicists' who would partially or totally disagree with him or her, and have logical arguments to support their positions. After all, that's what ethics and philosophy are all about - debate. In any case, simply being a 'leading ethicist' doesn't mean that you are correct. As a corollary, David Irving is a 'leading historian' (being world-famous and all). He's also a well-known holocaust denier and racist. Is he correct on this simply on account of the fact that he is a 'leading historian'? I don't think so...
Verelor 06-26-06, 11:41 PM	Heh... Most good aligned outsiders would be considered evil by bel if they didn't have alignment subtype 'Good'. After all the they kill to have my probablem with killing evil creatures. And about ravages cant be used to harm innocents... Refer to my pregnate evil tiefling. (second post is correct) How utterly immature... Actually, good aligned outsiders almost never kill unless it is a last resort to defend an innocent, actually. Anyone, all the way to Joseph Stalin or Charles Manson, deserves redemption and respect. Unless the creature happens to be a fiend or undead, then it isn't quite the same. Celestials love the sinner, not the sin, but when you are fighting something that is practically sin made flesh, the rules change. Ravages used to harm innocents: you gave absolutely the most extreme and skewed example. A +1 merciful holy sap can still be used in twisted ways (shoving it down someone's throat to suffocate them), but absolutely everything about the weapon is intended to be used for Good ends. Any other way to reliably use ravages, similarly, is an extremely rare, unusual, or niche situation that an extremely evil character alone could take advantage of.
Kresalak 06-27-06, 12:08 AM	There is nothing in D&D morality that states that killing is evil, or not killing good. Any arguments based on this are based on a flawed premiss, and therefor are themselves flawed. I should remind everyone that D&D good and evil do not, in any way, represent your real world views on good and evil. In fact, in D&D, being evil is a perfectly acceptable choice in life.
GhostStepper 06-27-06, 12:11 AM	Ravages used to harm innocents: you gave absolutely the most extreme and skewed example. A +1 merciful holy sap can still be used in twisted ways (shoving it down someone's throat to suffocate them), but absolutely everything about the weapon is intended to be used for Good ends. A Holy Avenger is intended to be used for good. A serial killer can easily use it to kill kids. It not extreme or skewed at all to think that someone would actually use a sword as a sword. Any other way to reliably use ravages, similarly, is an extremely rare, unusual, or niche situation that an extremely evil character alone could take advantage of. There are plenty of non niche ways to use ravages in an evil manner. You say there are plenty of evil guys that can be redeemed. Its not hard to imagine someone using a ravage to torture someone who could otherwise be redeemed. I bet you there have been plenty of mothers of a murder victims would love to use a ravage on the murderer just to watch them suffer. Ravages inflict pain and suffering so its really not hard to think of ways that people can use them to inflict pain and suffering in 'evil' ways.
Sunrider 06-27-06, 03:39 AM	IMO the debate here isn't one about Good versus Evil, but about pragmatic Good versus idealistic good. Essentially, both are Good, but differ in their priorities and approaches. The common threads which define them both as good are as follows: Both seek to protect innocent life from those who would bring suffering or death to innocents (although pragmatic good tends to be more active in doing so). Both are essentially altruistic in nature (although pragmatic good tends to be more so) Both display a general respect for life (although idealistic good tends to be more absolute in this) Both display a concern for the dignity of sentient beings (although pragmatic good tends to be more willing to do something to stop those who would transgress this) Both are willing to sacrifice themselves in some way to help others In other words, both approaches qualify as Good. The differences between them - and the root cause of the conflict - lie in the different priorities of idealists and pragmatists and their respective willingness (or unwillingness) to do certain things to promote Good causes. Pragmatists see the ultimate purpose of Goodness being the saving of as many innocent lives as possible, the relief of human misery and the protection of innocent people from death, torture, oppression or other suffering. For a pragmatist, these are the ultimate goals of Good, and an action or motive is judged as being 'good' if it is performed to serve these goals. Methods obviously matter (after all, a pragmatic good person would seek to avoid killing innocents whenever possible, so no performing human sacrifice just to infiltrate a BBEG's inner circle), but, when it comes to the crunch, the most important thing is a good outcome for the common people and the relief of suffering, even if the methods are questionable (provided they don't involve the sacrifice of innocent life or the bringing of suffering to innocent people). Therefore, to a Pragmatic Good person, assassinating a BBEG to end his reign of terror, even though it involves killing someone (albeit a non-innocent person) is preferable to doing something ineffectual (or nothing at all), since it relieves suffering and saves innocent lives and, therefore, achieves several of the overarching goals of Good characters. To put it in more simple terms, pragmatists are the 'doers' of the Good alignment. Idealists, on the other hand, view holding to the ideals of good as being more important than actually achieving the best outcome for the most people. To them, holding to these ideals - not oppressing people in any way, not killing people and being altruistic towards everyone - are more important than the actual objectives of goodness (saving innocent lives and relieving suffering). In effect, methods and actions matter more than motives and outcomes - to an idealist, holding true to the ideals of good is more important than actually achieving the best out come for the most people; the deaths of inocents may be tragic, but, to an idealist, it is hardly the fault of the Good person. Therefore, to an Idealistic Good person, assassinating a BBEG is a less acceptable solution than allowing him to continue his reign of terror, since it involves killing him - although innocents may die, that is the fault of the BBEG, not the Good person, and the Good person has held rigidly to the ideal of respecting life (innocent or not). To put it more simply, idealists are the 'philosophers' of the Good alignment. Now, as a practicing doctor, I can't help taking a pragmatic approach - in my experience, taking an idealistic, relatively inflexible, doctor-centred approach leads to more dead patients, or a worse outcome and quality of life, than a pragmatic, patient-centred approach tailored to each individual situation. This can be extrapolated into D&D - is your 'Good' character more concerned with obeying every precept associated with the 'Good' alignment, or is she more concerned with actually helping people, saving innocent lives and alleviating suffering, even if it means killing a few very-evil BBEGs here and there? Idealists are more concerned with the former (undeniably good actions, despite outcomes which may not be so good), while pragmatists are more concerned with the latter (undeniably good motives and outcomes, despite methods which may be considered questionable, but don't involve inflicting death or suffering upon innocents). Both are good - just in different ways. The 'idealist good' person could very well be Exalted, but may do little for the common people (indeed, by holding rigidly to such precepts, he or she could, either indirectly, or through inaction, cause the deaths of many innocents and the prolonging of the suffering of innocents). The 'pragmatist good' person, on the other hand, who is prepared to take action to further the cause of Good, may not be Exalted (although still Good), and probably saves a lot more innocent lives and relieves a lot more suffering than the moralising philosopher. As for their attitudes towards each other, to the Idealist Good person (possbily Exalted), a Pragmatic Good person looks almost vile, since she doesn't hold 100% to the precepts of Good (just 90-95%), even though she's helping a lot of people. To the Pragmatic Good person, the Idealist Good person looks similarly vile, since he refuses to take actions which would help a lot of people (thus being Good overall), since they may conflict with one particular precept of the abstract notion of 'Good'. 90% good actions and pure thoughts, or 90% good outcomes and pure motives - it's your choice. You can't have both.
heretic888 06-27-06, 07:50 AM	Actually, I would classify all three actions as evilly (and lawfully) motivated (although the actions are not evil in themselves, since actions are unaligned, their associated alignment being determined by the motive for which their performed). The reason I say this is your reason for using the poison, the ravage or the sword - namenly, to inflict pain and suffering (evil motive) as punishment for his evil acts (lawful motive). Agreed. If however, you had said that the characters used items X, Y and Z for the purposes of preventing the tyrant from terrorising his people and to rescue them from the misery and poverty in which they're languishing, I would classify the actions as good - although pain and suffering (to the non-innocent BBEG) may be a side-effect of this, it's not the motive behind your actions. Yup. One thing to remember (and this is to everyone) is that 'divine retribution', or the notion of 'justice', isn't a Good concept - it's a lawful one. Good characters (who are not Lawful Good) care little for justice, rules and regulations (although they may cooperate with them for the purposes of the advancement of Good), their prime motives being that of bettering the lot of people in general, alleviating suffering and preventing the killing and/or subjugation of innocent people. Y'know, it's funny. . . I coulda sworn I just said something like this. ;) Laterz.
heretic888 06-27-06, 08:06 AM	Ravages used to harm innocents: you gave absolutely the most extreme and skewed example. A +1 merciful holy sap can still be used in twisted ways (shoving it down someone's throat to suffocate them), but absolutely everything about the weapon is intended to be used for Good ends. Uhhh. . . no, not at all. "Punishing" or "harming" evil doesn't make you good. An evil being can cause pain to another evil being just as easily as a good being can (and may very well use ravages to do so). It's the context and the sociomoral reasoning behind the action that determines its relative alignment. The only thing to good is the protecting and bettering of innocent life, period. Not "retribution" and not "honor" and not "punishment", as none of those do anything like this. Good is synonymous with compassion, not justice. A good character can punish the wicked for their misdeeds, but he is probably lawful good, as such notions of "punishment" and "justice" are entirely lawful concepts. Such a character may also be lawful neutral or even lawful evil. It happens. Just a clarification. Laterz.
The_Newborn 06-27-06, 08:59 AM	I made them any lawful for a guild of trained killers/bounty hunters. Gave them urban tracking and gather info ranks as a requirement dropping the killing requirement. Also slotted ina codeof conduct but not a strict onelike paladin/monk. Good assassins using death attack on a non-contract target is an evil act.
Sunrider 06-27-06, 09:03 AM	I made them any lawful for a guild of trained killers/bounty hunters. Gave them urban tracking and gather info ranks as a requirement dropping the killing requirement. Also slotted ina codeof conduct but not a strict onelike paladin/monk. Good assassins using death attack on a non-contract target is an evil act. Well... if killing a contract target is a lawful act in your opinion, then why is killing a non-contract target an evil act? The opposite of 'lawful' is 'chaotic', not 'evil' (I've lost count of how many times people have gotten this mixed up... lawful isn't good, and chaotic isn't evil...).
The_Newborn 06-27-06, 09:50 AM	Well... if killing a contract target is a lawful act in your opinion, then why is killing a non-contract target an evil act? The opposite of 'lawful' is 'chaotic', not 'evil' (I've lost count of how many times people have gotten this mixed up... lawful isn't good, and chaotic isn't evil...). There is more to it than what I posted. But that is meta-org stuff. It is lawful because you take orders, belong to a structured organisation. In the way I have set it up is that death attack is like a smite evil type ability in it's purpose. As it is not (positive/negative) energy based there is no "safety". Using it to slay the innocent is both evil and non-lawful. And other stuff but my brain is fried by exams.
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-27-06, 10:34 AM	Using it to slay the innocent is both evil and non-lawful.And using it to slay the vile beings who would intentionally cause pain to others for their own personal benefit? Just because someone's non-contract doesn't make him innocent. What if I manipulate my guild boss in such a way that he assigns me a contract to kill the BBEG? Am I evil and non-lawful then?
shadow mage 06-27-06, 11:19 AM	Though heretic and sunrider've hit the nail on the head, I'd like to expand the original post's topic slightly and address something else I've read here. While good characters are (universally) altruistic and compassionate (regardless of society norms/social standards), they are certainly not the only ones doing "good" in the world. Neutral characters can be working for the greater good as well, as can evil characters even. The latter example I've even seen in a campaign, where a paladin and blackguard were in the party and, while despising each other, both had ultimately the same goals, simply very different approaches to realizing them (in this case, seeing to the downfall of a church organization that literally mind-wiped its members for ultimate loyalty, which both characters viewed as oppression). The reason I address the fact that good characters aren't the only ones spreading good is to muddy up the perceptions of the listed alignments. A soldier, uncaring and callous, might be specifically trained as a special-ops agent and think nothing more of it than it being his job/duty. His comrade, identically trained, could be much more idealistic and devout in his belief that he is working for a greater good. A third soldier in this same training group could actually enjoy "the hunt" and take pleasure in the amount of prowess he possesses. A neutral, a good, and an evil example, all trained assassins. But, according to the "evil only/must kill" requirement, only one could be an Assassin as per the DMG, despite all recieving identical training (hence, the very argument we've been discussing in various levels of detail). The above examples are relevant in the real world as well, which is why I used them. We all have heard of or know the soldier who's in the military 'just because', the one who's in there to 'support a cause', and the one who 'just likes blowing things up' or who 'hates the enemy'. More food for thought, and I believe further proof that the alignment restriction on the Assassin prestige class is unneeded. Shall I ask fellow C.O. board frequenters if there are mechanical advantages to being neutral or good as well? -Shadow Mage
Verelor 06-27-06, 02:13 PM	I don;t quite agree with your assessment, heretic888. Justice is usually synonymous with Good, particularly LG. Justice is about preventing bad things from happening to good people, and ensuring a safer, better society for everyone. That is unremittingly synonymous with the D&D definition of good. What makes it usually LG is that the most reliable method of administering justice is through organized, level-headed methods. A LN or LE character can cut off a thief's hand for stealing, but that's not so much justice as it is harsh and bloody punishment, and is likely to teach society or the thief nothing.
Dnjscott 06-27-06, 02:30 PM	dropping the killing requirement. Actually, as I posted before ages ago, you really don't need to drop the killing requirement, as long as the target is picked out as a threat, even a political threat, by a good-aligned organization. Compare Consecrated Harrier.
GhostStepper 06-27-06, 02:47 PM	Actually, I would classify all three actions as evilly (and lawfully) motivated (although the actions are not evil in themselves, since actions are unaligned, their associated alignment being determined by the motive for which their performed). Lawful, yes. Non-good?....well not by what the PHB and BoED calls 'good'. All the examples were of someone punishing an evil tyrant because of their evil acts. The LG entry in the PHB says that such a character "hates to see the guilty go unpunished.", so apparently seeing the guilty be punished is inline with being lawfuly good.
shadow mage 06-27-06, 03:24 PM	I don;t quite agree with your assessment, heretic888. Justice is usually synonymous with Good, particularly LG. Justice is about preventing bad things from happening to good people, and ensuring a safer, better society for everyone. That is unremittingly synonymous with the D&D definition of good. What makes it usually LG is that the most reliable method of administering justice is through organized, level-headed methods. A LN or LE character can cut off a thief's hand for stealing, but that's not so much justice as it is harsh and bloody punishment, and is likely to teach society or the thief nothing. On the contrary, justice is, by at least two different definitions (the Webster's on my shelf and Wikipedia online), refered to as a consequence, a reaction to an action. In application to law, justice would in fact be the application of legally determined punishment for breaking a law. Your lawful neutral/evil example is a form of poetic justice, where the thief, so good with his hands, has one removed in retribution. If in fact such a reaction is within the laws of that society, then it also meets the proper definition of justice. Webster further describes administered justice as being impartial, which would remove it from the Good/Evil alignment axis and leave it purely on the Law/Chaos alignment axis. -Shadow Mage
Verelor 06-27-06, 03:44 PM	You are seriously reading too far into this...
shadow mage 06-27-06, 03:54 PM	Not at all. Justice has been mentioned in various instances and examples throughout this thread, and clarification was necessary after an erroneous post. It's not nit-picking, but it's helping those who want to use it in its proper context (justice being reactive, as opposed to proactive). -Shadow Mage
Sunrider 06-27-06, 05:28 PM	Lawful, yes. Non-good?....well not by what the PHB and BoED calls 'good'. All the examples were of someone punishing an evil tyrant because of their evil acts. The LG entry in the PHB says that such a character "hates to see the guilty go unpunished.", so apparently seeing the guilty be punished is inline with being lawfuly good. Not quite. A LG character hates to see the guilty go unpunished because they are guilty, not because they are evil - he or she would just as soon punish a CN or CG thief stealing for survival as a LE executioner working for an tyrannical regime. In contrast, a NG character probably couldn't care less if the CN character stole, so long as the stealing wasn't hurting or oppressing anyone - despite it being illegal, if stealing was necessary, either as an action of survival or as a mechanism by which the CN character was helping someone else (for good ends), the NG character wouldn't care too much. The mass-executioner working for the tyrant (and enjoying his genocidal work), however, would really get on the NG character's nerves, since he's the antithesis of all that is good. A LN character (as in, the 'must obey laws' type, not the 'self-disciplined monk' type - which is another big problem with the C-L axis which I won't go into here), on the other hand, would like to see the thief punished because she's stealing, and stealing is against the law. The fact that she is stealing for survival may be a mitigating factor, but, in the eyes of such a character, she is still breaking the law and must be punished. The executioner, on the other hand, wouldn't be considered deserving of punishment, since, even though he is committing evil deeds, he has every right to do so, since that's what he was mandated to do (I'm talking about true, impartial LN here, not the 'LG-but-can't-be-bothered-doing-too-much-good type of LN). Thus, the 'hates to see the guilty go unpunished' part is due to the Lawful part of the LG alignment. The 'Good' part of a LG character (just as with a NG or CG character) is purely about altruism, helping people, etc., with no desire to inflict punishment on others - they fight, and sometimes kill, evildoers in order to protect innocent life and relieve the suffering of innocents, not because they enjoy killing and/or punishing people.
Sunrider 06-27-06, 05:39 PM	Though heretic and sunrider've hit the nail on the head, I'd like to expand the original post's topic slightly and address something else I've read here. While good characters are (universally) altruistic and compassionate (regardless of society norms/social standards), they are certainly not the only ones doing "good" in the world. Neutral characters can be working for the greater good as well, as can evil characters even. The latter example I've even seen in a campaign, where a paladin and blackguard were in the party and, while despising each other, both had ultimately the same goals, simply very different approaches to realizing them (in this case, seeing to the downfall of a church organization that literally mind-wiped its members for ultimate loyalty, which both characters viewed as oppression). The reason I address the fact that good characters aren't the only ones spreading good is to muddy up the perceptions of the listed alignments. A soldier, uncaring and callous, might be specifically trained as a special-ops agent and think nothing more of it than it being his job/duty. His comrade, identically trained, could be much more idealistic and devout in his belief that he is working for a greater good. A third soldier in this same training group could actually enjoy "the hunt" and take pleasure in the amount of prowess he possesses. A neutral, a good, and an evil example, all trained assassins. But, according to the "evil only/must kill" requirement, only one could be an Assassin as per the DMG, despite all recieving identical training (hence, the very argument we've been discussing in various levels of detail). The above examples are relevant in the real world as well, which is why I used them. We all have heard of or know the soldier who's in the military 'just because', the one who's in there to 'support a cause', and the one who 'just likes blowing things up' or who 'hates the enemy'. More food for thought, and I believe further proof that the alignment restriction on the Assassin prestige class is unneeded. Shall I ask fellow C.O. board frequenters if there are mechanical advantages to being neutral or good as well? -Shadow Mage Well, obviously anyone can perform self-sacrificing actions that protect innocent people, relieve suffering, etc., just as anyone can perform self-serving actions that kill innocent people, cause suffering, etc. These actions alone, however, don't make a person good or evil. What makes the person good or evil is why they're doing it. To use the military example (and ignoring the Chaos-Law axis for a moment, since it's not the topic of this debate), a Good military secret agent would do what she does, including assassinating tyrants, because it protects innocent life, relieves suffering, etc. A Neutral secret agent would do so because it serves the interests of her country, pays well, because the enemy killed her brother, etc. - she doesn't enjoy killing for killing's sake, but her primary motivations are not Good either. An evil secret agent may simply enjoy hunting down and killing people, regardless of who they are - doing it as an operative for the military simply legitimises his 'hobby', giving him a constant supply of targets and weapons, as well as an immunity from prosecution for killing people. All three are performing acts that lead to Good (protection of innocents, relief of suffering, etc.) and all three are performing the same physical acts (assassinating tyrants/dictators/SS commanders/Nazis/whatever), but they are of different alignments because of their reasons for doing what they do.
GhostStepper 06-27-06, 06:16 PM	A LG character hates to see the guilty go unpunished because they are guilty, not because they are evil - he or she would just as soon punish a CN or CG thief stealing for survival as a LE executioner working for an tyrannical regime. I said that the tyrant commited evil acts, and the chacters were inflicting because he was guilty of commiting evil acts. I didnt say they did because the tyrant was evil, but because he commited evil acts. Are you saying that commiting evil acts is different than being guilty? Thus, the 'hates to see the guilty go unpunished' part is due to the Lawful part of the LG alignment. I didnt say it wasnt lawful, and i the last post in which i replied to use specifically said it was lawful. I just said that according to the PHB, punishment is apparenlty ok for LG characters. The 'Good' part of a LG character (just as with a NG or CG character) is purely about altruism, helping people, etc., with no desire to inflict punishment on others - So they dont inflict punishment and yet it specifically says they hate to see the guilty go unpunished. Your contradicting the PHB entry on LG. they fight, and sometimes kill, evildoers in order to protect innocent life and relieve the suffering of innocents, not because they enjoy killing and/or punishing people. I never said they enjoyed the act of killing and/or punishing people. "Hating to see the guilty go unpunished" clearly shows that a lawful good character thinks that punishing the guilty is the right thing to do regardless of how much joy they do or do not get out of such actions.
Vestigial_Thumb 06-27-06, 06:31 PM	Are you saying that commiting evil acts is different than being guilty? I'd agree with him on that. 'Guilty' is a legal term. If an evil act is legal, then you're not guilty. That doesn't mean that a Lawful Good character won't try to stop you if you're hurting someone.
Sunrider 06-27-06, 06:35 PM	I said that the tyrant commited evil acts, and the chacters were inflicting because he was guilty of commiting evil acts. I didnt say they did because the tyrant was evil, but because he commited evil acts. Are you saying that commiting evil acts is different than being guilty? Guilty of what? Guilty of committing evil acts, certainly. Guilty of crimes in the eyes of the law? Not necessarily. A Nazi death camp commandant has committed a grave act of evil. He is not, however, guilty of transgressing any law (at least, any law existent in Germany at the time). In contrast, a Jew who wasn't wearing a yellow Star of David had, was, at the time, guilty of a transgression of the law. He or she, wouldn't have, however, committed an evil act. So, yes, committing evil acts is different from being guilty of a crime. Criminal acts are not necessarily evil. Evil acts are not necessarily criminal. Lawful characters (the 'law-enforcing' type, not the 'self-disciplined' type) punish transgressors of the law, since they see it as defiance of societal ideals. Good characters oppose and may even kill evildoers - not as punishment, but in order to protect the lives and alleviate the suffering of innocents. Lawful Good characters simply happen to do both. I didnt say it wasnt lawful, and i the last post in which i replied to use specifically said it was lawful. I just said that according to the PHB, punishment is apparenlty ok for LG characters. The term 'punishment' is used rather loosely here. LG characters (at least those with an equal measure of L and G, and, in this case, I'm talking about 'lawful' as in 'upholding the law', not just 'disciplined') punish those who transgress the law, since it's against the law - that's the lawful side of things. At the same time, they also oppose evildoers, possibly even killing them, but do so not necessarily as a form of punishment (since they may have conducted evil acts within the bounds of the law) but in order to protect the lives and relieve the suffering of innocent people - that's the good side of things. So they dont inflict punishment and yet it specifically says they hate to see the guilty go unpunished. Your contradicting the PHB entry on LG. They punish people who transgress the law (whether this means administering a fine, or worse). At the same time, they oppose, possibly kill, those who commit evil acts against innocent people, in order to protect innocent people from death and/or suffering - not to punish, but to protect. Many evil people transgress the law - LG characters hate seeing these people go unpunished, targeting them over and above other law-breakers, since they both break the law and bring death and suffering to innocent people. There's nothing contradictory there. I never said they enjoyed the act of killing and/or punishing people. "Hating to see the guilty go unpunished" clearly shows that a lawful good character thinks that punishing the guilty is the right thing to do regardless of how much joy they do or do not get out of such actions. Again, refer to the meaning of the word 'guilty'. It's not synonymous with 'evil'. Plus, it's the 'lawful' side that punishes; the 'good' side seeks to protect innocents and alleviate suffering, without regard for punishment. Remember, lawful characters are lawful as well as good. - therefore, they do both. Edit: Added a full stop.
Sunrider 06-27-06, 06:39 PM	I'd agree with him on that. 'Guilty' is a legal term. If an evil act is legal, then you're not guilty. That doesn't mean that a Lawful Good character won't try to stop you if you're hurting someone. That's because the LG character is also Good - Good people actively seek to protect innocents (if it's within their capability), so this means stopping evildoers from hurting them. A good person will try to stop an evil person from hurting innocents, but that would be for the purposes of protecting innocent people, not punishing the evildoer. If the good person is also lawful (of the 'uphold-the-law' variety, not the 'disciplined' variety) and the evildoer is breaking the law, then it's a different matter - in that case, it's both a matter of protecting the innocent from an evildoer and punishing a criminal for breaking the law. And please stop referring to me as 'him'...
Vestigial_Thumb 06-27-06, 06:56 PM	That's because the LG character is also Good - Good people actively seek to protect innocents (if it's within their capability), so this means stopping evildoers from hurting them. A good person will try to stop an evil person from hurting innocents, but that would be for the purposes of protecting innocent people, not punishing the evildoer. If the good person is also lawful (of the 'uphold-the-law' variety, not the 'disciplined' variety) and the evildoer is breaking the law, then it's a different matter - in that case, it's both a matter of protecting the innocent from an evildoer and punishing a criminal for breaking the law. That's the one. And please stop referring to me as 'him'... D'oh! How long have I been doing that? Sorry, I have a tendency to get carried away. :weep:
GhostStepper 06-27-06, 07:51 PM	Guilty of what? Guilty of committing evil acts, certainly. Guilty of crimes in the eyes of the law? Not necessarily. The LG character punishes they guilty. If he punishes an evil tyrant because he commited evil acts. Regardless of whether he is 'legally' guilty, it doesnt matter since you yourself admit that he can be guilty of something without being legally guilty. Furthermore it never distiguishes in the PHB between "hates seeing those guilty of crimes go unpunished" and "thos guilty of evil which may or may not be illegal". Also remember that a paladin can follow his own code which may deem anyone commiting evil acts to be 'guilty' regardless of whether such actions are illegal. In the end, just because the tyrant may not be guilty of a legal crime he can still be guilty of evil. Thus, a paladin or other LG can punish the tyrant for being guilty without it being an illegal act, according to the PHB entry for lawful good. A Nazi death camp commandant has committed a grave act of evil. He is not, however, guilty of transgressing any law (at least, any law existent in Germany at the time). And yet in your oppening line you admited that the evil tyrant was 'guilty' of evil acts. You said: "Guilty of committing evil acts, certainly." So clearly it doesnt matter if its legal or not if the LG character finds the nazi to be guilty of evil. So, yes, committing evil acts is different from being guilty of a crime. I dont see are you trying to make this point. I never agrued that commiting evil acts was necessarily identical to being guilty of a crime. All i assumed was the if you commit and evil act your are clearly 'guilty' of commiting and evil act. Criminal acts are not necessarily evil. Evil acts are not necessarily criminal. Lawful characters (the 'law-enforcing' type, not the 'self-disciplined' type) punish transgressors of the law, since they see it as defiance of societal ideals. Or they can punish based on their personal code. Notice that the paladin's code is more restricive than some legal codes. A paladin doesnt need someone to be legally guilty of a crime to punish them for being guilty of an evil act. Sure its lawful that they punish the guilty, but there is no requirement that the guilt be legal and not just moral guilt. Good characters oppose and may even kill evildoers - not as punishment, but in order to protect the lives and alleviate the suffering of innocents. Lawful Good characters simply happen to do both. But they obviously do punish the guilty. It doesnt say this guilt has be legal, indeed it can be moral since you yourself pointed out that you can be 'guilty' of commiting an evil act. The term 'punishment' is used rather loosely here. LG characters (at least those with an equal measure of L and G, and, in this case, I'm talking about 'lawful' as in 'upholding the law', not just 'disciplined') And nowhere does it say that an LG (other than the paladin of course) has to uphold the law of land over his own personal code, but your arguement ignores this. In fact an LG character can have a personal code that "its wrong to kill", then punish anyone guilty of breaking this code and still be perfectly inline with the LG description/ punish those who transgress the law, since it's against the law Or punish those who are guilty of evil, regardless of whether it is against the law, because their personal code involves the concept that doing evil is always wrong. - that's the lawful side of things. At the same time, they also oppose evildoers, possibly even killing them, but do so not necessarily as a form of punishment (since they may have conducted evil acts within the bounds of the law) but in order to protect the lives and relieve the suffering of innocent people - that's the good side of things. The PHB does not make this distiction. It dosent say that the local law trumps the LG character's personal code if that code involves punishing evil. Their own code could be "doing evil is wrong and that whoever commits evil acts is guilty". This is, in no way contradicted by the PHB. They punish people who transgress the law (whether this means administering a fine, or worse). You said at the begining that the tyrant was guilty of commiting evil acts. You then made the point that commiting evil acts is not always against the law. Obviously it follows that you can be guilty without breaking the law. The LG entry makes no distiction between legal and moral guilt, thus an LG could punish those who are guilty in either sense of the word and it still fits with the description of what it means to be LG. At the same time, they oppose, possibly kill, those who commit evil acts against innocent people, in order to protect innocent people from death and/or suffering - not to punish, but to protect. But it deffinately implies that they so punish those who are guilty. Those you commit evil act are guilty of commiting evil acts. Thus, an LG CAN punish those who are guilty of commitin evil acts. Again, refer to the meaning of the word 'guilty'. It's not synonymous with 'evil'. At the begining of this you said this: "Guilty of committing evil acts, certainly." Refering to the evil tyrant. Since you pointed out that you can commit evil acts and be guilty when it is not necessarily against the law, then its clear that 'guilty' is not necessarily the same thing as 'legal guilty'.
Sunrider 06-27-06, 08:29 PM	By 'guilty of transgression of the law', I meant the law to which the LG character subscribes himself or herself (be that a rigid personal code, a church edict, international law or whatever), not necessarily the law of the land. The 'law of the land' (provided it is compatible with the LG alignment) is merely a convenient example to use for the purposes of argument; one could just as easily use the Geneva Convention, the paladin's code or any number of other codes of conduct as an example of a code a LG character seeks to uphold (including punishing those who transgress it, assuming the code provides for the punishment of transgressors). A LG character seeks to punish those who transgress the code, law or set of precepts to which he or she subscribes (provided the code is compatible with a LG alignment; if it isn't, then the character probably isn't LG), while seeking to protect innocents from harm by evil characters. The 'good' part of their alignment comes from the fact that they protect innocents and display altruism and self-sacrifice. The 'lawful' part comes from the fact that they adhere to a rigid code of conduct and expect others to do the same (although that's just one type of lawful - you also have the 'monk'-type, highly self-disciplined lawful) - it is this part which behoves Lawful Good characters to punish those who transgress their code. Now, it may be the case that being evil is against the LG character's 'code' and, therefore, be deserving of punishment. For example, although evil may be a direct affront to the paladin's code (and therefore punishable), it is the Lawful aspect of the paladin that drives her to punish evildoers - not for being evil per se, but because the evildoer has transgressed the paladin's LG code. In other words, ultimately, it is the transgression of the paladin's code, not the fact that the person being punished is evil, that drives the paladin to punish him or her, even if 'being evil' is seen as a transgression of the code. It is for this reason that the paladin would equally punish a non-evil thief, since stealing is also a transgression of the paladin's code. The 'good' part merely seeks to protect innocents, opposing and killing evildoers if required, but doing so in order to protect innocents, not to punish them for being/doing evil. The drive to 'punish' comes from the Lawful side of things - many Lawful codes prescribe punishment for transgression of that code, and followers of the code seek to carry out such punishments (on the other hand, a different Lawful person's code may not require punishment at all). If 'being evil' is seen as a transgression, the LG character would seek to punish people for that, just as he or she would punish someone for stealing (if stealing is also a transgression of the code); the punishments may differ (after all, codes of law tend to prescribe different punishments for different transgressions), but, the fact remains that the LG character would punish both - not for 'being evil' or 'stealing', but for transgressing the code/law/set of precepts. The Good side of things doesn't seek to punish at all - ('oppose' and 'kill' are not the same thing as 'punish' - a CG character may oppose and kill evildoers, but does so to liberate people (C) and alleviate suffering (G), rather than to punish them for doing evil); this is one of the reasons that NG and CG characters (or TN, CN, NE and CE characters, for that matter) don't have 'punishment' or 'retribution' anywhere in their descriptions. In other words, one LG character may punish Nazis for being evil, since 'being evil' is a transgression of the code to which they subscribe (he or she is not punishing Nazis because they're evil per se, but because they've transgressed the code by being evil). Hence, he or she may be fighting Nazis to protect the innocent, but, at the same time, seeking to punish them for being evil. Another LG character may fight Nazis at every level, killing them and continually foiling their plans, but does so in order to protect those the Nazis are persecuting/killing/making suffer, not to punish them (since merely 'being evil' doesn't violate their code - after all not all LG characters are paladins). Two completely different concepts, merged only by the fact that 'being evil' may, in itself, be a transgression of (some) codes followed by LG characters (be it a Lawful code, a Good code or a Lawful Good code).
GhostStepper 06-27-06, 08:57 PM	In other words, one LG character may punish Nazis for being evil, since 'being evil' is a transgression of the code to which they subscribe So then when i say "Bob uses item X to inflict pain and suffering on an evil tyrant because of his evil acts" and the tyrant is a nazi, this is not automatically an evil act as you said when you first responded to this statement, as he could be lawful good and is punishing the tyrant for being guilty of evil acts.
Sunrider 06-27-06, 09:18 PM	So then when i say "Bob uses item X to inflict pain and suffering on an evil tyrant because of his evil acts" and the tyrant is a nazi, this is not automatically an evil act as you said when you first responded to this statement, as he could be lawful good and is punishing the tyrant for being guilty of evil acts. You may say that Bob is Lawful Good (and, indeed, his overall alignment may be LG), but using item X for the primary purpose of inflicting pain and suffering is an evil act, while using item X for the primary purpose of punishing someone for transgressing a code is a lawful act (not all punishment involves pain and suffering...). Not that using Item X in itself is evil or lawful, mind you, merely that using it with the primary intention of causing pain and suffering is evil, while using it with the primary intention of inflicting punishment is lawful. If Bob really were LG (and still performed the same action), his motives could be one of the following: a) To punish the tyrant for his transgressions of the (lawful) code to which Bob subscribes, since that particular code denotes 'being evil' as a transgression of the code (a Lawful response) b) To eliminate the tyrant and end his reign of terror (a Good response, provided that item X was used to actually eliminate/bring down the tyrant, not to 'punish' or harm him afterwards, if he was captured alive and taken prisoner) c) Both 'a' and 'b' (a Lawful and Good response) Using Item X with the prime intention being the inflicting of pain and suffering is an Evil act; using it with the intention of inflicting pain and suffering for the purposes of punishment is both an Evil and Lawful act (a paladin smiting Evil opponents doesn't fall into the same category, since she is 'punishing' them for a transgression of her code, as well as killing them to protect innocent people, but isn't smiting them for the expressed purpose of inflicting pain and suffering). And, no, Bob wouldn't be punishing the tyrant for being 'guilty of evil acts'. He's punishing the tyrant for transgressing his personal code; performing evil acts just happens to be one such transgression. He's not punishing the act - he's punishing the transgression. Which is exactly how the law works (and how some criminal defence lawyers make a living - by making out that an act isn't a transgression of the law). A subtle, but important, difference.
GhostStepper 06-27-06, 09:26 PM	You may say that Bob is Lawful Good (and, indeed, his overall alignment may be LG), but using item X for the primary purpose of inflicting pain and suffering is an evil act, while using item X for the primary purpose of punishing someone for transgressing a code is a lawful act (not all punishment involves pain and suffering...). Not that using Item X in itself is evil or lawful, mind you, merely that using it with the primary intention of causing pain and suffering is evil, while using it with the primary intention of inflicting punishment is lawful. You have to realize that i was agruing in a context with belthezzar and was using the BoED' precedent that 'pain and suffering' is ok to deal out if you use a ravage to do so, and that this would be no more good or evil than using item Y or item Z which are poisons or swords. My point was that if you are assuming its a non-evil act to deal and pain and suffering with a ravage then it is non-evil to do so with some other random implement. I wasnting even trying to argue that inflicting pain and suffering in and of itself was good or evil,.
Sunrider 06-27-06, 09:33 PM	That's why I said 'item X' rather than 'poison', 'sword', 'ravage' or 'ball of bat guano and sulfur'. Because, in the end, it doesn't matter which one you use (both by logic and by RAW) - use it for evil purposes and it's an evil act, use it for good purposes and it's a good act. I think we're together on that one...
GhostStepper 06-27-06, 09:51 PM	That's why I said 'item X' rather than 'poison', 'sword', 'ravage' or 'ball of bat guano and sulfur'. Because, in the end, it doesn't matter which one you use (both by logic and by RAW) - use it for evil purposes and it's an evil act, use it for good purposes and it's a good act. I think we're together on that one... Thats the exact point that i was trying to make. If using poison is evil because they cause undue pain and suffering then so are swords, holy avengers, fists, fireballs, sneak attacks, billy clubs, high heeled shoes, etc....and anything that has the possibility of causing undue pain and suffering.
Sunrider 06-27-06, 10:02 PM	Except that it's never explicitly stated that poison inflicts physical pain or suffering in their victims, unlike ravages... besides, most poisons aren't painful. Ever seen someone die from kidney failure (basically, a slow death through poisoning), an overdose of barbiturates or an overdose of opioids? Not exactly a painful or unpleasant death (unlike a sword through the gut, or death by immolation). But that's besides the point anyway...
GhostStepper 06-27-06, 10:10 PM	Except that it's never explicitly stated that poison inflicts physical pain or suffering in their victims, unlike ravages... besides, most poisons aren't painful. Ever seen someone die from kidney failure (basically, a slow death through poisoning), an overdose of barbiturates or an overdose of opioids? Not exactly a painful or unpleasant death (unlike a sword through the gut, or death by immolation). But that's besides the point anyway... Ive heard of some poisons that are pretty painful and cause muscle spasms and other crazy stuff. Still i dont know if this is any more painful than getting hacked to pieces, bit by bit with a holy avenger or getting 3rd degree burns all over. But yes there are plenty of non-painful poisons and it makes a lot more sense to think that its more of a good act to use a poison on a creature to make it too weak to fight back and haul it back to the jail than to have to kill it in a slow, drawn out hack and slash.
Sunrider 06-27-06, 10:21 PM	Ive heard of some poisons that are pretty painful and cause muscle spasms and other crazy stuff. Still i dont know if this is any more painful than getting hacked to pieces, bit by bit with a holy avenger or getting 3rd degree burns all over. Getting technical here, but 3rd degree burns are painless, since all the nerve endings are dead. 2nd degree burns, on the other hand... (In any case, nowadays we prefer to classify burns as 'full thickness' or 'partial thickness', rather than 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree) But yes there are plenty of non-painful poisons and it makes a lot more sense to think that its more of a good act to use a poison on a creature to make it too weak to fight back and haul it back to the jail than to have to kill it in a slow, drawn out hack and slash. As before, the act itself is unaligned - one may be more painful than the other, but it's the motive that determines whether one is more 'evil' than the other. Read my previous post on 'idealistic good' versus 'pragmatic good'...
GhostStepper 06-27-06, 10:39 PM	As before, the act itself is unaligned - one may be more painful than the other, but it's the motive that determines whether one is more 'evil' than the other. Read my previous post on 'idealistic good' versus 'pragmatic good'... I agree
Fuzzy_Logic 06-27-06, 11:03 PM	I Think most Lawful Good characters don't perceive themselves as having two separate alignments. rather, to them, Law IS Good, at leas tmost of the time. they DO tend to belive that evil deserves punishment, because to an LG character, evil IS a crime, regardless of what the law says. many, especially paladins, believe in a set of divine laws which supercede mortal laws. similarly, they support laws because they belive laws lead to good. a lawlesas society is always a destructive one, LG believes.
WizO_Shadow 06-27-06, 11:42 PM	Ok. This discussion has been allowed up until this point because while some of the posts were made personal, it was kept pretty civil. However. I am tired of getting reported posts and reading posts that are decent but have a "What the other poster really meant was". "no... that's not what the other poster meant." and then having a theological ethical debate about the meaning of some other user's post and perceptions of alignment. So, here's the *click*. Do not restart the thread. WizO_Shadow