Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Infernostrider 08-21-07, 12:42 PM	this question comes from me as player AND a DM so i guess this is the best place to post it ^^ sorry if i'm wrong; anyway, to business we go. Why are assassins evil? would they not readily accept any well paying job from any benefactor? Ofcourse, murder is considered evil in most cases, especially using some techniques employed by assassins, but assassins can refrain from using some of their skills (like the use of various poisons) and just focus on stealthy kills like a deathstrike or high sneak attack damages. After that being said, only the act of murder, of assassination, can still be considered evil. If, however, the assassin chooses to work for good or neutral aligned people only (for whatever reason, but a good one might be that NE and CE people are too untrustworthy) which would limit the kills he makes, mostly, to neutral and evil people. He is also able to refuse to kill certain targets like good aligned priests or something like that. These 2 considerations might make an assassin at LEAST neutral aligned. in the case where an assignment giver threatens the assassin or his friends if he does not kill a certain person who he would usually refuse to kill, it would be a forced action and an alignment shift could be corrected by atonement spells/quests (ofcourse he is no paladin, so as a neutral char he could care less about dying by good rather then living by evil) This being said, i must note that i don't care about *homebrew* rules, but i want the players' and DMs' opinions about this and to know wether or not they believe this to be true and/or even worth a mention in the DMG (where the assassin is described), that an assassin might be any non good alignment depending on how he is roleplayed thank you for your time, i know i waste it, but i have to do SOMETHING in my spare time ^^ EDIT: i only have access to PHB1, MM1 and DMG1 of D&Dv3.5, and will (someday) buy the 4.0 versions, but aside from core rulebooks i have no idea what the hell everyone is discussing here ^^ further comments will be in regular posts :)
NoirLotus 08-21-07, 01:48 PM	This is not who you kill that makes you evil but the fact of killing for money that is an evil act !! Anyway, there are Prestige Classes similar to assassin that don't require to be evil (Black Flame Zealot can be applied by neutral characters).
1 ton ghost 08-21-07, 01:50 PM	well said to be sure. basically, in all my 3/3.5 campaigns, we ommit the alignment restriction. if you are a contract killer, you have the option to turn down said contract for moral/religious/social/financial reasons. killing for money isn't necessarilly good, but correct me if i'm wrong, most adventurers ARE assassins: you storm into a monsters home, kill it as was the hire by locals/king/etc., steal it's wealth, move on. if that's not a mercenary outlook, what is? we say screw alignment and the guild clause. most intelligent assassins wouldn't want to join a guild anyway (have to kill someone to get in PrC) cuz' that's just more loose ends that can roll over on you for some naughty stuff you've done. they want a cut, and can always sell you out to a higher bidder. no honor amongst thieves and all that. poison i thought was construed as evil. not terribly sure there. depends on target. you poisoning Hitler? drow sleep poison is a favorite and it's only sleep inducing. lot of grey area here. think of it like Hitman (vid game). killing innocent ppl is evil and also unprofessional. less likely to get your next contract for hack jobs, etc. chances are if you're hired to kill someone they've already done something bad to begin with, you are just a facilitator. anyone can be an assassin really, it's just the PrC's prereq's don't make sense in those 2 regards. killing someone for money is your standard wetwork adventure campaign and usually very rewarding/fun. assuming you are evil to do it for a classes sake is wrong. evil is subjective anyway. like religions: 2 paladins from differing faiths are both LG but regard each other as infidels. do you think the jihadis think of themselves as evil? it's all relative. if you don't like the rule, throw it out, but monitor alignment.
IdleAltruism 08-21-07, 05:24 PM	Normally killing other people is an evil act(In D&D killing evil people isn't usually considered evil if you have no other choice). Killing people for money is an evil act and therefore assassins are evil. It doesn't matter if they are doing it for a good cause(evil for good) its still evil. It doesn't matter if the assassin is an all around good guy, he kills people for money and this aspect marks him as evil in D&D. No matter how you try to twist it in D&D terms killing people for money is evil. Thats why assassins have this requirement. Really it makes sense when you think about it. The BoED/BoVD does a good job at explaining the gray areas in D&D(if anything good came out of these two books it was their definitions of alignment and archetypes). To try and include an aspect of life such as alignment in a game is a difficult task and for mechanical purposes D&D did a decent job and is at the very least usable. Having an evil alignment doesn't necessarily make you a psychopath. I think its just hard for many people to understand or accept that they(or people they know etc.) might have evil tendencies(if you translated what D&D would consider evil) which in D&D terms would mark them with an evil alignment and they wouldn't consider them evil. This could work in many ways(with all alignments), but I do believe peoples perception of themselves and those around them leads to a biased and misguided interpretation of the way D&D portrays alignment. The D&D system emphasizes on archetypes in all ways shapes and forms. This includes alignment and because of this it can be difficult to think of alignment as something not set in stone. LE doesn't necessarily mean tyrant that wants to control as much as possible, but the D&D system doesn't do a very good job at explaining how non-archetypicals fit into the scheme of things. It also never really gives good guidelines on alignment with people on the edge of two or more alignments or how the alignments can be changed(probably because mechanically this would be a very biased system). Again evil for good was brought up in the BoVD(I think, I don't have access to my books atm) and really no matter how you look at it, if you do evil things, no matter how good you are in D&D terms this makes you evil. This system works, its simple, and its fairly easy to interpret. And thats why assassins are evil :D
Vharuck 08-21-07, 05:30 PM	Also, the PrC isn't there because "If you're an assassin, this is the levels you take." The Prestige Class is linked to a specific organization, in this case the assassin's guild. Members of this guild get access to this class. The guild is made of evil people, as it was designed for DMs to use as an antagonist. If you want to be an assassin, either talk with your DM about making a non-guilded assassin PrC or (more easily) take levels of Rogue and use poison.
The_Shaman 08-21-07, 05:40 PM	True, very true. What you do - and why you do it the way you do - is more important than who pays you, as far as the alignment goes. Not to mention that any PrC that requires you to kill someone just to join the group will have severe problems qualifying for exalted status. You could be an assassin - more or less - and be non-evil in alignment, but you cannot take levels in the DMG Assassin PrC and be non-evil. Vharuck said it - you can be a rogue 20 and still be the best assassin in the world. Also, there are a plethora of PrCs that give death attack and do not require evil alignment - Shattered Peak Cultist, Dark Hunter, Imaskari Vengeance Taker, Black Flame Zealot, Monk of the Long Death, iirc Slayer of Domiel... You don't really NEED the PrC if you're so worried about your alignment.
Infernostrider 08-22-07, 07:33 AM	valid answers all, and i must admit to not having included the archetypical guild-assassin in the question and just meant an assassin in general. after some more consideration, i'm fairly inclined to believe that assassins that kill indescriminately, for a piece of bread just as easily as for gold (depending on their wealth, maybe) and for every1 who asks (good, evil, who cares) are even more neutral then assassins with a hint of good in them, which kill the rich and not the poor, kill the evil and neutral and let live the good. This conclusion is drawn from the simple fact that assassins are the personification of death itself. When one hears of an assassin coming after oneself, one usually flees, or in case of the more famous assassins, they barricate themselves into a fortress of their own making, living their last days surrounded by walls and "elite" soldiers, living in paranoia. Death itself is as neutral as can be, it discriminates not at all and takes everything that lives. Flowers, grass, trees, all fauna dies. Animals, monsters, humans, all flaura dies. Even gods eventually have to face their maker when some adventurer is out to take their place and kills them, death is ALWAYS waiting for them. The only ones who i have never heard of dying, are Ao and his ilk, but i do imagine those too being immortal only in terms of years and not against the most powerful adventurers (just so little adventurers have heard of those creatures, they don't know that they can even try to kill them, and those who did are too scared to try) So, why? Why in the world would an assassin, a personification of death, be evil? He is a facilitator of death, a non-magical priest of any god representing death in the extreme. Why should he not charge for his actions? Especially looking at him in the light of priest of death, more so of death itself then of the gods representing it (and all know there are several to be named), he should be able to charge for his killings. Why? Because if he hasn't the money to sustain himself (wether in poverty or in luxury is not important) he can't keep on facilitating death. He has to live so he can do his job. i'm kinda busy atm so i might think of other stuff later ^^ thanks for the posting!
The_Shaman 08-22-07, 08:09 AM	At the end of the day, my answer would be: because per the PHB, killing someone for profit or convenience is evil. Personifications of death or other such fluff is irrelevant. 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. Sure, eventually everything dies. However, hurrying this process for your own goals is, per se, an evil act. Circumstances might change that, but killing someone just because someone paid you to would befit an evil character if we go by the PHB/SRD. Also, if someone who is ready to kill anyone for anyone for some matter of compensation is neutral, then pray tell, what is evil in your games?
1 ton ghost 08-22-07, 12:40 PM	first off, alignment is a joke. granted, all RPG's work on jungian archetypes for the most part, but to label eveyrones' moral compass by 9 distinct flavors just doesn't cut it. i know, it's a necessary evil (pardon the pun), but it is not accurately portrayed at all. beyond the law in the real world, it's not something you can nail down easilly on 1 planet. alignment exists mostly for mechanical purposes IMO in game. you gotta determine planar effects, prot. vs. evil, forbiddance, holy/unholy, etc. yet ppl over and over are constantly reinforcing alleged stereotypes and projecting them onto other gamers and their games. not cool. don't ever do this. i mean, 9 types of ppl in the world, c'mon... it's a convenient way to help define gameplay and so forth, but it is terribly unrealistc. i said it before, i'll say it again, good and evil are subjective. plus, we're arguing from a default human 21st century mentality. most ppl want to believe themselves to be a version of Good, lawful to chaotic, which is fine, but when that's your grounding, it taints the perception of everything you see/judge by comparison. you can't really have an accurate debate about good vs. evil when the committee is filled w/ ppl who all are, or think they are all good. no one thinks they are evil. hitler, pol pot, bin laden... they all thought they were serving the greater good. assassins kill ppl for money. admittedly and evil act for the most part, but $ is involved. you have the option to accept or decline/enforce your code of conduct/whatever. consider: The Professional-leon is a hitman, he is a simpleton but generally a decent man. ultimately concedes to natalie portman and even grooms her to be his assassin protege', but he's still a killer. does this make him evil. apart from his rather simplified code, "no women, no kids.", is he evil? any Bond movie-he assassinates regularly but this is namely for the state. alot could be said here. is he evil? La Femme Nikita or Point of No Return-another government assassin. starts off as a violent criminal/junkie, reformed to professional killer. is she evil? i could go on and on and i know these may not be good examples, but it's terribly open-ended. it's like the Bible, many interpret the commandment to its root Aramaic to, "thou shalt not murder (not kill)." are they just justifying a violent life? does accepting a contract to kill an evil tyrant count as evil? suddenly ppl are going, "no, he's evil, he should be removed." but when it's a goodly king, it's insidious. $ is $ all in all. as for the class itself, assassin having an evil prerequisite seems off. granted, leveling and probably doing some morally reprehensible things will probably make you evil, but kicking it of LE/NE/CE is foolish. as is a contract killing just to "join the frat". most assassins would never do this. why split the profits? the goal is to remain anonymous to begin with. this clearly jeopardizes that underworld ideal. ppl just like the idea of a group of antagonists and the age-old dymanic of a group of evil rogues...or a cabal of evil mages, or a cult of evil clerics, etc. see a pattern forming here? granted you are not recommended to play evil PCs, but we're adults, well, those that qualify anyway, and if you're capable of running a mature game, go for it. like all these threads here, if you don't like the rule, change it, just don't expect everyone to fall in line. simply arguing partyline that all assassins (class) are evil and must join a guild is ridiculous and more than a little pompous if not unrealistic. there's a reason it's such a popular PrC to begin w/. the actions make you evil, not the class. i'm sure there are plenty of necromancers that are terribly skilled surgeons and bastions against the undead...just most aren't.
Infernostrider 08-22-07, 04:26 PM	i think, i games i DM, i'll take alignment a bit more loosely then the archetypes of the phb, but we'll see what'll my DM in the current campaign will do after i talked to him ^^
Mojo_Rat 08-22-07, 04:57 PM	In Reference to Bonde. My Understanding is that if you go by the Ian Flemming novels bond is very much more an emotionless cold blooded thug. If you use the more recent Casino royale remake which is considered much truer to the books this is much more in evidence. Thing is Murder is murder. If somone is a power mad merchant crushing his enemies economically but who is still obeying all the laws of the land Taking a contract to kill him even if likely 'good' in the moral sense is still from D&D's aligment point of view cold blooded murder. Ans as one of the previous points of view is presented this is really a prestige class representing an asassins guild member.
The_Shaman 08-22-07, 05:21 PM	"assassins kill ppl for money. admittedly and evil act for the most part, but $ is involved. you have the option to accept or decline/enforce your code of conduct/whatever. consider: The Professional-leon is a hitman, he is a simpleton but generally a decent man. ultimately concedes to natalie portman and even grooms her to be his assassin protege', but he's still a killer. does this make him evil. apart from his rather simplified code, "no women, no kids.", is he evil? any Bond movie-he assassinates regularly but this is namely for the state. alot could be said here. is he evil? La Femme Nikita or Point of No Return-another government assassin. starts off as a violent criminal/junkie, reformed to professional killer. is she evil?" Sure, accepting or declining some offers and not others would probably determine an assassin's alignment. As for the three examples, the first two would probably be LE or LN (depending on how descriminating they are towards their targets or how noble their goals). By going by a purist definition, Leon would be a coin toss, probably inching towards evil. Sure, he is an honest man - but that does not mean he's a good one. I haven't watched the original LFM/PNR, so I can't comment. As for Bond... I've come upon some of the older Ian Fleming books, and they make a point about him being far from a saint as well - I think adjectives such as cold and cruel were sometimes used about him. Remember, in most settings, probably over 20% of the human demographics are composed of "evil" characters. Hence, one does not imo have to be a demon-worshiping blackguard to be of evil alignment - they are people like the rest, just the more heartless, abusive, and/or mean stratum. While I admit that assassins could, very very rarely, have better motives, it takes a certain kind of man or woman to walk up towards a stranger and slit his throat for a few gold coins. "i could go on and on and i know these may not be good examples, but it's terribly open-ended. it's like the Bible, many interpret the commandment to its root Aramaic to, "thou shalt not murder (not kill)." are they just justifying a violent life? does accepting a contract to kill an evil tyrant count as evil? suddenly ppl are going, "no, he's evil, he should be removed." but when it's a goodly king, it's insidious. $ is $ all in all." TBH, if a character goes on an assassination mission only for the money, I would be inclined to consider him evil or at least non-good, regardless of whom he goes out to murder. Avarice is seldom a virtue in any society, after all. As for who is hurt or killed, that is not the end-all factor in alignment discussions - evil characters can hurt each other without any of them becoming any better (Blood War, anyone?). Plus, an evil character might - accidentally or not - further a good cause, and vice versa, he will just do it for his own motives. Not everyone perceives themselves as taking part in some galactic-spanning fight between good and evil - most just do what feels right to them at the time and seldom think that much of the far-reaching results. That aside, imo a good character is very careful to judge when force, particularly lethal force, is necessary. Circumstances matter, but genocide is a decidedly non-good act in my book, tbh. "simply arguing partyline that all assassins (class) are evil and must join a guild is ridiculous and more than a little pompous if not unrealistic. there's a reason it's such a popular PrC to begin w/. the actions make you evil, not the class. i'm sure there are plenty of necromancers that are terribly skilled surgeons and bastions against the undead...just most aren't." As I think I pointed out a while ago, assassin-ish characters need not have even 1 level of the DMG Assassin PrC. Just like you don't need 1 level of the CAdv ninja class to be a ninja, or even 1 level of bard to call yourself - and be - one. If you like the mechanics of the DMG Assassin, you can just change the fluff. Failing that, tell me what features you want, and I can try to make you a build to rival the DMG PrC. Just because the DMG prestige class portrays an assassin acting as a hitman for a thieves' guild or something similar does not mean that everyone who wants to know how to kill with stealth should sign up for a thieves' guild. At the end of all, one IS allowed to play an evil character. In fact, one of the less-known facts about these alignments are that eating babies and dissecting cute puppies are merely optional. Just because character X is evil does not mean s/he has to be unable to work in a team of adventurers.
lint trap 08-22-07, 05:28 PM	Assassins don't have to be evil. If they're not evil, they're called Avengers (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a).
Vharuck 08-22-07, 05:49 PM	Assassin's aren't death personified, and death itself is not neutral. Death is an abstract thought. The god of death in D&D is only neutral because he oversees death. Death happens, and he tends to it. Here's an analogy: I work in a warehouse full of pottery. On a daily basis, pieces of pottery are broken. They're so fragile it's just an inevitability. If I find a piece of broken pottery, or accidentally break a piece of pottery, I must fill out a form that goes to the people keeping track of inventory. But I'm not punished; if I found it, I would have done nothing wrong. If I accidentally broke it (assuming I don't have too many accidents), punishing me won't prevent accidents from happening since I never choose to allow them to occur (then it's not an accident). However, if I were to entertain myself (I can't gain income, so I'll gain enjoyment) by breaking the pottery, using "But pottery will break everyday anyways" doesn't exactly get me off the hook. Broken pottery is a bad thing for us. Death is a bad thing for living creatures. However, it's inevitable; this does not make it good. You are causing a bad thing to happen to somebody else by a purposeful choice, and only so that a good thing happens to you. Evil.
Lorindale 08-22-07, 05:58 PM	If a Paladin kills an ogre and loots its hoard then is that Paladin not killing for money? The basic actions of most adventuring parties (kill monsters and take their stuff) is murderous, that a prestige class requires a character to be "evil" is, I think, more a testament to the limitations of alignment descriptors than any real moral judgment. I don't see why Assassins need to be evil either, any of the non-good alignments would seem to work just as well and allow for a greater variety of character concepts.
The_Shaman 08-22-07, 06:06 PM	Sometimes, the end effect is similar, but as I said, motivations matter. If a paladin is told that an ogre bandit is terrorizing a village, then goes forth and slays it, it is not an evil act - s/he was not acting merely out of greed, but out of concern for the society. If the ogre has some treasure, the paladin can choose to take it - although the best choice would be to make sure at least some of it ends in the hands of its original owners or their descendents. However, if the paladin starts killing ogres for no other reason than to take their treasure, it would probably be evil. Likewise, while many characters can use stealth and guile to kill their enemies, not everyone needs to be evil. Those who need no other motivation than gold to embark on a mission to kill someone, however, would most likely be of evil alignment - other alignments might allow killing, sure, but not for the same reasons.
Vharuck 08-22-07, 06:08 PM	If a Paladin kills an ogre and loots its hoard then is that Paladin not killing for money? The basic actions of most adventuring parties (kill monsters and take their stuff) is murderous, that a prestige class requires a character to be "evil" is, I think, more a testament to the limitations of alignment descriptors than any real moral judgment. I don't see why Assassins need to be evil either, any of the non-good alignments would seem to work just as well and allow for a greater variety of character concepts. Okay, you've now hit a nerve with the system. Murder is bad, but adventuring is the point of the game. However, most times adventurers are not assumed to be "kill on sight" slaughter machines. The paladin example is flawed. It states A occurred (paladin kills ogre) and B occurred (paladin loots ogre). But you can't say that A and B were both directly caused by C (paladin wants ogre's stuff). Maybe the ogre attacked the paladin. Maybe the ogre was evil and ransacked neighboring villages (and the paladin really has no hope of converting the evil ogre to hug bunnies and give kisses, and imprisoning it for life would be a crueler punishment than death, so killing evil is okay). If the paladin just saw shiny objects, wanted shiny objects, and shanked a flower-hugging LG ogre who happened to be carrying those desired shiny objects, then that's evil. Also, adventurers kill monsters (and evil NPCs because they're really evil). Assassins kill whomever somebody else with a sack of money asks (they may say "No women and children" but they still kill adult men). The mechanics could be copied and applied to something else. However, an assassin of the assassin's guild is evil.
IdleAltruism 08-22-07, 07:24 PM	first off, alignment is a joke. granted, all RPG's work on jungian archetypes for the most part, but to label eveyrones' moral compass by 9 distinct flavors just doesn't cut it. i know, it's a necessary evil (pardon the pun), but it is not accurately portrayed at all. beyond the law in the real world, it's not something you can nail down easilly on 1 planet. Actually you're wrong on this. The archetypes are there as an example of what properties the alignment contains. Flavor wise just about anyone could fit into this system, its just tricky to figure out where they fit. It actually is pretty easy to "nail down" it just doesn't give to many options(which is good imo, the simpler the better for this sort of thing). Like I said before it can be tricky to grasp the alignment concept in this game. yet ppl over and over are constantly reinforcing alleged stereotypes and projecting them onto other gamers and their games. not cool. don't ever do this. i mean, 9 types of ppl in the world, c'mon... Again the archetypes are just guidelines, to take them as the only way would be as you said "not cool". Stereotypes are very useful, but as we can see in our own world, if not used properly they may become corrupt. plus, we're arguing from a default human 21st century mentality. This is irrelevant. most ppl want to believe themselves to be a version of Good, lawful to chaotic, which is fine, but when that's your grounding, it taints the perception of everything you see/judge by comparison. you can't really have an accurate debate about good vs. evil when the committee is filled w/ ppl who all are, or think they are all good. no one thinks they are evil. hitler, pol pot, bin laden... they all thought they were serving the greater good. I agree with you for the most part, but I think you chose poor examples. You chose people who are obviously evil. Its easy to compare yourself to someone who takes "evil" to the extreme and come out thinking you are good because you're not that evil. The Professional-leon is a hitman, he is a simpleton but generally a decent man. ultimately concedes to natalie portman and even grooms her to be his assassin protege', but he's still a killer. does this make him evil. apart from his rather simplified code, "no women, no kids.", is he evil? any Bond movie-he assassinates regularly but this is namely for the state. alot could be said here. is he evil? La Femme Nikita or Point of No Return-another government assassin. starts off as a violent criminal/junkie, reformed to professional killer. is she evil? i could go on and on and i know these may not be good examples, but it's terribly open-ended. it's like the Bible, many interpret the commandment to its root Aramaic to, "thou shalt not murder (not kill)." are they just justifying a violent life? I have to disagree with you on all of your points here. I think one of the major problems here is your examples are all fictional characters, which doesn't count for much when trying to compare to real life alignments. They actually weaken your argument quite a bit by giving examples of evil characters. Being a nice guy or doing something for "the greater good" doesn't make you good(this is D&D terms, real life alignment is out for interpretation and this is not the thread for that). I think it is safer to think of alignment as a characters core, not the actions they take. To think of a good character as good because good drives them and influences them to act a certain way. A good character might do something evil and they may feel terrible about it(this could end up changing their alignment) but this doesn't make them inherently evil or instantly change their alignment. Think about how traumatic an event would have to be and how long after said event it would take to actually change an alignment. [B][does accepting a contract to kill an evil tyrant count as evil? suddenly ppl are going, "no, he's evil, he should be removed." but when it's a goodly king, it's insidious. $ is $ all in all. Actually it would probably be considered evil. It kind of goes against the goodytooshoes approach to things. But we have already established hiring yourself out to kill people good or bad is an evil act. as for the class itself, assassin having an evil prerequisite seems off. granted, leveling and probably doing some morally reprehensible things will probably make you evil, but kicking it of LE/NE/CE is foolish. as is a contract killing just to "join the frat". most assassins would never do this. why split the profits? the goal is to remain anonymous to begin with. this clearly jeopardizes that underworld ideal. ppl just like the idea of a group of antagonists and the age-old dymanic of a group of evil rogues...or a cabal of evil mages, or a cult of evil clerics, etc. see a pattern forming here? Actually it makes more sense then you give credit. An assassin or thieves guild makes plenty of sense in heavily populated places. The amount of clerics/wizards/rogues hell anyone(of various levels) that could be hired to track down wood-be assassins and thieves in such places are very high. Forming a guild for underhanded activities makes sense in the fantasy setting. In the real world, its alot harder for someone to find you, in D&D however its a simple task and its relatively cheap. So for protection, regulations(organized crime is usually alot more successful then going solo and rules help to keep things manageable), and reliable income are just a few reasons to join such a guild. Not to mention not many 1st level rogues would survive in a metropolis with a few decently high level guards. simply arguing partyline that all assassins (class) are evil and must join a guild is ridiculous and more than a little pompous if not unrealistic. there's a reason it's such a popular PrC to begin w/. the actions make you evil, not the class. i'm sure there are plenty of necromancers that are terribly skilled surgeons and bastions against the undead...just most aren't. Again I have to disagree with you. It makes perfect sense as to why the evil requirement is there. As for the guild thing, again it makes sense. The class itself is a specific PrC designed for one thing. If you want to play the assassin archetype(hired killer) you are free to do so without the class. But the class itself is designed a specific way for specific reasons. One simple thing is its to easy to kill a lone assassin. It may seem like a sort of glamorous job but in reality trying to not get caught in the D&D systems would be extremely difficult as a low-mid level. Joining a guild makes sense, they can provide a modest amount of protection at least and make things simpler for the assassin trying to do business(trying to find work in a territory that may already contain a guild could be problematic). Not everyone is an assassin, there aren't that many floating around. If they all unionized and you're one of the few that didn't life's going to be rough for you(whether or not its safer joining the guild or retiring is up to your DM). I can't really see assassinations being so common that a guild would let a rogue killer get away with taking their business. If a campaign setting deals with towns differently then sure change the way assassins function. But right now they are what they are and trying to argue that they don't make sense doesn't make any sense. Working within the rules generally works, theres lots of options you just have to realize they're out there and seek them.
1 ton ghost 08-23-07, 01:10 PM	Idle, i'm wrong...? to quote lebowski, "well, that's just your opinion man." i never claimed "i was right", but noting a system that seems daft. you might want to stress that in the future as not everyone on this thread or all of WotC communities shares your sentiment, nor do they share mine for that matter. these are observations and hypotheticals, nothing more. alignment-IS A GAME MECHANIC and cannot be applied accurately in the real world. you "could" try, but it's presumptuous to assume there are only 9 types of ppl. like zodiak hippies that lump you into this or that, "oh, he's a virgo so he's gonna' be really analytic or conservative." life is not that black and white. applying game rules to life doesn't work. ppl don't work that way and resent it when you label them thusly. search for personal ID, humanity's need to categorize, call it what you will, doesn't make it right... alignment is designed to make enforcement of a game's rules primarilly and "help" define a character's ethos, philosophy, tao, whatever. it isn't the end all be all, but a hook. you want to limit options for the sake of simplicity? well, again, to each his own, but not for me. i like the freedom to do as i/game crew want, expand your horizons and all that. there is nothing "tricky about grasping alignment". it doesn't get much more basic than that. i do agree w/ you on 1 point: alignments are archetypes, nothing more. they have their uses in broad schemes, tarot cards, etc., but from a contemporary POV, they only serve as abstract models. characters start as archetypes...but like ppl, they evolve. resigning yourself/character to "this 1 alignment" steals your own thunder, but i understand the necessity FROM A MECHANICAL ASPECT only (must know align vs. spells/clerics/various FX). stereotypes and archetypes are "generalizations". do you want a generalized character or perhaps one with more depth and (im)moral foundation? they have their uses in broad schemes, however, character development is a personal thing. the 21st cen. argument was context: our concept of good/evil is hard to impress upon a fantasy early rennaissance-esque environ. hard to detach from that. when in rome, etc. etc. listed fiction examples: yeah, they're fiction, much like characters in a fantasy game. examples, not maxims. there is a difference. oh, and technically speaking you can change alignment in one action if so pressed; certain spells and actions alone are profound enough to have immediate effect w/out resorting to a long and drawn out discourse (like this one, all apologies to other readers). again, an opinion here, your actions should determine your alignment, not some scrawling on your character sheet. assassins guild(s): i stand by my statement/opinion. yes, they CAN provide assistance/prot., but if you're contract killing you should probably be self-sufficient given the risks entailed. Gather Info's to learn about your mark, enough stealth skills to get close/shadow, and of course the sneak/death attack. if you can't do these on your own or w/out your fellow PC's, you probably shouldn't be doing it IMO. the more ppl that know (your guild), the more things can go sour and revenge is pretty much a given...provided you know who killed your close buddy/king/dad/etc. if not, then? being associated w/ said guild makes you easier to track down by familiarity, protection or no. some goodly aligned group/guild probably knows of their existance. like physics, every action or measure has a counter-measure. and why associate w/ unscrupulous types that can just as easilly eliminate you (competition) to elevate themselves or jockey for position? most famous and successful assassins are independents. guilds make good plot hooks, not foundations for successful careers in illegal/immoral trades IMO. class itself; alot can be said here, you don't need the Assassin class to be an assassin. any Ftr, Wiz, etc. will do. but what if you want the death attack/spells/poison? there are other classes that feature said above items that aren't evil. just getting to those are really hard. Assassin prereq.'s are easy. there is no other recourse really w/out some of the more ridiculous PrC's or having to multiclass to get there. purely from a mechanical aspect, it's practically the only path and it's a VERY POPULAR one w/ good reason simply from a rules/mechanics POV, not even mentioning gyst and subtext. someone mentioned Avenger, congrats btw. a rose by any other name and all that... you'd think an assassin would want to be as neutral as possible given detections, law/chaos, etc. you want to be as dispassionate as possible, logical, not emotional. a kind of dehumanizing aspect prevails and relishing/rejecting the trade smacks of good/evil. a job is a job, it's the execution and motives that gear your towards one or the other. sadly, yes, most assassins would probably become evil given the liklihood of some sketchy activities, but i don't think each and everyone of us should be railroaded into a system/concept that says, "you must be evil". afterall, aren't there provisions for some paladins outside of LG?
Sleepwalker13666 08-23-07, 01:18 PM	This has been a longstanding debate in D&D, the general consensus seems to be they shouldn't have to be evil, in my game I don't allow good alignments, but don't require evil. "Assassination is the highest form of public service."
IdleAltruism 08-23-07, 06:07 PM	alignment-IS A GAME MECHANIC and cannot be applied accurately in the real world. you "could" try, but it's presumptuous to assume there are only 9 types of ppl. like zodiak hippies that lump you into this or that, "oh, he's a virgo so he's gonna' be really analytic or conservative." life is not that black and white. applying game rules to life doesn't work. ppl don't work that way and resent it when you label them thusly. search for personal ID, humanity's need to categorize, call it what you will, doesn't make it right... The biggest hole I can see in your argument is the belief that the D&D alignments only cover archetypes. They cover everything inbetween and as I said before the tricky part is figuring out where people fit into it. When you get the hang of it its actually quite simple to figure out how to categorize people and alignments. The biggest problem is in reality not all peasants are NG. This creates confusion because it becomes difficult to compare to our own world. D&D is black and white and for the most part I would argue so is life itself(because D&D is black and white it can create alot of friction, thats why rule 0 exists :D ). Intricate as it may be its only seems gray when we don't understand, but that doesn't mean there isn't an answer. We live in rules, applying rules to life is part of our humanity. Now trying to apply mechanics that don't abide by the existing rules can cause confusion. And stereo-types have a purpose and we use them all the time. Just because something can and has been abused, doesn't mean its a bad thing. We cannot help but label ourselves and others by past experiences and what we've been taught. Its what we do, its human, its a part of how we learn. This can also lead to negative aspects, like racism for example. alignment is designed to make enforcement of a game's rules primarilly and "help" define a character's ethos, philosophy, tao, whatever. it isn't the end all be all, but a hook. you want to limit options for the sake of simplicity? well, again, to each his own, but not for me. i like the freedom to do as i/game crew want, expand your horizons and all that. there is nothing "tricky about grasping alignment". it doesn't get much more basic than that. Nothing within the current setup restricts freedom. All it does is help with categorizing for mechanical purposes. Sure it limits the spectrum of actions you would most likely take, but this is in character and it makes sense doing this. If you really must be as free as a bird spontaneously killing/saving orphans theres an alignment for that to. Again as I said before, alignment its just safer to think of it as an incharacter guide to what they would most likely do following their alignment. Alignment isn't the only factor in decision making. That makes uniqueness easily attainable in this system. assassins guild(s): i stand by my statement/opinion. yes, they CAN provide assistance/prot., but if you're contract killing you should probably be self-sufficient given the risks entailed. Gather Info's to learn about your mark, enough stealth skills to get close/shadow, and of course the sneak/death attack. if you can't do these on your own or w/out your fellow PC's, you probably shouldn't be doing it IMO. the more ppl that know (your guild), the more things can go sour and revenge is pretty much a given...provided you know who killed your close buddy/king/dad/etc. if not, then? being associated w/ said guild makes you easier to track down by familiarity, protection or no. some goodly aligned group/guild probably knows of their existance. I would think being alone would make you far easier to track down, unless you lived in a hole(which could be the case). Having a large network of rogues with access to whatever resources(magic/politics/law enforcement) seems alot more useful when dealing with assassination and all the business aspect of it(thievery as well). Sure good groups know of evil ones. They might even know some individuals that are apart of said group. But what stops good aligned groups from destroying their evil counterparts to begin with? Again why would being part of a certain group,an assassins guild no less, make you easier to find? Do your assassin guilds wear badges? Leave calling cards that identify them as part of the guild? Make it noticeable that their marks were infact assassinated. If every murder in an area was always the assassins guilds doing then yes this might be the case. My argument is very circumstantial but it goes to show how a guild could be very advantageous to join. Also not all assassins are in guilds, PCs generally aren't. It specifically states this in the DMG, NPC assassins are usually part of guilds. It goes on to say that only the best are actually able to work alone(Player character anyone :D ). But its really a silly thing to argue about since the assassin gains no mechanical benefits from his class that involve being in a guild(there are several PrCs that do this). like physics, every action or measure has a counter-measure. and why associate w/ unscrupulous types that can just as easilly eliminate you (competition) to elevate themselves or jockey for position? most famous and successful assassins are independents. guilds make good plot hooks, not foundations for successful careers in illegal/immoral trades IMO. The most famous assassins are never the best or most successful. The best assassins you've never heard about, you may have rumors involving the stereo-type of unavoidable death, but you never see or hear it coming. Look at the epic organization of the garrotes for example. Guilds make for great careers(and can offer security even in evil organizations), but they usually make for a poor PC choice, since being tied down to one thing or another is usually never a good trait for a PC. class itself; alot can be said here, you don't need the Assassin class to be an assassin. any Ftr, Wiz, etc. will do. but what if you want the death attack/spells/poison? there are other classes that feature said above items that aren't evil. just getting to those are really hard. Assassin prereq.'s are easy. there is no other recourse really w/out some of the more ridiculous PrC's or having to multiclass to get there. purely from a mechanical aspect, it's practically the only path and it's a VERY POPULAR one w/ good reason simply from a rules/mechanics POV, not even mentioning gyst and subtext. Mechanically you can make a much more successful assassin out of a non-rogue, full rogue, or multi-class rogue then you could ever dream of doing with the assassin PrC. Really its the death attack that sells people and this isn't really ideal for assassinating people(kind of a last resort). Mechanically the assassin has alot of cool aspects to it, but its far from optimized and you could actually make a backstabbing rogue thats better suited for this profession(artifacer/wizard/druid all can out preform the assassin in its "job"). The death attack is what makes the assassin class, everything else is really just fluff. you'd think an assassin would want to be as neutral as possible given detections, law/chaos, etc. you want to be as dispassionate as possible, logical, not emotional. a kind of dehumanizing aspect prevails and relishing/rejecting the trade smacks of good/evil. a job is a job, it's the execution and motives that gear your towards one or the other. sadly, yes, most assassins would probably become evil given the liklihood of some sketchy activities, but i don't think each and everyone of us should be railroaded into a system/concept that says, "you must be evil". Desensitization is a common method to train people to do horrific acts. It doesn't make those acts any less evil and they affect the psyche. Being purely neutral has nothing to do with being emotionless. If you want that kind of assassin you can go two routes, LE with a code of conduct sort of thing or NE thats numb to everything and will do anything(I'm sure there are more ways of doing it but thats off the top of my head). Also there are many interesting roleplaying opportunities to be had with the whole denial route(being insane and convincing yourself you're doing the right thing or just convincing yourself lots of variation here). Being strictly logical and emotionless would most likely make you evil(matrix sort of robot evil in that you have no compassion or empathy and your logic leads you to do evil things). Really its just a matter of how creative you want to be, just about anything can fit into the alignment scheme.
Infernostrider 08-24-07, 08:06 AM	Sometimes, the end effect is similar, but as I said, motivations matter. If a paladin is told that an ogre bandit is terrorizing a village, then goes forth and slays it, it is not an evil act - s/he was not acting merely out of greed, but out of concern for the society. If the ogre has some treasure, the paladin can choose to take it - although the best choice would be to make sure at least some of it ends in the hands of its original owners or their descendents. However, if the paladin starts killing ogres for no other reason than to take their treasure, it would probably be evil. Likewise, while many characters can use stealth and guile to kill their enemies, not everyone needs to be evil. Those who need no other motivation than gold to embark on a mission to kill someone, however, would most likely be of evil alignment - other alignments might allow killing, sure, but not for the same reasons. Do remember, however, that a paladin who sees an ogre eating his freshly caught deer diner, will likely still attack it (although, as honorable as a paladin is, he will announce himself). This can be done using 3 popular excuses: 1: Ogres are generally inherently evil 2: It may one day kill a good aligned person, or has already done so in its life 3: in combination with 1 or 2, the paladin can see a bulging purse dangling from its belt
Infernostrider 08-24-07, 08:09 AM	Okay, you've now hit a nerve with the system. Murder is bad, but adventuring is the point of the game. However, most times adventurers are not assumed to be "kill on sight" slaughter machines. The paladin example is flawed. It states A occurred (paladin kills ogre) and B occurred (paladin loots ogre). But you can't say that A and B were both directly caused by C (paladin wants ogre's stuff). Maybe the ogre attacked the paladin. Maybe the ogre was evil and ransacked neighboring villages (and the paladin really has no hope of converting the evil ogre to hug bunnies and give kisses, and imprisoning it for life would be a crueler punishment than death, so killing evil is okay). If the paladin just saw shiny objects, wanted shiny objects, and shanked a flower-hugging LG ogre who happened to be carrying those desired shiny objects, then that's evil. Also, adventurers kill monsters (and evil NPCs because they're really evil). Assassins kill whomever somebody else with a sack of money asks (they may say "No women and children" but they still kill adult men). The mechanics could be copied and applied to something else. However, an assassin of the assassin's guild is evil. in accordance to my last post. How would the paladin know the flower hugging LG ogre is LG? 99% of ogre's is inherently evil, none would take the time to sense motive or detect alignment on an ogre. The only way it would lead to repurcussions is if some divine entity directly punishes said paladin also, is killing an evil creature just because he has shiny objects evil?
IdleAltruism 08-24-07, 12:18 PM	in accordance to my last post. How would the paladin know the flower hugging LG ogre is LG? 99% of ogre's is inherently evil, none would take the time to sense motive or detect alignment on an ogre. The only way it would lead to repurcussions is if some divine entity directly punishes said paladin also, is killing an evil creature just because he has shiny objects evil? Really you wouldn't know, but if the ogre surrendered the paladin would have to accept this. A LG ogre would more likely try to explain his situation than start fighting. Killing creatures for shiny objects would usually be evil. This is looking for said shiny object and killing the person that owns it just because you want it. If said shiny object was evil(it would probably have to be extremely evil like artifact evil) then the circumstances change. Usually evil artifacts turn the wielder evil or the user is already evil(most good aligned characters wouldn't use an evil artifact) this would give the paladin a reason to kill the wielder and take said shiny object. Just straight up killing an evil creature because you want their item is evil. Killing the evil creature with the item because they are abusing the item would not be evil.
1 ton ghost 08-24-07, 12:37 PM	seriously man, let it go... this started off about Assassins and your typical rules/mechanics debate and has mutated into some pseudo-philosophical banter. the alignment arguements are starting to read like stereo instructions now. and it's no use beating a dead horse... Rule Zero ppl, don't like it in your game change it; the Assassin PrC warranted enough solicitation and outside gamer rhetoric that other gamers, myself included, felt differently about 2 prerequisites...we're not even talking about ranks, feats, etc. they felt so adamantly in fact, they posted a variation on WotC's page and many gamers have gone and run w/ it as well. like any of this matters. do what you're gonna' do ppl, i just don't feel you should resign yourself to someone else's precariously codified moral compass. God/Buddah/Alah/Jaweh/etc. gave you that freedom to decide/interpret for yourselves, if you argue fundamentally, well, you know what happens then...
IdleAltruism 08-24-07, 01:04 PM	seriously man, let it go... this started off about Assassins and your typical rules/mechanics debate and has mutated into some pseudo-philosophical banter. the alignment arguements are starting to read like stereo instructions now. and it's no use beating a dead horse... Rule Zero ppl, don't like it in your game change it; the Assassin PrC warranted enough solicitation and outside gamer rhetoric that other gamers, myself included, felt differently about 2 prerequisites...we're not even talking about ranks, feats, etc. they felt so adamantly in fact, they posted a variation on WotC's page and many gamers have gone and run w/ it as well. like any of this matters. do what you're gonna' do ppl, i just don't feel you should resign yourself to someone else's precariously codified moral compass. God/Buddah/Alah/Jaweh/etc. gave you that freedom to decide/interpret for yourselves, if you argue fundamentally, well, you know what happens then... Its the nature of the threads, but this thread is still on target. I believe the assassin alignment issue is only controversial because people don't understand how to use the system. Rule 0 shouldn't be used so lightly, its there so you can make changes, not because you should make changes. We should examine something that doesn't make sense to us, in this case the assassin alignment restriction, this kind of thing makes us think and helps us better understand the rules. I don't like it you should change it, is not very constructive advice. I think there is a consensus here that pushes towards assassins being evil(this thread anyways). I would be very interested in hearing your opinion and argument as to why assassins shouldn't be evil and how you could modify them so they don't have to be. Thats the purpose of these threads, to share our opinions :D .
1 ton ghost 08-24-07, 01:36 PM	i never said that, "assassins shouldn't be evil." this is simply what you implied. kindly examine previous text more carefully. what they "can" and "can't" do can/most likely, will promote or reiterate evil, but just starting that way to get your feet wet is unrealistic/unfair...to me. i merely observed that the prerequisites to enter the PrC seemed poor for a number of reasons IMO. your actions and beliefs determine alignment ultimately, not the starting point of your class in most examples, save paladin, most divine, and the like. -you're not encouraged to play evil PC's, but if you're mature/adult enough, so be it. i/gaming friends, like the personal freedom to run OUR OWN GAME not simply follow WtoC dogma because they printed it in 1 example. -simply being evil is a good basis...for blackguard and other iconically or sterotypically evil classes. not all assassins are in this case but blackguards must be given supernatural backbone, etc. consider soldiering; you're killing under command and so forth, but are you necessarilly committing war crimes and the like? -even if you are LE, NE, CE, ppl assume these to be rampantly nasty villain types. i mean, how do you measure it? every man/woman has a breaking point and moral compass not matter how depraved and hedonistic there's a $25million bounty on bin Laden (FBI.com) last time i checked. should i pursue that for the money, does it make me evil or just the action? granted, i like to think of myself as patriotic and that influences my trigger finger/conviction, but still, the question is pending... -the alignment restriction "does makes sense to me", do not infer it doesn't. i simply disagree w/ it's foundation and/or basis. the additional taxation of gasoline makes sense to me, though i don't agree w/ that either. we need alignments, it is a tried and true game mechanic and i'm not arguing to disbar them, i'm simply stating that i, and many others, feel otherwise about 1 specific class detail, that's it. it's not an earth shaking event. -the "i don't like it, i'm gonna change it" statement is out of context and you are overgeneralizing again. stop. no one said that and you are using heresay and conjecture which is sapping credibility. i didn't like it (alignment ruling for PrC) in '01 when it came out, nor in '04 during 3.5's advent, but we employed it nonetheless until after intense scrutiny and a vote amongst fellow gamers, we allowed entry into Assassin under the aegis of: -any nongood (i will agree w/ you there though the paladin/rogue PrC's in Comp. Adv. are totally exploiting this and it's unrealistic, another arguement) these are not flagrant abuses of Rule Zero, merely an isolated incident. if anything, i am a major stickler for rules, particularly tactical aspects which tend to have more impact to begin with. i mean, you're more likely to die in a tactical situation (usually, a fight) then in a philosphical moral one, though you could argue for hours (which i won't) concerning a Forbiddane, another plane, etc...
IdleAltruism 08-24-07, 02:32 PM	i never said that, "assassins shouldn't be evil." this is simply what you implied. kindly examine previous text more carefully. what they "can" and "can't" do can/most likely, will promote or reiterate evil, but just starting that way to get your feet wet is unrealistic/unfair...to me. i merely observed that the prerequisites to enter the PrC seemed poor for a number of reasons IMO. your actions and beliefs determine alignment ultimately, not the starting point of your class in most examples, save paladin, most divine, and the like. I'm not sure what you're getting at. So you think after you become an assassin their alignment should turn evil? This seems unrealistic to me. If a character didn't start out evil and wanted to become an assassin theres nothing stopping them from changing their alignment(other then your DM). I tried looking through your other posts but I didn't find any explanation or examples why you think the alignment is an unfair/unrealistic prerequisite other then you don't agree with the alignment system itself(correct me if I'm wrong or add your views as to why the alignment system shouldn't work this way). -even if you are LE, NE, CE, ppl assume these to be rampantly nasty villain types. i mean, how do you measure it? every man/woman has a breaking point and moral compass not matter how depraved and hedonistic You don't measure it. Theres no need to, thats why each alignment covers very broad scope. there's a $25million bounty on bin Laden (FBI.com) last time i checked. should i pursue that for the money, does it make me evil or just the action? granted, i like to think of myself as patriotic and that influences my trigger finger/conviction, but still, the question is pending... Revenge is not a good or neutral motivation. The action in D&D terms would be evil to hunt down a man for money no matter how evil he is. A good question to ask is would you hunt down the same person if there was no reward? Actually its not so much an evil act if you don't plan on killing him. I would consider hunting down criminals and bringing them to justice for money a neutral act. it's not an earth shaking event. It really isn't but I think it delves into something important if so much controversy is brought forth from it. -the "i don't like it, i'm gonna change it" statement is out of context and you are overgeneralizing again. To me it seems your argument is you don't agree with it because you don't like it(this doesn't really make sense to me and theres probably more to your previous statements that I may be missing or miss interpreted). But to my understanding this is what you're doing. Forgive me if I've offended you, I tend to speak my mind and be very blunt about it. i didn't like it (alignment ruling for PrC) in '01 when it came out, nor in '04 during 3.5's advent, but we employed it nonetheless until after intense scrutiny and a vote amongst fellow gamers, we allowed entry into Assassin under the aegis of:-any non-good The thing is you failed to explain your reasoning behind this vote. It just seems to me you are repeating yourself over and over again. And I'm afraid I still haven't gotten your point. I think thats probably my own fault but if you could bare with me a little longer I am eager to learn.
Infernostrider 08-24-07, 02:44 PM	Really you wouldn't know, but if the ogre surrendered the paladin would have to accept this. A LG ogre would more likely try to explain his situation than start fighting. Killing creatures for shiny objects would usually be evil. This is looking for said shiny object and killing the person that owns it just because you want it. If said shiny object was evil(it would probably have to be extremely evil like artifact evil) then the circumstances change. Usually evil artifacts turn the wielder evil or the user is already evil(most good aligned characters wouldn't use an evil artifact) this would give the paladin a reason to kill the wielder and take said shiny object. Just straight up killing an evil creature because you want their item is evil. Killing the evil creature with the item because they are abusing the item would not be evil. an LG ogre, or even a CE one, surrendering needs to be accepted (at least once), but an attacked LG ogre will defend himself. Paladin's usually don't look very different from knights, at least i don't think so Its the nature of the threads, but this thread is still on target. I believe the assassin alignment issue is only controversial because people don't understand how to use the system. Rule 0 shouldn't be used so lightly, its there so you can make changes, not because you should make changes. We should examine something that doesn't make sense to us, in this case the assassin alignment restriction, this kind of thing makes us think and helps us better understand the rules. I don't like it you should change it, is not very constructive advice. I think there is a consensus here that pushes towards assassins being evil(this thread anyways). I would be very interested in hearing your opinion and argument as to why assassins shouldn't be evil and how you could modify them so they don't have to be. Thats the purpose of these threads, to share our opinions actually, the post linking to an avenger is a means to explaining this. it seems too simple to me, really, its just a new name and explanation to the same character. ---------- I think this thread is mostly about what we as persons believe to be evil, how we see it, not how the flatlined-D&D rules see it. Ofcourse we can change the raw, its that simple, but after some reflection on this topic i find it more interesting to see how you all thought about my theory, my point of view. I still believe *most* assassins are evil, but i am also holding firm belief that an assassin could be neutral instead. An indiscriminate killer, as i called the assassin/death incarnate, would likely be evil (although the concept of death, itself, will always be neutral) especially if there is more to it then just payment (like fun, or the like) but a neutral assassin should be someone who choose not to directly do evil if possible, but just won't shy away from it either, a neutral assassin who chooses to not kill certain targets is edging towards good, but won't regret making the kill if he is forced to do it and thus remains neutral I believe that neutral, in D&D terms and in real life, is the most difficult alignment to describe as a true neutral character just doesn't care about any of it, and won't shy away from evil, nor is he prohibited to do much good. one just balances it out, or tries too (if one cares enough too)
IdleAltruism 08-24-07, 02:53 PM	Well a holy symbol or being adorned with symbols of their god could distinguish a paladin from a knight. That would really only work if you hand knowledge religion tho(but this is very circumstantial because knight could do the same). I would think an ogre that desires to be good would want to fit in with other good aligned creatures. This leads me to think that they would try their hardest to not fight or use non-lethal attacks(although ogres aren't particularly smart). Using a LG ogre is an example of a very unique creature, to emphasize on this creatures uniqueness I would try and make it stick out.
Sleepwalker13666 08-24-07, 03:04 PM	in accordance to my last post. How would the paladin know the flower hugging LG ogre is LG? 99% of ogre's is inherently evil, none would take the time to sense motive or detect alignment on an ogre. The only way it would lead to repurcussions is if some divine entity directly punishes said paladin also, is killing an evil creature just because he has shiny objects evil? Thats why paladins have detect evil at will.:rolleyes:
1 ton ghost 08-24-07, 03:37 PM	boy, this just keeps going round and round... should've started a new thread. well, long story short is the same old same old, "to each his own." your campaign is exactly that, YOUR'S. it's a free country and all that, but like i do w/ my gamers, put it to a vote. i don't normally pull rank as DM and claim, "this is it, like it or lump it." i'm here to serve them technically, so i must be as impartial as possible. i am of the opinion that after careful inspection, decades of gaming, catechism, college ethics/religion/all manner of moral study, and many many pro & con cases, it is best to leave it open-ended and not typecast assassins as starting as any evil. yeah, they'll probably graduate to that depending on their applications of job description, but it's entirely up to the player. i never force their hand, i only react to it. if you want to allow/not allow, that's cool, but we're not really going to be able to truly dissect that core debate over this media effectively. ideally, we'd need to be in the flesh w/ a pot of coffee or something, otherwise, unless we are using incredibly specific language and terrabytes of posting, i don't feel any one is really going to be fully enlightened or benefit substantially...unless they like the build up of drama and angst... ...to which i don't. so, with that, critique rationally, peruse your sourcebooks, talk to your fellow PCs, and come to a conclusion on your own. it's not like a specific numeric ruling on combat or something. so, relax, enjoy, and remember, typical "client removal fee" is normally at least $5,000
Sleepwalker13666 08-24-07, 03:42 PM	boy, this just keeps going round and round... should've started a new thread. well, long story short is the same old same old, "to each his own." Eh noticed his thread before you trying to make the peace.
1 ton ghost 08-24-07, 03:57 PM	Sleep-nice grammar... not sure what you're trying to say, but i think i get the gyst. no peace if there's no fight. i can't stand flames and hate irrationallity. just a disagreement is all to which neither party seems inclined to yield and i know there are other ppl that check this and if i'm not providing anything brilliant, new, insightful, then i'm wasting my/their time. that is to say, this argument is neither "brilliant, new, insightful". i've heard it before, so have others, i mean surely that's why someone posted Avenger. you guys can figure what's best for your and your's, just poke around first.
Infernostrider 08-24-07, 05:58 PM	Thats why paladins have detect evil at will.:rolleyes: detect evil goes with sense motive, why the hell would a paladin even CONSIDER detecting evil on an ogre, who he might very well assume to be evil (which would not be a strange assumption in the least). Argueing that it is a permanent, constant effect would lead to DMs NEEDING to say "it" is evil for every single creature they encounter either way it was an example, and you are pulling things out of context
Infernostrider 08-24-07, 06:00 PM	boy, this just keeps going round and round... should've started a new thread. well, long story short is the same old same old, "to each his own." your campaign is exactly that, YOUR'S. it's a free country and all that, but like i do w/ my gamers, put it to a vote. i don't normally pull rank as DM and claim, "this is it, like it or lump it." i'm here to serve them technically, so i must be as impartial as possible. i am of the opinion that after careful inspection, decades of gaming, catechism, college ethics/religion/all manner of moral study, and many many pro & con cases, it is best to leave it open-ended and not typecast assassins as starting as any evil. yeah, they'll probably graduate to that depending on their applications of job description, but it's entirely up to the player. i never force their hand, i only react to it. if you want to allow/not allow, that's cool, but we're not really going to be able to truly dissect that core debate over this media effectively. ideally, we'd need to be in the flesh w/ a pot of coffee or something, otherwise, unless we are using incredibly specific language and terrabytes of posting, i don't feel any one is really going to be fully enlightened or benefit substantially...unless they like the build up of drama and angst... ...to which i don't. so, with that, critique rationally, peruse your sourcebooks, talk to your fellow PCs, and come to a conclusion on your own. it's not like a specific numeric ruling on combat or something. so, relax, enjoy, and remember, typical "client removal fee" is normally at least $5,000 you missed the point of the topic, huh?
Sleepwalker13666 08-25-07, 06:18 AM	detect evil goes with sense motive, why the hell would a paladin even CONSIDER detecting evil on an ogre, who he might very well assume to be evil (which would not be a strange assumption in the least). Argueing that it is a permanent, constant effect would lead to DMs NEEDING to say "it" is evil for every single creature they encounter either way it was an example, and you are pulling things out of context Simple, he's lawful good, meaning he has a sense of order and a high sense of moral value, so on the off chance that this one ogre is in fact a good soul, he makes his detect evil and doesn't foolishly lay waste to a potential ally of light. That's why, a paladin knows that the darkest of hearts may change and if he has the power to find out if there is no malice in the person before him he will use it to make sure. Using Paladins as an alignment example is generally a poor idea, a lawful good fighter would be a better example to use.
1 ton ghost 08-25-07, 02:08 PM	you missed the point of the topic, huh? no, far from it. if anything the other guy and i perpetuated this thread and for way too long i might add. the point is the freedom to choose your alignment vs. a prerequisite to a PrC that i "feel lacks credibility/realism" (IMO), no more, no less. some feel one way, i feel otherwise and never the 2 shall meet. convincing arguments are eating up way to much time and aren't very successful on a message board. i mean, this is mostly philosophical and existential. when was the last Papacy debate held on the net? -pop culture example where "a guild" would play to your advantage but perceived assassin isn't evil (he surely isn't good though): Hitman, or more specifically, Agent 47. but that's 21st century not high gothic, early Rennaissance. -divine seekers assassinate for their faith sometimes w/ church backing, better than a guild and legitimate too -wizards kill for their order and that's very hard to trace especially if victm is 'ported away/disintegrated -clerics even. i mean jihads and crusades are basically open license to kill for religious implications. Consider Black Flame Zealot (death attack, spells, everything really), they are not counted as MUST START EVIL but it's pretty much the same thing. churches probably assassinated more ppl than alot of governments. what is an IED but a means to drive out an infidel (from an extremeist POV). if they offered a rogue class w/ death attack and spell progression w/out hte baleful moniker or alignment restriction, i'd be all over it. they don't. so, we opted to make the change after alot of debate and forethought, simple.
Infernostrider 08-26-07, 06:39 AM	i guess you did, as the point actually was a tad (a big tad, mind you) philosophic and asked for different opinions. more so to influence my own then anyone elses. this hasn't happened yet, however :o
The_Shaman 08-26-07, 04:22 PM	no, far from it. if anything the other guy and i perpetuated this thread and for way too long i might add. the point is the freedom to choose your alignment vs. a prerequisite to a PrC that i "feel lacks credibility/realism" (IMO), no more, no less. some feel one way, i feel otherwise and never the 2 shall meet. convincing arguments are eating up way to much time and aren't very successful on a message board. i mean, this is mostly philosophical and existential. when was the last Papacy debate held on the net? -pop culture example where "a guild" would play to your advantage but perceived assassin isn't evil (he surely isn't good though): Hitman, or more specifically, Agent 47. but that's 21st century not high gothic, early Rennaissance. -divine seekers assassinate for their faith sometimes w/ church backing, better than a guild and legitimate too -wizards kill for their order and that's very hard to trace especially if victm is 'ported away/disintegrated -clerics even. i mean jihads and crusades are basically open license to kill for religious implications. Consider Black Flame Zealot (death attack, spells, everything really), they are not counted as MUST START EVIL but it's pretty much the same thing. churches probably assassinated more ppl than alot of governments. what is an IED but a means to drive out an infidel (from an extremeist POV). if they offered a rogue class w/ death attack and spell progression w/out hte baleful moniker or alignment restriction, i'd be all over it. they don't. so, we opted to make the change after alot of debate and forethought, simple. Great, then. If you want a rogue with DA and all the other stuff, there is one, it's called assassin, and the only problem is that it is not a WotC product. I think it was in a Green Ronin book, devoted entirely to it. It is limited to non-goods, but I think you can live with that. I don't remember the full name though... Plot and poison, maybe, or was that the one on drow? Anyway, the examples you gave are different from the DMG assassin archetype in one way: the DMG assassin should be able to kill only for the money. All the others kill for a cause. Apparently the first is worse than the second... I'm not sure I completely understand the rationale for this, but it could do with PHB evil being related to egoism - a cause is something you sacrifice yourself for, while money is something you get only for yourself. I'm not saying I fully agree with it, but it does seem to be a theme in the PHB alignment column. Of course, this leaves some strange cases like the Long Death Monk and Teflammar Shadowlord as suspicious outliers, as the monks' cause - which seems to be further study of death, or some such - is not exactly selfless, and the shadowlords' cause is even less so. This means the two either a)aren't as focused on killing and selfish motives, so aren't as bad as the DMG assassins or b) Ed and co don't have quite the same views on alignment as the DMG writers. Or both, really. Seriously, if the DMG restriction bothers you that much, loosen it to non-good and get rid of the idiotic "must kill smone to get in" part - unless your assassins are just some kind of a death cult (which might work to rationalize their powers, btw), chances are they kill for more practical reasons.
1 ton ghost 08-26-07, 11:16 PM	well said
xeno121 08-27-07, 03:08 PM	http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a
Sirot 08-27-07, 03:30 PM	The conception of the Avenger variant of the Assassin does not justify the Assassin's requirements, it mocks it. It was created as a parody for Assassin for April's Fools, albeit with improved flavor. In the DnD world by large, the morality of murder is very subjective - just assume the evil of killing someone is proportional to evil of the motive. You can simply kill someone for currency or do it strategic significance as described by the Avenger variant. With all that said, here's a simple homebrew fix: Remove the alignment restriction of the assassin and change the special prerequisite so it reads: "The character must be successfully fulfill a contract to kill someone." Modify flavor of the class appropriately.
Captain_Kobold 08-29-07, 11:26 AM	As has been mentioned before: assassin is both a career description and the name of a prestige class representing a member of an assassin guild. To be an assassin (career) all that is really required is that you kill specific people for a cause. With most of the popular concept of the name, that cause is "money", but it need not be. It is theoretically possible to be LG and still be an assassin. (A character who has made a speciality out of killing the upper members of an Undead hierarchy in service to a church for example.) However, killing people just for the money is not a good act. (Note: just for the money). Accepting money after killing an evil person does not make you non-good, but the money being your only motivation does. I would rate both Leon and Bond (from the books) as Evil characters. Bond is dedicated to a cause, and Leon has a code of honour, but both are still willing to kill a person if ordered/paid to do so. The Assassin Prestige class represents training in secret techniques (Death attack, spells, poison etc.) known only by a specific guild. (or similar organisation). If a DM allows a character to simply decide one day "Hmm. I think I'll start taking levels in the Assassin class", then he has already thrown so much of the flavor out of the window that the alignment restriction is small fry to dump as well. The reason that being evil is a requirement is tied in to the other requirement: to kill someone simply to join. The guild is not going to let anyone in who could damage their reputation by not killing their target simply due to alignment. They will ensure that the prospective member will have no compunctions about killing their assigned target whether good, evil, adult or child. Thus they will observe a potential candidate for a while to keep an eye out for this sort of weakness, and if he passes this scrutiny, administer a final test.
The_Shaman 08-30-07, 11:34 AM	Good summary of a lot of arguments. Sir (or Madam), you get the Kopyrka seal of approval and a :cookie:
1 ton ghost 08-30-07, 01:08 PM	-just from a rules POV, death attack, poison use, and some limited magic aren't exactly secret techniques. death attack maybe, but a few classes get it, this one is simply the most accessible...the price though doesn't add up, ie)isn't fair. how else can you acquire it? basically, you resign it to mostly NPC's as not too many PCs are "evil" or don't want to split loyalties to a guild vs. party. another reason i feel independence is preferable; you owe it to your crew so to speak, guild will interfere in their affairs most assuredly -"flavor" as you like to call it, is subjective, much like the duality between dynamic opposites...namely good and evil. in a game, yes, things have a need to be defined for sake of rules, but if you are unwilling/unable to roleplay through any abstractions, it speaks more of dramatic short-sightedness and immaturity than the rules lawyering mentality of "this rule says that, we must abide". it's not even a heavy mechanic. your interpretation (realistically speaking) is what matters formally, not fundamental reading. and you know about fundamentalists now'a days. very dangerous and arrogant. -the flavor of opting for this PrC (w/out "guild only") can be subsumed as a wise old mentor or whatever you want to run w/. DM's discretion is the operative word here, not what said company says. we don't take orders from WotC, if anything, they work for us. yes, a PC should have to work for it and not just jump into Assassin PrC, but you are hamstringing them. most PCs need to train realistically to acqurie new feats and so forth. presuming they just kinda' learn them on the fly is a little "out there". saying guild or nothing again, isn't fair. masters/protege, recovered forbidden lore, intensive anatomical study, etc. are acceptable entry points. so many outs, don't settle for the "1". -adventurer is the career for a PC, not "assassin". some adventures are wetwork and it helps to have a party you can count on and trust. that respect and loyalty is proven just after a handful of orcs, etc. why do you think old war buddies are so tight. most cemented relationships on planet. plus your party can help guide assassin to be more morally discriminating by group choices, not unilateral decision making. i mean, it's not just you and the DM, you have to consider the others. i'd be loathe to confide in a den of thieves and professional murderers that want $ and their dues. your party could even be your guild if you wanted to go that way (i wouldn't), but you have that freedom. they're there to help you, an assassins guild is to keep you in line and not divulge secrets, regulate payments, etc. an evil union basically. job security takes on a whole new meaning here. -money is compensation, nothing more. yeah, being greedy and draconian is pretty evil, but you gotta' get paid. that is to say, you can have all the moral reasons you want to kill someone, but you need $ to offset the risk, get gear, etc. to facilitate that end even if the target is rampantly evil. it's still murder and an exchange of $ for services rendered. taking money to kill someone isn't evil, it's the "why". if you are just doing it for bills, yeah, pretty sketchy, but do you have dependents? trying to help your party? it's not so black and white. i'm not trying to justify murder for $, just expand/analyze and outdated and unrealistic notion and game mechanic. -a contract killer has the professional obligation to turn down any bounty he/she wants based on moral reasons, tactical, financial or otherwise. one that does any job for $, i'll agree w/ you here, is definetly evil. most don't though, that is, most (good, as in professional) are choosy and meticulous. that's why they're still alive. adventurers don't work for free usually, good or evil. they have needs/wants as well. money must change hands often. you raid dungeons to get rich and famous basically. that is your default adventure, Hell, it's in the game's namesake. evil ppl and monsters need assassinating too. you don't have to kill goodly ones and get $. no one is ordering you to do anything. just saying, "he's an assassin, he's evil." is stereotypical. like tieflings/drow, yes, most are evil but i'm sure you can think of some rather large exceptions. you can be selective, but you have to make money like anyone else. if anything, it's smarter; there's no guarantee that dungeon 'x' has much treasure but plenty of risk. contract 'y' has risk assessment already laid out and 1/2 the "treasure" has already been fronted via down payment traditionally from discrete patron. plus, if you do it and do it well, no one will be the wiser whereas most ppl know, "oh, that band just returned from dungeon 'x' and they have alot of wealth now (dangerous proposition)."
The_Shaman 08-30-07, 01:23 PM	Actually, I'd say spells are as close to secret techniques as you get. Normal rogues and, well, assassins don't get those. Unfortunately, the gush of base and prestige classes have made magic rather common. It's not supposed to be. And as for needing to be paid, it might be a part of our modern-day bias. Sure, everyone needs to have a means of survival, but that doesn't mean that a good character won't do a good deed if it puts him in trouble and yet doesn't fill his purse. Remember the whole "altruism and good" thing in the PHB?
1 ton ghost 08-30-07, 03:31 PM	altruism, i remember all-too-well... an example, nothing more. it is a noble concept to be sure. here's another one though, "sometimes you gotta' break a few eggs to make an omlette." you could argue that assassinating a brutal tyrant helped the good but you wouldn't want to do it for free given the high risk and all. ppl assume contract killings are vs. normal to good ppl, when typically if you have a bounty on your head you've probably done something naughty to begin with. some hits aren't really hits. some is extermination. some is ethnic cleansing. some are just "house keeping". many many shades. as for spells, they're common-ish. not saying i agree w/ game design, but yeah, you're right. everybody and their brother gets it these days. i do very much like Assassin's spell list though. terribly effective even if you never take a contract ever. Death Attack on the other hand is as rare as Mettle or a few other class abilities. this is pretty much the only gateway to it. i mean, even if you have no desire to be an assassin, it's pretty much this or nothing. Black Flame Zealot requires multiclass and the like and sometimes it's just not feasible w/out compromising your personal design and/or vision. any other PrC classes that get it though? i always imagined Guild Thief (FR) and the like to have an assassin variation for the "guild assassin" mentioned previously. and for the rest, some pretty cheesy stuff in CompAdv where you need both rogue and paladin features for these slapdash PrC's...c'mon. surely many faiths employ divine seekers and assassins all the time so as to not sully their hands. not exactly altruistic, but perhaps a necessity. sometimes negotiations fail and so on. ppl have to die.