Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kaminton 08-17-04, 01:32 PM	At what point does assassination become evil? Assassination is targetted killing of high-value/important people, is it not? (Do you use any other definitions?) When a good party sneaks into an evil king's castle and kills him, is that evil? What if they did so in his sleep? What if they fireballed him on his throne? How about a sniper with a bow (let's say this prestige class boosts the chances for a critical)? If he kills a noble with a single shot to the heart, is that evil? Yet the assassin prestige class is explicitly evil - is that just from their poison use? Where do you draw the line? The relative alignments of the assassin and the victim? If the victim is an evil noble, it's a good act, and if the victim is a good noble, it's an evil act? Or is the act of assassination inherently evil? How about law vs chaos? Is assassination either lawful or chaotic?
Sildatorak 08-17-04, 01:48 PM	The Assassin prestige class isn't evil because of poison use (poison is questionable as a evil act, I tend think it is more chaotic because it is dishonorable), they are evil because they kill people for money, regardless of the person's former acts/position in society/influence on the world at large. If you define assassination as the killing of specific targets for rewards, then assassination is generally evil. If you have ethics that limit the targets you take (no killing of good rulers), then you could probably massage your way into neutral with it, but that is about as far as it goes. If you are killing specific targets to neutralize their threat rather than for reward you could probably have a good assassin (not of the prestige class). Lawful good is going to have problems if you are killing people in their sleep or sniping them when they are otherwise unaware, so most good assassins are going to be neutral good (you've got to do what you've got to do) or chaotic good (dishonorable? was this tyrant honorable when he enslaved my people?). Good has to be careful that the reasons behind their eliminations are pure, though, or they will gradually slip into neutrality.
Eightbitmage 08-17-04, 01:52 PM	Assassination is evil. Murder is evil, and assassination is the murder of a high ranking official for money. If there is a n evil king that needs to be taken care of each type of group would go about it differently. Of course its a different situation if the king fights back and gets killed in battle, but if they go in seeking to cause that to happen its evil unless there is no other way. A lawful good party typically wont go in and kill and evil king, they will go in, capture him and leave him to the justice of the people once. So will a neutral good. A chaotic good might be tempted to kill him, and depending on which is stronger, the good or chaos, will capture him to be judged by the people, or kill him to ensure he is never able to do evil again. Evil party of any type just goes in and kills him, in his sleep, chaotic then kills everyone else for fun. Neutral party will probably go with the top answer if they are lawful, and the second if they are chaotic, true neutral could go either way.
Eightbitmage 08-17-04, 01:56 PM	In reply to Sildatorak: I have to disagree with the idea of "you've got to do what you've got to do" I think this is more of a neutral attitude than neutral good. At a stretch it might be chaotic good. I just find it hard to imagine good assassins, because assassination gives the villian no chance to surrender, and i've always seen the potential for mercy as central to being good.
Kaminton 08-17-04, 01:57 PM	To be more specific, the PALADIN of a Sun deity in my high level campaign is the new ruler of a new kingdom. He's setting up some organizations. One of them is a shadow/spec ops type - sneaky people, basically. So far we've got scouts, sneaky spellcasters, and sneaky close-combat people. I'm having issues with the sniper prestige class tied to this organization - I don't think it fits in at all to have a class whose primary abilities are focused towards getting ranged kills from hiding. I'm wondering whether that is evil (and therefore the paladin shouldn't allow it at all) or merely non-lawful (and the paladin could get away with having others do it, since he can associate with non-lawful good people). Presumably this is going to be for removing threats only, not for money.
Kaminton 08-17-04, 01:59 PM	Originally posted by Eightbitmage I just find it hard to imagine good assassins, because assassination gives the villian no chance to surrender, and i've always seen the potential for mercy as central to being good. Hmm, this is certainly an interesting guideline. The question I have is whether this is truly a GOOD trait, as opposed to an EXALTED trait (ie, uber good to the extreme).
Glak 08-17-04, 02:03 PM	More of an issue, is why is a SUN paladin setting up covert forces. That sort of stuff is usually done at night or in darkness. The sun likes everything out in the the open. It isn't evil but it isn't sunny either.
Someone 08-17-04, 02:07 PM	Assasins are evil because of the "must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assasins". That complete lack of respect for life is the evil part. Killing someone, even someone important, isn't always an assasination, or evil. Assasins are people who kill in secret, and for reward. Sneaking into a castle to avoid confronting (and most likely killing) the guards isn't too bad. Killing someone in their sleep on the other hand, is. Confronting them in their throne room is okay, and fits the heroic tradition. One-shot one-kill isn't any more evil than a single melee hit. If the sniper killed the noble for money, or because "he needed to be silenced", that's evil. But if the sniper uses their skills to protect others, that's good. Just because the target is evil doesn't make killing them a good act. If you killed an evil person for profit, then you're evil yourself. As for law/ chaos, law works out reward ahead of the killing, chaos looks for reward afterwards.
Kaminton 08-17-04, 02:08 PM	Originally posted by Glak More of an issue, is why is a SUN paladin setting up covert forces. That sort of stuff is usually done at night or in darkness. The sun likes everything out in the the open. It isn't evil but it isn't sunny either. Because he used to be an elven ranger, before exposure to a dead deity's divine energy made him LG, and afterwards he ended up taking on the responsibility of reviving a long-thought-dead sun deity's religion on the prime material. Plus his followers are hobgoblins, who are naturally sneaky. (He converted them. It helps that his glowingness convinced them that he was a divine being/prophet, ears notwithstanding - and no, Magubliyet is not pleased). So I suppose it's a mix of temporal expedience and knowing from personal experience that sometimes stealth is necessary - I'm willing to let him set up covert forces (every kingdom should have one... they already met the covert forces of a nearby evil kingdom. They're eldritch knights)
Kaminton 08-17-04, 02:13 PM	Originally posted by Someone Assasins are evil because of the "must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assasins". That complete lack of respect for life is the evil part. Killing someone, even someone important, isn't always an assasination, or evil. Assasins are people who kill in secret, and for reward. Ok. Sneaking into a castle to avoid confronting (and most likely killing) the guards isn't too bad. Killing someone in their sleep on the other hand, is. Confronting them in their throne room is okay, and fits the heroic tradition. One-shot one-kill isn't any more evil than a single melee hit. If the sniper killed the noble for money, or because "he needed to be silenced", that's evil. But if the sniper uses their skills to protect others, that's good. What if the one-shot one-kill happens from hiding? Is that any different from performing a coup-de-grace on a sleeping victim? That's my main problem - the draft prestige class we're working on right now heavily favors a one shot one kill from hiding (the class gets bonuses to its crit range and damage for every round spent aiming at the target, capped by class levels, provided that the process isn't interrupted by the sniper moving, concealment, or the target getting full cover at any time).
Someone 08-17-04, 02:31 PM	Originally posted by Kaminton What if the one-shot one-kill happens from hiding? Is that any different from performing a coup-de-grace on a sleeping victim? That's my main problem - the draft prestige class we're working on right now heavily favors a one shot one kill from hiding (the class gets bonuses to its crit range and damage for every round spent aiming at the target, capped by class levels, provided that the process isn't interrupted by the sniper moving, concealment, or the target getting full cover at any time). Again, its the reasons for the sniper doing this that count. If they pick off an orc warlord to disrupt the warband about to raze a village, that's okay. But if its part of some xenocidal campaign to wipe them out, that's not so good. Hiding and (shooting from hiding) are just ways to protect yourself.
Super Guy 08-17-04, 02:37 PM	I just find it hard to imagine good assassins, because assassination gives the villian no chance to surrender, and i've always seen the potential for mercy as central to being good. It's not that hard, really. You probably consider yourself a good person, or at least neutral. But we're aiming for good, so let's say good. There's an evil king. He'll kill everyone in the world. What do you do? A) Kill him when he doesn't see it, so there's no chance of failure. (i.e. assassinate) B) Fight him honorably and maybe die and fail the world (i.e. honorable and, IMO, stupid idiot. Don't chance the world's fate for your morals) C) Tell him in a letter that you'll kill him, and invite him over for tea and crumpets so you can discuss his surrender. (i.e. ...*sigh*) Sometimes a good party allowing a single weakness, like mercy, can wind up destroying the party and the entire world. And I agree with "Do what you have to do" except, since it's NG, I'd say more "Do what you have to do to help good prevail"
Kaminton 08-17-04, 02:40 PM	Originally posted by Someone Again, its the reasons for the sniper doing this that count. If they pick off an orc warlord to disrupt the warband about to raze a village, that's okay. But if its part of some xenocidal campaign to wipe them out, that's not so good. Hiding and (shooting from hiding) are just ways to protect yourself. How does that compare with sneaking into the orc warlord's tent at night and killing him in his sleep? You've said earlier that killing someone in his sleep is bad. Is it because he's got a chance of spotting you, so he's not totally helpless? The sleeping guy has a chance of waking up, too. Does that make it ok?
Mike the DM 08-17-04, 02:40 PM	Just say no to alignment. But if you've got to keep it in, you could follow much worse advice than this:Originally posted by Someone Sneaking into a castle to avoid confronting (and most likely killing) the guards isn't too bad. Killing someone in their sleep on the other hand, is. Confronting them in their throne room is okay, and fits the heroic tradition. :thumbsup:
BlaineTog 08-17-04, 02:43 PM	Well, here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=284067)'s an example of a neutral/good assasin. [/shameless plug :D]
Kaminton 08-17-04, 02:43 PM	Originally posted by Super Guy It's not that hard, really. You probably consider yourself a good person, or at least neutral. But we're aiming for good, so let's say good. There's an evil king. He'll kill everyone in the world. What do you do? A) Kill him when he doesn't see it, so there's no chance of failure. (i.e. assassinate) B) Fight him honorably and maybe die and fail the world (i.e. honorable and, IMO, stupid idiot. Don't chance the world's fate for your morals) C) Tell him in a letter that you'll kill him, and invite him over for tea and crumpets so you can discuss his surrender. (i.e. ...*sigh*) Sometimes a good party allowing a single weakness, like mercy, can wind up destroying the party and the entire world. And I agree with "Do what you have to do" except, since it's NG, I'd say more "Do what you have to do to help good prevail" Sadly enough, this is my line of reasoning for allowing the paladin to set up a covert ops group at all. I'm just drawing the line a little further. But I still have problems with a killing shot from 1000 ft (bow of true arrows + critical hit), or even sneaking into a balcony in the warlord's throne room and killing him from there. As a side note, I'm using the VP/WP system in UA, so a critical hit (especially with damage bonuses like this one has) has a good chance of killing you (critical hits deal damage directly to WP, you die when your WP hit 0, and your WP = Constitution score).
Avatar of Hatred 08-17-04, 02:52 PM	Originally posted by Glak More of an issue, is why is a SUN paladin setting up covert forces. That sort of stuff is usually done at night or in darkness. The sun likes everything out in the the open. It isn't evil but it isn't sunny either. Well, where ever the sun shines, a shadow is cast. Therefor shadows could conceivbably be the domain of a sun-god. However, all that crap aside, I feel that while assassins are not required to be evil, they shouldn't be allowed to be good either. In my games, I allow neutral aligned assassins, but never good. A neutral assassin can easily rationalize his job by thinking "If I showed up on his door step, he probably deserved it.", or something of the like.
BlaineTog 08-17-04, 03:13 PM	Originally posted by Avatar of Hatred A neutral assassin can easily rationalize his job by thinking "If I showed up on his door step, he probably deserved it.", or something of the like.Still evil. Rationalize all you want, but if you (in the end) will kill anyone for money, its still an evil act. Now, if the assasin is discerning about his targets, then its another story. Swift Slayers will only take the job if the target needs to die (like that aforementioned evil king. I am making a distinction between "needing to die" and "deserving to die," because the two arn't mutually exclusive). Among those choices that Super Guy mentioned, the Swift Slayers would invariably choose A in that situation. Mind you that choosing A is a bit pragmatic. They arn't going to give the king another chance because by now, he's chosen his path. The kind needs to die for the betterment of the world. Clearly, this is less than perfect goodness. Thus, Swift Slayers can't be Exalted (which would require them to lose their pragmatism). A line needs to be drawn between Exalted assasins and just Good or Neutral ones (for there is a difference). IMO, you cannot have an Exalted assasin (Slayer of Domiel aside, which was a poor excuse for a good assasin in both concept and design). Killing someone as quickly as possible without giving them a chance is not Good Incarnate. Its a large Good (getting rid of someone extremely evil) with a speck or so of evil (not allowing them any more mercy, although one could argue that a swift death is merciful), which is something acceptable to those who are below the level of Paladin goodness. Of course, the whole question is greatly simplified in Ebberron, where assasins could be any alighnment (or, at least, should be. I don't know whether it Eb rule book amended that directly).
Sildatorak 08-17-04, 03:22 PM	Originally posted by Eightbitmage In reply to Sildatorak: I have to disagree with the idea of "you've got to do what you've got to do" I think this is more of a neutral attitude than neutral good. Now that I re-read it, I disagree with Sildatorak, too. :) What I meant was "If it must be done, then I will do it." Neutral good would try to avoid assassinations, but sometimes it is the most reasonable way to deal with the threat. Basically I feel it breaks down like this when taking out evil rulers. LG- Assassination as a last resort, or when the consequences of failure in some other means necessitate it. NG - Assassination as an unpleasant alternative to be explored only if other means would result in too much bloodshed or collateral damage. CG - Assassination as an acceptable means for dealing with evil leaders. If cutting off the head of an evil army is the easiest means for taking them out, then the chaotic good would gladly do it, the neutral good would do it if it would be overly difficult another way or cost too many bystanders their lives, and lawful good would only do it if there was no other way.
Kaminton 08-17-04, 03:29 PM	Originally posted by Sildatorak If cutting off the head of an evil army is the easiest means for taking them out, then the chaotic good would gladly do it, the neutral good would do it if it would be overly difficult another way or cost too many bystanders their lives, and lawful good would only do it if there was no other way. I take it that CG won't have problems with killing the evil general in his sleep?
Sildatorak 08-17-04, 03:36 PM	Originally posted by Kaminton I take it that CG won't have problems with killing the evil general in his sleep? He has already oppressed and extinguished the lives of hundreds, if not thousands. Does such a supporter of tyranny deserve a chance to go free and kill again? When answering alignment questions about chaotic good, it is easiest to just ask "What Would Batman Do?"
Kaminton 08-17-04, 03:41 PM	Originally posted by Sildatorak He has already oppressed and extinguished the lives of hundreds, if not thousands. Does such a supporter of tyranny deserve a chance to go free and kill again? When answering alignment questions about chaotic good, it is easiest to just ask "What Would Batman Do?" I believe there's some debate on whether Batman is CG or CN :) At least with LG we have "What would Superman do?"
Eightbitmage 08-17-04, 03:44 PM	It's not that hard, really. You probably consider yourself a good person, or at least neutral. But we're aiming for good, so let's say good. There's an evil king. He'll kill everyone in the world. What do you do? A) Kill him when he doesn't see it, so there's no chance of failure. (i.e. assassinate) B) Fight him honorably and maybe die and fail the world (i.e. honorable and, IMO, stupid idiot. Don't chance the world's fate for your morals) C) Tell him in a letter that you'll kill him, and invite him over for tea and crumpets so you can discuss his surrender. (i.e. ...*sigh*) Sometimes a good party allowing a single weakness, like mercy, can wind up destroying the party and the entire world. And I agree with "Do what you have to do" except, since it's NG, I'd say more "Do what you have to do to help good prevail" Yes but this is exactly what differentiates neutral from good, you couldn't have put it better. There is an easy path that you can take that will lead to the greater good (A), but it is still an evil act therefore neutral, do the right thing (B) because if your morals mean nothing then you sure as hell aren't good in my campaign. And sarcastic (C). Doing things that get good results (brutilly murdering a child to save the world) is evil, but we're talking less extreme than that, this is an evil dictator doesn't he deserve death? Well simply put, no, mercy is something that good people must have. I'm sure you've watched movies where the evil villian has a bomb, and the hero has the codes to activate it, and he gives up the codes to save the life of someone minor who is going to die even if the bomb goes off. This is a good person, you might say hes stupid, but good always believes in finding another way, a way where as few people have to get hurt as possible, and if someone must get hurt, then make it as minimal as possable. That is the differeence between good and neutral.
MoogleEmpMog 08-17-04, 04:05 PM	So... Evil: kills evil warlord quietly in his sleep, resulting in civil war and the deaths of thousands of LN soldiers and civilians. Neutral: kills evil warlord quietly in his sleep, installs new leader who peacably takes over the country and uses it for his own or the country's good, which may be the same thing. Good: either dies in the throne room after slaughtering 50-100 LN guards and never touching the evil warlord, or launches a massive invasion, slaughtering countless thousands of LN soldiers on both sides and probably some civvies as well. :rolleyes: Assassination usually isn't *honorable,* but nothing about it is the least bit non-*good.* Now, in D&D 3e alignment terms, which largely follow the path of "good is modern, clean, neat, progressive, tolerant, nice, modern, peaceful and did I mention modern with a small helping of traditional ultra-goodness thrown in for flavor..." Well, if that's the way you use alignment, assassination probably is evil.
crazysamaritan 08-17-04, 04:40 PM	Originally posted by Kaminton I believe there's some debate on whether Batman is CG or CN :) At least with LG we have "What would Superman do?" Yeah, I still say he could be LG, with all the martial arts he's studied, and I just finished a book where he refused to give one vigilante membership as a "bat" since they chose to kill people. She temporarily gave herself membership, but when she failed to follow one of his instructions (don't let anyone see you) he revoked it. Fun book. I agree with BlaineTog about the slayer, and the same goes for the broken idea of Ravanges. If you want thoughts on Assasination, I go with Samurai X (Rurouni Kenshin). It's not very good, even when in a good cause. (I.E. good, but slips easily to neutral at least)
Insancipitory By Nature 08-17-04, 05:43 PM	It's worth noting that assasination has a place in lawful good societies, and can even take on lawful good attributes. The assasination attempts on Hitler, Admiral Yamamoto. The profession of the sniper (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=Carlos+Hathcock&btnG=Search) is principally to get close enough to deliver a death blow and leave. A profession that has existed in one form or another for thousands of years. And certainly in the eyes of Sun Tzu, at least, leads to a more swift resolution of a conflict, which is *more* just because the suffering of the people is necessarily less. So someone might petition to be a member of such an organization, and their 'final' is an actual live mission, maybe with backup. Upon successful completetion they're a member, and I would say at their following level (including if they leveled up on the mission) they'd qualify for their first level of assasin. The alignment of the organization would would depend a lot on the ground rules governing who can be killed and under what circumstances.
Sildatorak 08-17-04, 06:06 PM	Originally posted by Eightbitmage I'm sure you've watched movies where the evil villian has a bomb, and the hero has the codes to activate it, and he gives up the codes to save the life of someone minor who is going to die even if the bomb goes off. This is a good person, you might say hes stupid, but good always believes in finding another way, a way where as few people have to get hurt as possible, and if someone must get hurt, then make it as minimal as possable. That is the differeence between good and neutral. I wouldn't say that the guy is stupid, just overly idealistic. He is a good character because his heart is in the right place, but he is unnecessarily endangering the lives of others. Like you said, good has to try and find the way where the fewest people get hurt. In this bomb example you might have 100% chance of death*1 person+0% chance of death*99 people (if the hero lets one die so that the bomb won't go off) and 10% chance of death*100 people (if the hero gives the codes but is 90% sure he can still stop it). There is a 10-fold favoring of letting one die so that 99 others can live in this case.
danielinthewolvesden 08-17-04, 06:19 PM	I want to point out the difference between 'assasinating someone", and "being an Assasin". (Note caps) . In the D&D universe an Assasin is one who kills anyone if the price is right. That's really Evil. Killing an evil King is an "assasination" (and might be nessesary, and thus not evil) but good people would not normally hire an Assasin to do it. Got the difference? So there could be commandoes that might occasionally "assasinate" an especially evil target. They could even get paid. But since they kill him "for the greater good" and not "because the price is right"- then they are not Assasins. It'd be a stretch to call them "LG", but they certainly don't have to be evil. Note that in Insancipitory By Nature's post- he points out some targets where an assassination attempt wasn't evil. And he's right. But the German Officer that volunteered to set the bomb to kill Hitler did not do it for gold- he did it because he sincerely beleived it was the best thing for his nation. He was correct, and it's a shame he failed. That's the big difference. Note that an Exalted Good PC would take such steps only as an absolute last resort and would expect to atone for it.
Insancipitory By Nature 08-17-04, 08:07 PM	All I was really saying is that if you want to bang out the corners of the PrC listed in the DMG, dump any evil as a requirement, there's not much left that stands in the way. Even a killer for hire in the eyes of Sun Tzu, could be a highly honorable or even noble profession since their job is to let governments fight amongst themselves without burdening the people. The principle evil being that war waged recklessly might well lead to widespread starvation. At which point you can do interesting Bourne Identity situations with a character who doesn't want to be a villian. But the PrC as written isn't all about the coin, necessarily, as it is. As "agents of vengence," it's safe to say evil has it's own ideals beyond minting.
Kaminton 08-17-04, 08:30 PM	Originally posted by danielinthewolvesden I want to point out the difference between 'assasinating someone", and "being an Assasin". (Note caps) . In the D&D universe an Assasin is one who kills anyone if the price is right. That's really Evil. Killing an evil King is an "assasination" (and might be nessesary, and thus not evil) but good people would not normally hire an Assasin to do it. Got the difference? So there could be commandoes that might occasionally "assasinate" an especially evil target. They could even get paid. But since they kill him "for the greater good" and not "because the price is right"- then they are not Assasins. It'd be a stretch to call them "LG", but they certainly don't have to be evil. But would you organize a prestige class whose primary combat abilities (basically all their class features related to combat) are oriented towards becoming the ultimate sniper (one shot from hiding to kill someone)? Note that in Insancipitory By Nature's post- he points out some targets where an assassination attempt wasn't evil. And he's right. But the German Officer that volunteered to set the bomb to kill Hitler did not do it for gold- he did it because he sincerely beleived it was the best thing for his nation. He was correct, and it's a shame he failed. That's the big difference. I agree, and this is why I'm letting the player form a covert ops group at all (this is important because I'm running a low level campaign in parallel, and there is a good chance at least one player will take this prestige class). However, that german officer was NOT specially trained to assassinate Hitler. And let's stay away from RL references now, please :) Note that an Exalted Good PC would take such steps only as an absolute last resort and would expect to atone for it. That's what I was wondering about the "mercy" post that Eightbitmage posted. Is the requirement to show mercy (and giving the enemy a chance to surrender/be redeemed) a good act, or exalted act? Alternately, is failing to show mercy an evil act, or merely not an exalted one? The party isn't exalted, and I don't expect them to live up to exalted standards. There are five major powers in the region. One is LE, one is CE (for now, it's a rather disorganized orc "empire"), 1 is LG, 1 is NG, and the final one used to be LN but is now LE. Kingdom A was responsible for a change in government in Kingdom E, and has other machinations going on (which the players don't have any proof of at the moment). Would it be justified for this organization (which ultimately reports to the PC paladin) to not just assassinate the king/emperor/warlord who rules one of the LE kingdoms, but to specially train people to be snipers to do so? This is the crux of my problem: you're specifically grooming/training/molding people over a long period of time (10 levels) to do this.
Relic 08-18-04, 06:21 AM	Originally posted by Kaminton But would you organize a prestige class whose primary combat abilities (basically all their class features related to combat) are oriented towards becoming the ultimate sniper (one shot from hiding to kill someone)? You mean like the US Navy Seals? Part of their job as covert special forces is taking out key targets in whatever means are necessary (sometimes assassinations). Yet, the public image of Navy Seals are "good." In fact, their image is often associated with the ultimate form of good... defending the very ideas of patriotism and freedom. Motive is what determines whether a particular action is good, neutral, or evil... at least by my book. You assassinate someone because he is an evil tyrant and likes to kick puppy dogs? Intentions are good thus the act is considered good. (Note though, good characters would definitely analysis the situation to make sure that assassination is the best method to achieve their goals). You assassinate the head of the thieves' guild so you can take his spot and become your very own Kingpin... evil.
Naeron 08-18-04, 08:54 AM	Originally posted by Kaminton Ok. What if the one-shot one-kill happens from hiding? Is that any different from performing a coup-de-grace on a sleeping victim? That's my main problem - the draft prestige class we're working on right now heavily favors a one shot one kill from hiding (the class gets bonuses to its crit range and damage for every round spent aiming at the target, capped by class levels, provided that the process isn't interrupted by the sniper moving, concealment, or the target getting full cover at any time). The method by which you kill someone is irrelevant to its alignment on the Good/Evil axis unless said method causes uneccesary suffering or debasement of life. It is the reason for the death that defines this element of the act's alignment. If it would be a good act to kill someone, e.g. the evil king who is causing suffering to thousands of innocent people across the kingdom then it remains a good act whether you do so in a challenge on the field of battle, by sneaking into the castle and storming the throne room, by a single arrow shot from afar or even by coup de grace while he is asleep. The thing that separates these methods are questions of personal honour, it may not be considered honourable by some to kill someone who is unarmed by some people but another good person would consider it ok. Coup de Grace on an enemy when it is a good act to kill them in combat remains a good act. In fact it is a more merciful act than chopping them up when they are awake as long as the death sentence is merited in the first place. Good societies D&D would prefer hanging or beheading as there method of capital punishment for just this reason and would abhor drawing and quartering or burning at the stake (these inflict pain before death so evince a lack of respect for life). So a PrC ranged assasin could be taken by a good aligned class as long as all the killings performed stayed within the definition of Good acts. If they stick to killing non-innocent people to protect the innocent then they would be ok. Originally posted by Kaminton That's what I was wondering about the "mercy" post that Eightbitmage posted. Is the requirement to show mercy (and giving the enemy a chance to surrender/be redeemed) a good act, or exalted act? Alternately, is failing to show mercy an evil act, or merely not an exalted one? The party isn't exalted, and I don't expect them to live up to exalted standards. Mercy is a component of the PHB good alignments, as is the offering of the chance of redemption. But nowhere in the PHB does is actually state this (its usually derived from the phrase "respect for life") and in fact the opposite is implied with LG which "hates to see the guilty go unpunished". So its definitely wrong to state that even a Paladin must be merciful. Good characters should consider mercy in their punishments but deciding that mercy is not warranted in a given case remains a Good decision. I'm don't have the BOED so I can't comment on how far they take Exalted good but I would guess that the decision that mercy is not warranted remains a valid one for Exalted Good characters under the right conditions. Similarly with redemption it is entirely valid for a Good PC to take the position that it would only be offered to someone who has evidenced any desire to seek redemption, in this case it is a Good act to give the being that chance at redemption but if they have shown no signs of wanting to reject evil then deciding they don't deserve that chance is still Good.
Arilou_skiff 08-18-04, 10:57 AM	Actually I'd argue that killing is never *good* if you break things down far enough. Stopping evil is good, if killing them is the only means to realistically do so then the killing will not be evil. It's not the killing that is good however, it is the stopping. See my point?
Someone 08-18-04, 02:16 PM	Just have a big church that specializes in atonement.
BlaineTog 08-18-04, 02:33 PM	Originally posted by Eightbitmage Yes but this is exactly what differentiates neutral from good, you couldn't have put it better. There is an easy path that you can take that will lead to the greater good (A), but it is still an evil act therefore neutral,It doesn't work like that. This treats Good and Evil as Positive and Negative (respectively) on a number line: Do X good and X evil and get 0.. No no no. Completely wrong. A Good act with an Evil act is just a Good act with an Evil act. They two don't cancel each other out. This is why I don't allow Swift Slayers to be exalted. They arn't allowed to do *anything* evil. do the right thing (B) because if your morals mean nothing then you sure as hell aren't good in my campaign.You are confusing Good with Lawful. Lawful characters would challenge him to single combat. [Neutral/Chaotic] Good characters probably would take the safer route. Doing things that get good results (brutilly murdering a child to save the world) is evil, but we're talking less extreme than that, this is an evil dictator doesn't he deserve death? Well simply put, no, mercy is something that good people must have.Good people do evil things sometimes. Thats just the way it is; they arn't perfect, nor should they purport to be. A Good character would brutally murder a child to save the world (assuming it was the last resort), but he probably wouldn't feel all that great about it. An exalted chaacter wouldn't, but again: thats a very special class of good people. I'm sure you've watched movies where the evil villian has a bomb, and the hero has the codes to activate it, and he gives up the codes to save the life of someone minor who is going to die even if the bomb goes off.And guess what: the hero still ends up stopping the bomb. Movies are like that. This is a good person, you might say hes stupid, but good always believes in finding another way, a way where as few people have to get hurt as possible, and if someone must get hurt, then make it as minimal as possable.(Emphasis mine) Exactly. Thats the Good assasin: kill as few people as possible. They don't kill every ruler who shows tendencies of becoming evil. They kill the evil ruler who has invaded country X and drawn and quartered the last 3 diplomats country X sent to kindly ask him to stop. That is the differeence between good and neutral.No, thats the difference between Exalted and Good.
danielinthewolvesden 08-18-04, 02:40 PM	Originally posted by Relic You mean like the US Navy Seals? Part of their job as covert special forces is taking out key targets in whatever means are necessary (sometimes assassinations). Yet, the public image of Navy Seals are "good." . But note that first... "PART of their job...". That isn't their only job. It's a extreme last resort part of their job. And that's why it's different.
Relic 08-19-04, 07:05 AM	Originally posted by danielinthewolvesden But note that first... "PART of their job...". That isn't their only job. It's a extreme last resort part of their job. And that's why it's different. It's far from being an extreme last resort of their job. It is an aspect of their job, sometimes on the grounds of "opportunity situation," often for political reason. For example, some known assassinations from history (but not necessarily done or supported by the US): Juvenal Habyarimana (Rwanda crime lord), Patrice Lumumba (Congo CIA agent who dealed with Russia), Ngo Dinh Diem (South Vietnamese politician killed 3 weeks before a military coup prior to the Vietnam War), Olaf Palme (major leader of the international disarmament movement)... and I can name a great deal more. Point is... assassination is not inherently evil. There are good reasons that can justify an assassination (preventing a war perhaps?)... and there are also a great many reasons that an assassination could be performed for power, greed, or ignorance.
Kaminton 08-19-04, 04:03 PM	Fortunately, this argument is now moot since the paladin decided that he wanted an intelligence agency above all - so now the prestige class is a scout/pathfinder/infiltrator (a mix of rogue and ranger, with a few spell like abilities thrown in), and not an assassin. Thankfully. Interesting discussion though. And yes, I had that war discussion with my player. Apparently, if he knew that war was imminent (presumably through these agents), he would gladly order the assassination of the other side's leaders. Now here's a question: if, after the enemy (LE) OPENLY DECLARES WAR with the paladin's allies, and the paladin orders the leadership (king, generals, etc) assassinated: does that violate a paladin's code? Or is it the right, good thing to do, since it minimizes casualties among the peasants and common soldiers? Or does it depend on niceties, like the paladin declaring war in support of his allies first?
Sildatorak 08-19-04, 04:52 PM	Originally posted by Kaminton Now here's a question: if, after the enemy (LE) OPENLY DECLARES WAR with the paladin's allies, and the paladin orders the leadership (king, generals, etc) assassinated: does that violate a paladin's code? Or is it the right, good thing to do, since it minimizes casualties among the peasants and common soldiers? It is a tough one, but here is a snippet that says he'd have to take them out through standard means or by honorable challenge. [i]taken from the paladin's code of conduct[i] act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth) He cannot just put them down in their sleep if they have declared war. He could send infiltrators to bypass their guards and then confront them openly, but a ordering a stealth attack when they are helpless would be dishonorable in the extreme and be a breach of their CoC. The paladin should still find a way to minimize loss of life among the common troops, he just can't use a dishonorable way to do it.
april151978 08-19-04, 07:59 PM	From Yahoo reference... Assassination 1. To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons. 2. To destroy or injure treacherously: assassinate a rival's character.