Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Evengar 04-25-06, 01:07 AM	One of the prerequisites for the Assassin prestige class is an evil alignment. In my mind an assassin can be any alignment, even good. To quote an ancient mantra, "It is not the action, but the thought that guides it." If someone is killing someone for what they percieve as the greater good, is that evil? Or if they are neutral, doing a job for money? The assassin would be evil if they killed of their own accord, or took joy in the killing in and of itself. For those of you that have read R.A. Salvatore's Dark Elf Trilogy (and if you haven't you should!), take Zaknafein for example, he killed, but he did it for the greater good. Is he evi? Or, how is an assassin that kills drow any different than a fighter that kills drow?
Reversefigure4 04-25-06, 01:19 AM	I would suggest it depends on who they are killing and why - and most of the time, the fact that it's killing for money makes the act evil. If money is the only driving goal, then it's an evil act, regardless of who you are killing. However, I don't draw any difference between the LG Fighter who gets paid to fight the bad guy's army and the assassin who gets paid to kill the bad guy directly. Both are doing the same job, and both are justifiably getting paid - just because they're good doesn't mean they don't need to pay bills like everyone else.
Cantankerous 04-25-06, 01:25 AM	You play things as you like in your campaign, but by the official rationale, a Good Assassin IS an oxymoron. To be an assassin is to take life for profit. That IS one of the most common defintions of Evil in D&D. So, while in your game, sure, in general, using the RAW, it's non-sensical. Isshia
OctoberRaven 04-25-06, 01:30 AM	What about bounty hunters who kill only lawbreakers condemned to die but flee prison? Taking care of killers/rapists/cultistsother dangerous individuals, even for a profit, can't be THAT evil. Isn't killing things and getting rich off it the MO of, like, every adventuring party?
Entheogenic 04-25-06, 01:34 AM	Agreed. Why is the fighter who gets paid to kill allowed to be good, but the assassin who gets paid to kill not? Is killing via stealth more evil than killing via direct combat? If so, why are rogues allowed to be good? Entheogenic
Hippokrene 04-25-06, 01:35 AM	Getting paid to kill the outlaw, charging into his camp, and splitting his head open = Good. Getting paid to kill the outlaw, sneaking into his camp, and slipping a poisoned blade between his ribs = Evil. In many ways, D&D is like an old-fashion Western.
Mitchell 04-25-06, 01:42 AM	Anyone can kill anyone. That should be obvious. The fighter that is working to eliminate the orc presence could be considered an "assassin" in the broadest sense of the word, and is most likely to be used by the targets of said fighter. The PrC assassin is a different animal. It's focus is on killing. It even had to kill someone for the sole purpose of entering the PrC. Who was that person? Who knows? Could have been a rival ganglord who was stepping on the wrong toes, or it could have been an innocent merchant who decided not to pay for protection. Of course, the prospective assassin doesn't care, they just know that this person stands between them and the knowledge that the higher ranking assassins have to teach (benefits that the PrC has to offer). I suppose I could be missing something, but that seems like a world of difference to me.
Steel91101 04-25-06, 01:52 AM	An assassin not necessarily evil? Hmm, a murderer for hire who is not evil. A person who had to kill a random person just to become an "assassin" but is not evil. Okay, let's try this litmus test. In the D and D universe. Your PC is in a tavern socializing, and someone asks "So, what do ye do fer a living?" What do you suppose would happen when your PC answers "Oh, I'm an assassin"? Or perhaps a better question is: Would your PC answer honestly? And if not, why not? The taking of life is inherently evil. Much would have to be accomplished to make that taking of life "not evil." You want to play an assassin, then do so. It is an inherently evil class, as assassins take life for profit. Deal.
fatal error 04-25-06, 02:07 AM	There was an extremely long thread about this not too long ago, hunt for it if you'd like. This thread will probably get overwhelmed with personal opinions on alignment and ridiculously non-D&D real-world related arguments. The real answer to the quesiton is: Whatever you want, if you're the DM. I believe the reason it is required to be evil is the special requirement of the entry of killing a person solely to get into the guild. Killing for completely personal gain (getting to learn those 'leet assassin skills') is probably defined as evil to the designers of D&D. That's probably as close to an official answer as you can get. Drop the special entrance requirement and you could easily come up with reasons it can be a non-alignment restricted class. Edit: Your example of Zaknafian, he didn't kill for the greater good, he killed because to not kill would be his death. How useful is this master swordsman who won't assassinate priestesses, in Drow culture? He hated Lolth, but the best he mustered to defend that belief was to serve one priestess of her to kill others, hardly the ideal solution.
Vaelan 04-25-06, 02:11 AM	Assassins are Evil because they are willing to kill for money. If you aren't willing to kill for money and find a way to learn the Assassins' secrets in spite of that fact, then I would say that being Neutral or even Good would be perfectly acceptable. If I were ever to play a non-Evil Assassin (as per the Assassin class), I would look for a retired Assassin to learn from. If the retired Assassin was willing to kill for money, chances are he will be willing to teach you for money.
OctoberRaven 04-25-06, 02:25 AM	Assassins are Evil because they are willing to kill for money. Paladin ethics-ish tangent: What if the Assasin needed the money to survive? For his dying daughter? To feed starving orphans? If he has no other alternative? Would he still be Evil? Now, if he ENJOYED his work, or if he did it just to throw more money into his Scrooge McDuck-esque pool, I could agree that he's evil. But just because he's getting 50 gold to off someone he never met? Not neccessarily Paladin material, but if he needs it, chances are he'll do it even if he regrets it. An example of an 'ethical' assasin would be Agent 47 from Hitman 2. He takes contracts only for the ransom money he needed to save the priest who took him in. He clearly regrets the life he chose, but now it's the only way for him to save his best friend.
Oswald Krato 04-25-06, 02:40 AM	There's an exalted version: Slayer of Domiel. While I don't have it with me at the moment, there IS a good-aligned assassin. Gets divine spells, too.
Mitchell 04-25-06, 02:45 AM	Paladin ethics-ish tangent: What if the Assasin needed the money to survive? For his dying daughter? To feed starving orphans? If he has no other alternative? Would he still be Evil? Now, if he ENJOYED his work, or if he did it just to throw more money into his Scrooge McDuck-esque pool, I could agree that he's evil. But just because he's getting 50 gold to off someone he never met? Not neccessarily Paladin material, but if he needs it, chances are he'll do it even if he regrets it. An example of an 'ethical' assasin would be Agent 47 from Hitman 2. He takes contracts only for the ransom money he needed to save the priest who took him in. He clearly regrets the life he chose, but now it's the only way for him to save his best friend. The whole thing is going to fall into an alignment argument. Is there no other way to make money? I doubt it, this was likely just the easiest way. Why not just go adventuring? It seems to work for alot of people. No way to save his friend than to kill for money? Why not just direct all of that energy into killing the people who have his friend? After all, killing perfectly innocent people to save someone else is just fine :rolleyes:... Unless of course you are that other person or one of their loved ones. That's just selfish... I want my friend to live, therefore you die. Like I said, anyone can kill. The assassin PrC as written is someone who does it for money. As written it is evil. You can houserule whatever you want. You can change the entry requirements to whatever you want. You can change the flavor text to whatever you want. You can change the class abilities to whatever you want. But at this point it stops being the assassin that we all have access to, and is no longer something that can be debated with any certainty.
Cantankerous 04-25-06, 02:50 AM	In D&D it simply doesn't matter why you "assassinate" someone. If you receive pay DIRECTLY to commit murder, (a bounty hunter does not, a mercenary does not) then you've qualified yourself for an Evil act. It doesn't matter if you are feeding a whole orphanage by doing so, it's still Evil as per the RAW. Feeding the Orphanage is a seperate act, and is Good, altruistic. The person who does both will be Neutral most likely, morally, as the balance is maintained in actions. However, if you are going to use the Assassin PrC you must be Evil when you become an Assassin, AND if you intend to continue advancing in it, you must remain Evil, as it's a class requirement. Outside of the Assassin PrC though, or in an individual campaign, knock yourself out. Create a PrC that is the Assassin in all but name and take out the requirement of Alignment Any evil. and you've got it made. Isshia
Last City 04-25-06, 03:10 AM	You can look up Book of Exalted Deeds for a "good" assasin. Its really your call dude: you can just wing it and say an assasin is just like any profession. Evil or neutral chaacters are welcome... although good assasins will require more reasons and stories to back it up. :)
a_psh 04-25-06, 03:49 AM	Basically, the D&D Assassin is evil because the PrC presupposes being connected with an evil organization, mainly through flavor and the kill-a-man entry requirement. Tweak those two things and you can easily rebrand the class to be any alignment you want. But the standard DMG Assassin isn't just a stealthy combatant or a hired killer, he's part of a secret society of nasty, nasty people. If you don't like the alignment requirement, redefine the order a little bit or just axe it altogether. It makes sense as written. It'll still make sense if you rewrite it so it's tailored to your specific game. Either way, remember that roleplaying requirements don't balance game-mechanical power, so you don't need to add/remove anything if all you want to do is change the Assassin's alignment requirements. Enjoy!
Araciel 04-25-06, 04:05 AM	whats wrong with being evil??? anyway, the assassin is evil...deal. killing someone for money is wrong, if ya ask me...the only reason i would kill anyone would be to save myself. is obvious you need to undergo a lot of training to gain the benefits of the prestige class, so the 'i did it to save my family' angle doesn't work...just because assassins are BADASS doesn't mean just anyone should be able to play one. it even states in the dmg that prestige classes may not be right for PCS, which is why they arent in the PHB in the first place.
Ankalagon 04-25-06, 04:07 AM	I agree with all the above who state not necessarily, your game your choice. How about this, James Bond is an assassin but there is an argument for the character being a Paladin (I am not saying it's winnable, just an argument). In fact the assassin Jason Bourne is portrayed as being decidedly neutral (later showing good tendencies). Call it Infiltrator or Spy and you're on a winner. The focus is on deception and underhand methods to get a certain job done. I think the class is inherently non-lawful (although that could be argued too, especially on these boards). But pretty much anything else would be fine. Moral ambiguity is not necessarily evil.
allenchan 04-25-06, 05:09 AM	assassins dont have to be evil, Assassins, however, do. Remember, the Assassin in the DMG is part of a campaign-specific organization and is used to be an example. Clearly, said organization requires their members to be Evil. Nothing prevents you from calling yourself an assasin and being Good at the same time (in fact, there is an Exalted assassin-esque prc)
Vaelan 04-25-06, 05:14 AM	Paladin ethics-ish tangent: What if the Assasin needed the money to survive? For his dying daughter? To feed starving orphans? If he has no other alternative? Would he still be Evil? Matters such as duress and the conflict of Good values, the most common of which are the often opposed beliefs of protecting the innocent versus preserving the dignity of sentient beings, are not addressed by the rules. As such, any answer I give is relatively meaningless unless your intent is to gauge my moral attitudes. The person who does both will be Neutral most likely, morally, as the balance is maintained in actions. I disagree with the philosophy. I also disagree with the implementation of the philosophy. However, I've stated my objections quite a few times. If you don't know what they are by now, you don't care. ;)
runestar 04-25-06, 05:19 AM	An assassin may not necessarily be evil. The assassin as presented in the DMG, however, has to be, as it specifically refers to someone willing to kill for money. That's evil in my book, regardless of the reason. That's the difference.
Ankalagon 04-25-06, 05:29 AM	I disagree with the philosophy. I also disagree with the implementation of the philosophy. However, I've stated my objections quite a few times. Sorry about this but I couldn't resist. If you +1 to 0 then -1 you get 0, that's maths not philosophy. ;) Again I apologise it just seemed funny.
Cantankerous 04-25-06, 07:36 AM	I agree with all the above who state not necessarily, your game your choice. How about this, James Bond is an assassin but there is an argument for the character being a Paladin (I am not saying it's winnable, just an argument). In fact the assassin Jason Bourne is portrayed as being decidedly neutral (later showing good tendencies). Call it Infiltrator or Spy and you're on a winner. The focus is on deception and underhand methods to get a certain job done. I think the class is inherently non-lawful (although that could be argued too, especially on these boards). But pretty much anything else would be fine. Moral ambiguity is not necessarily evil. There's almost as much an arguement to Asmodeus being a Paladin as there is to James Bond being one...especially as Flemming wrote him. Bourne too, while a complex character, is not even shouting distance away from Good. He's a victim himself, he's generally honorably, but Good, not by any stretch of the word that is vaguely reasonable. Both are, I would say, non-Evil as they were presented cinematicly, but as they were written, both are Evil (per the D&D defintion) men who strive to be atleast honorbale, atleast as far as their own code goes. But neither is anymore Good (per the D&D term) than Mack Bolan, Remo Williams or Frank Castle. Isshia
Cantankerous 04-25-06, 07:48 AM	I disagree with the philosophy. I also disagree with the implementation of the philosophy. However, I've stated my objections quite a few times. If you don't know what they are by now, you don't care. ;) Oh, sure, and you're entirely welcome to your opinions, but they still don't agree with the RAW which tells the DM and Player alike to judge alignment by actions, not by Player statements of intent. DMG II; pg:134 Actions dictate alignments, not statements of intent by Players. We know from the same page that alignment change is a gradual process, that it takes time and that there are intermediary steps in between...all of which point to the same thing from the official source on the subject. The PHB has much the same to say, advising the Player that if his character ACTS in a manner that is not inline with the stated alignment he has, that the DM may change it to fit his actions. Isshia
Ut-Napishtim 04-25-06, 08:54 AM	I believe the reason it is required to be evil is the special requirement of the entry of killing a person solely to get into the guild. Killing for completely personal gain (getting to learn those 'leet assassin skills') is probably defined as evil to the designers of D&D. That's probably as close to an official answer as you can get. Drop the special entrance requirement and you could easily come up with reasons it can be a non-alignment restricted class. I agree. This is actually one of only two house rules I use in my game. For my campaigns I eliminate the entire concept of an 'Assassin's Guild' as the whole thing seems rather juvenile to me (you can't come in our treehouse until you go to 7-11 and get us all twinkies!). Unless you're playing in a game with Asian or Middle Eatern flavor such a character would be a paranoid loner by nature, or at best the trusted servant of a powerful ruler. IME players looking at the Assassin PrC aren't looking to become a killer for hire, but rather simply pursuing the PrC abilities - which include a disabling option, to use while on adventures with the party. That does require a certain amount of focus on learning about things like anatomy and poisons to become a more stealthy killer, so I've house ruled it to 'any non-good' rather than evil so that neutral characters may pursue the PrC. Overall I prefer to run my games as RAW as possible and keep the house rules to a minimum, but like I said this is one of only two I use in my games. :twocents:
Ankalagon 04-25-06, 08:56 AM	To Cantankerous Dude, you just want an argument. While I find it somewhat ridiculous to argue over the following points of film/book characters...ha, ha I'm going to anyway but just a little bit. There's almost as much an arguement to Asmodeus being a Paladin as there is to James Bond being one...especially as Flemming wrote him. That is quite frankly the biggest load of nonsense I think I have ever read. Bourne too, while a complex character, is not even shouting distance away from Good.. Really, (I am going to steel something now) hmm'kay (stolen). You see you have used +1 -1 balance type argument. Right through the Bourne stories that's how he works. Showing ultimately good tendencies at the end. Starting from mind blank (neutral). Mack Bolan Who's Mack Bolan? If you mean Mark Bolan that's just heresy, you infidel. Twentieth Century Boy is a classic and can only be LG ;) I am signing off in disbelief that I bothered to argue, I need help, call the men in white coats, I am being attacked by a purple banana aaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Vharuck 04-25-06, 09:39 AM	"What if the assassin killed for money and then used that money to feed an orphanage?" Is it just me, or has character consistancy died a tragic and viceral death? How could a single person with the same outlook on life as he usually has assassinate and then turn around and support orphans? What I'm saying is that you can sit and add things to hypotheticals all you want, but just because you can actually form it into a sentence that's grammatically correct doesn't mean it actually would work. I'm lying right now. See? That sentence is perfectly fine in its grammar and syntax. Meaning-wise, it's nothing but garbage. It can't be right. I've seen it far too often that people throw added contingencies and circumstances to hypotheticals in order to justify their will, but one must not take those circumstances as a given. Tell me why a person who has no problem with assassinating whom he is told to for profit would feel the need to support an orphanage out of the goodness of his heart.
Nyaz 04-25-06, 09:40 AM	Killing is NOT evil. Assassination is. Even if he had to do it to feed starving orphans. Could he not work on a farm, or as a carpenter, and earn the money that way? Taking life for money is about the most evil thing one can do in the game.
STAT 04-25-06, 10:05 AM	I don't see why you couldn't just have a guild of good assassins. They only take contracts to kill evil guys. I don't even think it contradicts what's written in the DMG. There's no reason a player couldn't play a good aligned assassin with those simple guidelines. It seems the only reason they didn't bother including it is because they probably wanted to keep things simple. After all, it's pretty ridiculous to conclude that all assassin guilds are going to function the same way. Edit: Aside from the imposed restriction of an evil alignment in the requirements, which isn't particularly useful for a debate about whether an assassin can be good.
Nyaz 04-25-06, 10:18 AM	I don't see why you couldn't just have a guild of good assassins. They only take contracts to kill evil guys. I don't even think it contradicts what's written in the DMG. There's no reason a player couldn't play a good aligned assassin with those simple guidelines. Because assassination is evil. So the members of such a guild could never be good. Why is assassination evil? A: common sense (real life); remember, we're talking about KILLING IN COLD BLOOD, even while target is sleeping, bound, etc. B: Book of Vile Darkness lists assassination as probably the most evil act one could commit (DnD)
celtredleg 04-25-06, 10:40 AM	To Cantankerous Dude, you just want an argument. While I find it somewhat ridiculous to argue over the following points of film/book characters...ha, ha I'm going to anyway but just a little bit. That is quite frankly the biggest load of nonsense I think I have ever read. Really, (I am going to steel something now) hmm'kay (stolen). You see you have used +1 -1 balance type argument. Right through the Bourne stories that's how he works. Showing ultimately good tendencies at the end. Starting from mind blank (neutral). Who's Mack Bolan? If you mean Mark Bolan that's just heresy, you infidel. Twentieth Century Boy is a classic and can only be LG ;) I am signing off in disbelief that I bothered to argue, I need help, call the men in white coats, I am being attacked by a purple banana aaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Never read Don Pendleton?? Mack Bolan is one evil dude out doing good things. As is Bourne and Bond.Very little good in either of them, even if it is in the name of doing good deeds. What they are all heros in the series, so that makes them good? Not in DnD terms it does not.
Tanivor 04-25-06, 10:53 AM	My workaround for this was the 'Honorable Assassin' PrC, which was basically the assassin, but instead of the evil alignment they had to give loyalty to a cause: Basically, they trained in the arts of anatomy and stealth and were not paid, but became more of a Sam Fisher-type character, a stealthy defender of their country's ideology.
Sereno 04-25-06, 10:55 AM	Of course the problem with calling ALL assassination evil leads to even more grey areas. A "standard" adventure is to go after an Evil wizard. The PCs find his stronghold, break in, fight his guards and minions (usually killing them), confront the BBEG and kill him, too. This is (generally) accepted as Good (or at least "good") ... because the BBEG is Big, Bad, and Evil. Why would it be Evil (or even "evil") for a single highly-skilled individual to sneak into the BBEGs stronghold, bypass all of the guards and minions, and death attack the BBEG, killing him? At least one problem with the Assassin PrC (as presented) is that killing an innocent bystander is a requirement for gaining access to the full features of the organization. The Assassin PrC is *selfishly* evil and kills without qualms because they're being paid to do it. Doesn't matter if it's an evil king, a good king, or a six-year-old girl ... if they're paid, they'll kill. You can certainly have good assassins (PCs fall into this category quite a bit) but you need to modify the PrC to have a good-aligned Assassin.
Ankalagon 04-25-06, 10:58 AM	I really cannot believe I got sucked into this but Oi celtredleg read the damn thread. Oh and by the way ALIGNMENT FOLLOWS ACTION.
STAT 04-25-06, 07:24 PM	At least one problem with the Assassin PrC (as presented) is that killing an innocent bystander is a requirement for gaining access to the full features of the organization. The Assassin PrC is *selfishly* evil and kills without qualms because they're being paid to do it. Doesn't matter if it's an evil king, a good king, or a six-year-old girl ... if they're paid, they'll kill. Well it doesn't specifically say that the person is an innocent bystander only that you have to kill the person for no other reason than to join the assassins. It's pretty much a test to get in to the assassin guild and there's certainly no reason the target couldn't be some evil dude. I agree with your other points though. A lot of people seem to be lumping in a lot of stuff that is implied about what the Assassin class is but not written specifically in the DMG. The only real arguements for not having good assassins are 1) The arbitrary evil alignment requirment and 2) The feel of the class description. There is nothing innately evil about "assassinating" someone anymore than it's innately evil for the heros to go into the BBEG's lair and kill him. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, if assassination is evil than almost every party to ever adventure would have to be classed as evil. What makes an assassin evil is what Sereno said, the willingness to kill for money alone. Ergo, if you had a good assassin's guild and they killed Evil people an Assassin in that guild would kill for both moral and monetary reasons. They'd be no worse off then our aformentioned heros. Now I'll admit that the Assassin class as described in the DMG does imply the, evil kill anyone for a buck, assassin. If, however, you put in a Good assassin guild or whatever in a campaign I see no reason that you couldn't just waive the evil requirement and let someone play it as good.
Always-Late 04-25-06, 07:41 PM	Look, I made a new prestige class! Happy Assassin: Hit Die: As Assassin. Requirements: Alignment: Any. Skills: As Assassin. Special: None. Class Skills: As Assassin. Skill Points: As Assassin. Class Features: As Assassin. Spell List: As Assassin.
a_psh 04-25-06, 09:15 PM	Everyone talking about how you can assassinate people for all these different goody-good reasons and feed orphans and whatnot: Sure. Then you would have assassinated someone. Maybe you could even be called an assassin. But not an Assassin with a capital A. Just like how fighting doesn't make you a fighter or being low-born doesn't translate into commoner levels. Want a guy who only kills evil people and blah blah &c.? Rogue. There you go. It's totally reasonable to remove the evil requirement if you want that specific set of abilities to be available to a non-evil character, but not everyone who's ever killed someone through stealth or guile should automatically be an Assassin!!
woodwalker 04-25-06, 09:29 PM	OK, killing for the greater good=Good killing just for money=Evil. in order to become a PrC assassin, one must kill a person for NO other reason than joining the PrC. assassins dont feel a pang or regret if they kill the most random person they can because they are evil. i believe that one should be able to get inot the assassin PrC without being evil, or killing someone.
revnk 04-25-06, 10:39 PM	Look, I made a new prestige class! Happy Assassin: Hit Die: As Assassin. Requirements: Alignment: Any. Skills: As Assassin. Special: None. Class Skills: As Assassin. Skill Points: As Assassin. Class Features: As Assassin. Spell List: As Assassin. Okay, but what if a Happy Assassin wants to eat a kobold while he's out trying to hunt a dragon to enslave during an attempt to keep an evil cleric from killing a hostage but then the cleric kills the hostage anyway and the Happy Assassin keeps stealing from every NPC he ever meets while skimming off the top of the party treasury and then he kills someone who magically Detected as "evil" but the person was really only sort of rude and then he's in a country where all the people are evil but they're still lawful and it's Tuesday? :P (But seriously: well done yet again, Always-Late. Cheers.)
Always-Late 04-26-06, 12:44 AM	Okay, but what if a Happy Assassin wants to eat a kobold while he's out trying to hunt a dragon to enslave during an attempt to keep an evil cleric from killing a hostage but then the cleric kills the hostage anyway and the Happy Assassin keeps stealing from every NPC he ever meets while skimming off the top of the party treasury and then he kills someone who magically Detected as "evil" but the person was really only sort of rude and then he's in a country where all the people are evil but they're still lawful and it's Tuesday? :PA smite-on-sight paladin arrives who's guarding a baby red wyrmling destined to destroy civilization but has a 0.032% chance of becoming of good alignment from people who wish to kill the defenseless baby in his sleep uses a ranged smite attack to put an arrow through the neck. :P (But seriously: well done yet again, Always-Late. Cheers.)Thanks, revnk. (Threads like these always end up looking the same after a while.)
Vaelan 04-26-06, 01:14 AM	Oh, sure, and you're entirely welcome to your opinions, but they still don't agree with the RAW which tells the DM and Player alike to judge alignment by actions, not by Player statements of intent. Quoting the rules is a woefully ineffective rebuttal to the argument that the rules contradict themselves and are flawed on a basic logical level. Perhaps I did not explain my argument clearly?
Cantankerous 04-26-06, 01:37 AM	The rules are anything but contradictory by and in and of themselves. Show the appropriate passages, instead of making a blanket statement about how referencing the rules for the game is inappropriate when discussing the game, and we'll discuss it. Isshia
Cantankerous 04-26-06, 01:50 AM	Robert Ludlum, the writer of the Borne series, introduced us to Jason Bourne in 1980. Mack Bolan (upon whom Bourne might well be partially based) has been around doing almost the same things (in some of the books, he was more just a anti-mafia one man army in others), in almost the same way, since 1969. HE in turn was probably heavily influenced by Ian Flemmings James Bond. More than 600 Mack Bolan/Executioner novels have been published over the last 35 years, making it one of the most prolific series of original novels centered around one character published in the English language. The biggest difference is that Don Pendleton was a formula writer and Robert Ludlum was a gifted writer. Bourne becomes more human seeming, but the utterly cold, calculating way in which he murders, without hesitation, and with more than a little forethought, should be chilling. According to Ludlum, it is meant to be chilling. Of course, in todays fast food/junk food literary world where the cinemagraphic world has bled so far into it and deadened all sympathetic nerve endings, managing chilling simply by having someone capable of murdering unfeelingly, coldly and precisely, without thought or care about life (as Bourne sometimes does) is almost impossible. Now, with Freddy Kreuger as an exemplar, you have manage to destroy the soul of your opponent or slaughter wholesale, to get the title: Evil. Isshia
Henchcritter 04-26-06, 03:31 AM	Paladin ethics-ish tangent: What if the Assasin needed the money to survive? For his dying daughter? To feed starving orphans? If he has no other alternative? Would he still be Evil? -Fat Tony, are you a crook? -Bart, is it wrong to steal a bread if your family is hungry? -no -and what if you have a large family, is it wrong to steal a truck full of bread. -no -and what if they don't like bread, they like sigaretes instead? -no -enjoy your gift.