Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Revan54115110 02-22-07, 06:56 PM	OK I am playing in a campaign that my character has an extra motive thought being infiltrate a thieves guild (done) second part is that I am to assassinate or soften up in a discrete / quite manor. Now here is that man problem I don’t what my character to be evil just stay neutral via the fact that he is fallowing orders. And right know he is a level 4 ranger and I am setting up for later 5 levels from know any ideas ?
kyeudo 02-22-07, 07:09 PM	Im confused as to what you want. Either your ranger is on a mission to assasinate the mayor and you don't want it to make you evil, or your wanting a prestige class that deals in assasination, but you don't want to be evil. If you want the first option, assasinating the mayor is likely an evil act. Depending upon you charecter's alignment, the mayor's alignment, the reason that he is too be assasinated, and the interpretation of your DM, you may or may not become evil. There is realy no way we can help you. However, if you want an assasin-like class that doesn't require you to be evil, there is a prestige class in Secrets of Xendrik called the Scorpion Wraith. Lots of sneaky abilities and no need to be evil. I think you even get poison proficiency.
DarkNick 02-22-07, 07:10 PM	I don't follow you. Do you mean you want to become an assassin that is still neutral or do you want to retain your neutral alignment even though you are assassinating people? If it is the first then that is up to the DM. If it is the second then there is no problem.
Dei 02-22-07, 07:33 PM	I don't follow you. Do you mean you want to become an assassin that is still neutral or do you want to retain your neutral alignment even though you are assassinating people? If it is the first then that is up to the DM. If it is the second then there is no problem. I believe he means the second. If that's right the best thing I could suggest would be three levels of rogue and a couple of levels of shadowdancer, both will keep you nicely out of evil alignment while still giving you that extra bit of bite you want.
Amon_WinterfallIV 02-23-07, 02:06 AM	Wait--what about that class "Slayer of Domiel?" Although I dislike the BoED immensely, I'm pretty sure that it would qualify as a "non-evil" assassin.
danielinthewolvesden 02-23-07, 02:22 AM	The whole thing about an Assassin is that they kill folks- and the only motive is money. Slayer's of Domiel kill Evil folks. Their motive is Good, altho their means may be unlawful. If your PC kills someone "for hire" you are Evil. That is a requirement for the Assassin class. There are quite a few "sneaky killer" classes that are cool, sneaky & deadly but just are not quite assassins.
Amon_WinterfallIV 02-23-07, 02:40 AM	True, Daniel. But I guess I'm eying some kind of opening here. Perhaps he could switch over to good, I guess. I'm getting the impression that his character isn't good aligned though; but maybe it could be wrung into that alignment??
Ventilatory_Threshold 02-23-07, 11:32 AM	If your PC kills someone "for hire" you are Evil. That is a requirement for the Assassin class. Not true. You have to kill someone for no other reason than to join the guild. There is nothing about the class that says you have to take money for any of your kills. Ask your DM to remove the alignment and roleplaying requirements.
Daosus 02-23-07, 08:41 PM	Hire = to engage the services of (a person or persons) for wages or other payment: to hire a clerk. Guild membership is a payment. Anyway, that's beside the point, unless the mayor is evil, I can't see much justification for remaining neutral.
Ventilatory_Threshold 02-23-07, 08:51 PM	Hire = to engage the services of (a person or persons) for wages or other payment: to hire a clerk. Guild membership is a payment. Or we could just drop the alignment and roleplaying requirments like I suggested to begin with.
Chrono Nexus 02-23-07, 10:36 PM	The potential of a person to unashamedly take the life of an innocent for monetary reward seems evil to me. If the assassin only operated within certain limits (like only targeting evil leaders) I could see them as neutral.
Light_Colonel 02-23-07, 11:07 PM	There is also a PrC in Underdark called Imaskari Vengeance Taker. It is essentially an Assassin, but they don't have to be evil (just lawful). The general concept is you take on vendettas against people. I don't think it actually requires that you be an Imaskari, but you do have an oath you need to take. It could be possible (with DM permission) to modify the class to fit your campaign setting.
_SIN_ 02-24-07, 02:07 AM	I think you should scrap the idea of an non-evil assassin. A non-magic using wizard would be a much better concept! ;)
danielinthewolvesden 02-24-07, 03:57 AM	Or we could just drop the alignment and roleplaying requirments like I suggested to begin with. Except that that makes the PrC too powerful.
Gamili 02-24-07, 04:21 AM	Being hired to kill for cash is totally evil while rushing a Kobold camp, leaving nothing alive, and stealing their stuff is completely different. Killing for money is not evil or else we'd never have good PCs. What we need to do is stop trying to justify how the Assassin is evil and rewrite the fluff text for the Assassin.
Ventilatory_Threshold 02-24-07, 11:32 AM	Except that that makes the PrC too powerful. Okay, just so you know, I had to shove an icepick into my head and give myself a frontal lobotomy to keep myself from laughing at that statement. That is just so much bulls**t.
Maekrix_Waere 02-25-07, 02:22 AM	I think you should scrap the idea of an non-evil assassin. A non-magic using wizard would be a much better concept! ;) That is SO dead wrong it is laughable. There is nothing evil about assassinating people who deserve it, such as an mayor who taxes his people into absolute poverty and skimming a little off the top for himself, though assassinating anyone who you are requested to kill ONLY because someone says they'll pay you IS evil. Killing is Neutral, Murder is Evil. Non-Evil Assassin=Assassin who makes sure that the jobs he takes are within his own moral code before taking them. Edit: Also, Daniel, how would removing the alignment restriction of the Assassin make the class more powerful? Seriously, thats like saying removing the alignment restriction from the Paladin class would make it more powerful. It wouldn't. Actually...the alignment restriction of any class along the Good-Evil axis is ludicrous. Both sides have their own of whatever, even if they choose to call them different things. (Paladins and Blackguards, for example.)
_SIN_ 02-25-07, 04:05 AM	I take it sarcasm isn't in your vocabulary?.... It was a joke, hence the smilie... Killing is neutral? In an apathetic world maybe... Murder is Evil? But doesn't the 'evil' act of murder involve, or rather pivot on the 'neutral' act of killing. Afterall, it impossible to murder someone without killing them, right? I'm just playin' with you... I know what you're getting at. A 'GOOD' assassin is more than plausable. They may have the view that the assassination of 'key' targets would benefit the civilised populous in general. i.e. Assassinating an enemy commander to prevent an invasion, therefore saving hundreds, thousands or possibly even millions of lives! But for arguements sake, IF killing is neutral, why are some criminals referred to as serial KILLERS? And by using your theory, would the Pope be 'neutral' if he assassinated Tony Blair (The over-taxing tyrant!)? Afterall, medieval tax was like, 10% of ones income, opposed to near enough 25% that I pay now!!, so by your justification, I'd say he fits the bill! (Although I wouldn't complain about the Popes role in the 'removal' of Blair, doesn't make it any less evil an act. Infact, it would probably indicate an evilness inside me..... But I could live with that!!)
V8122 02-25-07, 09:40 AM	In DnD(and reality), Good and Evil are subjective concepts used to justify Murder and Havoc. "I'll kill anyone you want (who isn't as strong as me) for monatary reward!" As previously stated- Adventurers do that every day, and they are supposed to be the good guys!!!!:thinks:Somehow that really just doesn't add up...
jacobi289 02-25-07, 10:19 AM	I don't see how being an assassin automatically makes you evil. You could be the most morally upstanding and righteous person, except that you kill people for a living. I'd say you could remain neutral if you killed not out of hate or for the money, but because you feel that being an assassin is your place in life, your duty, and that you have an obligation to carry out what your customers ask of you. You could still have friends, donate to charity, help old ladies cross the street, etc. Ever see Leon the Professional? I don't think he was evil.
Ventilatory_Threshold 02-25-07, 11:59 AM	I don't see how being an assassin automatically makes you evil. You could be the most morally upstanding and righteous person, except that you kill people for a living. Umm... yeah. But the Good alignment and killing people for a living are pretty hard to reconcile. What I'd suggest is someone who has undergone some serious training to kill and is now putting it to good (no pun intended) use. Ever see Leon the Professional? I don't think he was evil. Umm... in D&D, he would likely count as Evil. There is a difference, however, between being Evil (has redeeming qualities) and being a fiend (few to no redeeming qualities whatsoever). Leon had little concern for the lives of his targets, let alone anyone who stood in his way. Outside of his job, he kept to himself. Taking in Mathilda did signify either a change in his perspective or as a revelation of something that was already there. Either way, if he exised in D&D, he would be judged by his actions, so only at that moment would his alignment change.
Nidair 02-25-07, 01:26 PM	Be a ranger or scout. And put into your bio the words "Bounty Hunter".
Ventilatory_Threshold 02-25-07, 02:18 PM	And put into your bio the words "Bounty Hunter". The Assassin can do that too.
bholdr_mage 02-25-07, 11:47 PM	You can be an "assassin" without actually taking the "assassin PrC." Play a ninja. Rename it Assassin. Kill for what motivates you. Actually, a druid/ninja (or rogue) at high levels would kick the Assassin's tail. Shapechange/move silently and hide maxed out...then use poison from a snake familiar to finish the job...without ever taking the 5% chance to poison yourself...wait...isn't a druid immune to poison at later levels anyway? Boo-Ya!
Limousine_Liberal 02-26-07, 12:05 AM	I think you should scrap the idea of an non-evil assassin. A non-magic using wizard would be a much better concept! ;) I think those are called Experts.
ElberethSilverleaf 02-26-07, 12:21 AM	In almost all societies, fantasy or real, assassination is murder. In almost all societies, fantasy or real, murder is evil.
ElberethSilverleaf 02-26-07, 12:28 AM	I don't see how being an assassin automatically makes you evil. You could be the most morally upstanding and righteous person, except that you kill people for a living. I'd say you could remain neutral if you killed not out of hate or for the money, but because you feel that being an assassin is your place in life, your duty, and that you have an obligation to carry out what your customers ask of you. You could still have friends, donate to charity, help old ladies cross the street, etc. I can't think of any examples of "good" people who murder for a living....possibly neutral if they're only killing "evil" people.
Limousine_Liberal 02-26-07, 03:12 AM	In almost all societies, fantasy or real, assassination is murder. In almost all societies, fantasy or real, murder is evil. The problem is, while that's certainly true, D&D is largely "about" killing. Good characters kill, neutral characters kill, evil characters kill. Good characters even kill for money in D&D, it's just that they usually satisfy themselves that the target is evil (or at least criminal) before they do it. Forcing assassins to all be evil is one of the aspects in the rules that, for me, highlights the rather arbitrary way in which the rules on alignment were cobbled together. It makes sense that "people who kill for money as a profession" would usually be evil in the real world...but that phrase in quotes describes 99.9% of all adventurers and, within the context of the game, one can imagine an assassin who only kills people who are evil and abandons/refuses to do hits that require him to kill people he believes to be innocent. Saying that assassins would "usually" be evil still makes perfect sense, buy not so much a hard and fast rule. As with the concept of mindless, but Neutral Evil, undead, sometimes it seems like the designers mix and match the rules on alignment in-game with their own estimation of everyday morality. I can't think of any examples of "good" people who murder for a living....possibly neutral if they're only killing "evil" people. That's because you're calling it "murder," a morally loaded term. What about military snipers? Do you assume that none of them are "good," or do you not define their actions as "murder." They certainly can make a career out of killing people. Suppose a paladin finds a gate to Hell and walks through, sword-swinging. He's killing sentient (albeit evil) beings. Is that "murder?" Is that evil? (Bear in mind that the rules make no distinction between "existential evil" from outsiders/orcs/undead/kobolds/ goblinoids/drow/etc. and the "mundane evil" of wicked human beings and demi-humans.) Suppose the nearby town offers a reward to a passing LG fighter to go through that same gate. Is he suddenly evil or neutral if he accepts their offer? Adventurers frequently engage in what would (in the real world) be considered "murder for hire" simply because someone asks them to do so and because they think their targets are "evil" or otherwise "bad guys."
Ventilatory_Threshold 02-26-07, 12:10 PM	You can be an "assassin" without actually taking the "assassin PrC." Play a ninja. Rename it Assassin. Kill for what motivates you. Actually, a druid/ninja (or rogue) at high levels would kick the Assassin's tail. Shapechange/move silently and hide maxed out...then use poison from a snake familiar to finish the job...without ever taking the 5% chance to poison yourself...wait...isn't a druid immune to poison at later levels anyway? Boo-Ya! Stop suggesting substitutes for Assassin levels. This applies to everybody, not just the person I quoted.
DaidojiTaidoru 02-26-07, 01:10 PM	You know, the only time the "Assassin" class has to murder someone is.... wait they don't. Thats right you can be a member of the "Assassin" class without ever having to murder someone. From the requirements. The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins. Which means that you can ride up to a Paladin, and challenge him to a death duel 'because you want to become an Assassin.' If you win, congrats you meet the prereqs. And if you were to challenge a Paladin of Tyranny it would be a pretty neutral act all in all. (Note: this is violating the spirit of the rules probably. But I don't care, because the rules are stupid, and I'm Chaotic.) As for death attack, all you need to do is pull off a sneak attack after 3 rounds of study. You can stand flanking your target with your fighter buddy saying "death attack in 18, 17, 16...." and then politely kill them. Now is this unlikely? Yes. But it's fully supported by the rules. Thus the only reason Assassins are evil is because some jerks in playtesting or design (not sure which) decided to enforce their flavor on the rest of us by adding in Evil alignment as a prereq. So in short, removing the stupid flavor bit so your players can enjoy a quite frankly inferior prestige class is prefectly reasonable, and has the side benifit of allowing you to ignore the thousand rewrites of "non evil assissin" PrCs that either don't have death attack (which is usually all the player wants) or are from the Book of Vile Darkness with extra Guilding and Hypocracy. (er I mean the Book of Exalted Deeds.)
towishimp 02-26-07, 04:52 PM	Sigh...another argument over what is evil in D&D. I love the people who pretend that the assassin slipping through the night to poison the mayor because someone paid him to is the same as the paladin who attacks an orc encampment that has killed a shepherd and his flock. I'll agree that if you wipe out said orc encampment, including women and children, that's just as bad as the assassin murdering the town's mayor. But when I DM, I never let good characters get away with "killing people and taking their stuff." Sure, they take stuff from monsters and defeated enemies, but that's pretty standard for middle/dark ages warfare. But killing someone just for pay, without even caring about why your employer wants them dead -- that's evil.
DaidojiTaidoru 02-26-07, 05:13 PM	Sigh...another argument over what is evil in D&D. I love the people who pretend that the assassin slipping through the night to poison the mayor because someone paid him to is the same as the paladin who attacks an orc encampment that has killed a shepherd and his flock. I'll agree that if you wipe out said orc encampment, including women and children, that's just as bad as the assassin murdering the town's mayor. But when I DM, I never let good characters get away with "killing people and taking their stuff." Sure, they take stuff from monsters and defeated enemies, but that's pretty standard for middle/dark ages warfare. But killing someone just for pay, without even caring about why your employer wants them dead -- that's evil. Of course this leads back to the question of what this has to do with the assassin class. An character with the assassin class is neither required to kill people for money or prevented from doing so. He is not bound to a guild. He does not have to ever use poison, though he has the ability to do so if he chooses. He can have a personal code of conduct that he never kills innocents, never stikes a unarmed or sleeping opponent and never uses poisons that do ability damage. The evil prereq remains forced flavor. There is a arguement that could be made to suggest that the RP requirement (which is also pure BS) forces the character to be non-good, but that is it.
Callista 02-26-07, 06:33 PM	OK I am playing in a campaign that my character has an extra motive thought being infiltrate a thieves guild (done) second part is that I am to assassinate or soften up in a discrete / quite manor. Now here is that man problem I don’t what my character to be evil just stay neutral via the fact that he is fallowing orders. And right know he is a level 4 ranger and I am setting up for later 5 levels from know any ideas ? If you want the Assassin class, you'll have to get your DM to house-rule that you can be non-evil and be an Assassin. The only real obstacle is the entry requirement that has you kill someone just to enter an assassin's guild... That can be modified, though. If your character's target is someone who is actively evil and deserves death, then that's fine--you can be neutral, no problem and no evil act involved. "Just following orders" isn't a defense if the orders are evil and your character knows it--your character's still choosing to follow the orders rather than, for example, making himself scarce instead. Being ignorant of the order's evil nature is understandable and not near as bad, of course, though most non-evil characters, once informed of what they'd done, would seek to make it right or at least be quite remorseful.
ElberethSilverleaf 02-26-07, 08:32 PM	That's because you're calling it "murder," a morally loaded term. What about military snipers? Do you assume that none of them are "good," or do you not define their actions as "murder." They certainly can make a career out of killing people. If the military sniper is killing valid military targets ie other soldiers then it's war. If he/she is killing noncombatants then it's murder plain and simple...
Limousine_Liberal 02-26-07, 08:45 PM	If the military sniper is killing valid military targets ie other soldiers then it's war. If he/she is killing noncombatants then it's murder plain and simple... Perfectly fine. The point is, snipers can be non-evil people who make their living by killing people (not to mention public executioners who do the same thing for some states'/countries' penal systems).
Ventilatory_Threshold 02-26-07, 09:00 PM	If he/she is killing noncombatants then it's murder plain and simple... Or we could use the D&D definition of murder: Killing for personal gain.
Maekrix_Waere 02-26-07, 09:01 PM	I take it sarcasm isn't in your vocabulary?.... It was a joke, hence the smilie... :surrender I'm more used to people putting "*Sarcasm*" in front of the post. Killing is neutral? In an apathetic world maybe... Murder is Evil? But doesn't the 'evil' act of murder involve, or rather pivot on the 'neutral' act of killing. Afterall, it impossible to murder someone without killing them, right? I'm just playin' with you... I know what you're getting at. Since you seem to know the difference, I shall explain it here for those who don't: Killing is simply that, killing, and encompases everything from Smiting Evil to Smiting Good, making it balance out to inherent neutrality...CHAOTIC neutrality, perhaps, but neutrality nonetheless. Murder is the killing of an innocent for little-to-no reason. As anyone who has more than 23.546% of a brain can tell, this is evil. But for arguements sake, IF killing is neutral, why are some criminals referred to as serial KILLERS? And by using your theory, would the Pope be 'neutral' if he assassinated Tony Blair (The over-taxing tyrant!)? Afterall, medieval tax was like, 10% of ones income, opposed to near enough 25% that I pay now!!, so by your justification, I'd say he fits the bill! (Although I wouldn't complain about the Popes role in the 'removal' of Blair, doesn't make it any less evil an act. Infact, it would probably indicate an evilness inside me..... But I could live with that!!) Has Mr. Blair done anything that is so obviously criminal as to deserve a death sentance? If so, yes...the Pope would remain neutral. If no, then it would be murder, and thusly evil. Also, on serial killers: They are called serial killers instead of serial murderers because the mainstream media (as well as an overwhelming majority of the populace) do not understand the difference between the two.
Azar_of_Faerun 02-26-07, 09:48 PM	forced flavor also pure BS rules are stupid The problem isn't with the class, it's with you
ElberethSilverleaf 02-26-07, 10:07 PM	We have to remember that in the real world everything depends upon the context in which it happens, vs. D&D where the game mechanics have set up rules and guidelines as to what is good & evil. In the RW assassinating Joseph Goebbels would undeniably be good, but intentionally assassinating any of his 6 kids would be evil. Assassinating demons/devils who are inherently or "born" evil would almost always be good.
High Octane 02-27-07, 03:15 AM	ASK YOUR DM! That is all.
Mrloki 02-27-07, 03:40 AM	I can't see it not being evil. Its also pretty chaotic. The major is usally elected (hence title) So the people like him. Killing him would be bad. The issue of it not being evil is like saying that mobbsters who killed cops was not an evil thing.
ravenshrike 02-27-07, 12:39 PM	If your PC kills someone "for hire" you are Evil. That is a requirement for the Assassin class. Which is ********. Every time you get a quest to "stop the Arch-Wizard etc.. etc...", you are basically being hired to kill him. As for it being evil, it depends on who you're murdering. Were you hired to kill the head of the local orphanage, or did a grieving mother hire you to kill the man who raped and killed her daughter but has most of the law in his back pocket?As a CG character, you would try first to solve the whole corruption issue, but as a CN I see no problem with just going and offing the *******, collecting the money, and feeling good about yourself, as well as gaining the prereqs for the assassin class.
aebo06 02-27-07, 12:44 PM	murdering is evil, killing is bad, avenging is good???
DaidojiTaidoru 02-27-07, 01:14 PM	The problem isn't with the class, it's with you Do you have anything from the rules to counter those arguments, or are you sticking to Ad Hominem attacks. I'll happily retract my statements if anything about the assassins class other then the Alignment Evil requirement forces the assassin to be evil. Until that time, I'll continue to insist it's a bad move, that just forces those that play by RAW to search through books looking for some way to make thier LN Royal Assassin or CG rogue who specializes in sleep poison use and paralizing strikes. Because as written the assassin class would be good models for those ideas, except for the unnessicary 'must be evil' bit that's tacked on.
Maekrix_Waere 02-28-07, 12:58 AM	murdering is evil, killing is bad, avenging is good??? Killing is bad? So...all adventurers are bad people? After all, that IS the PRIMARY service adventurers offer. *Back on topic* Yes, Murdering (Killing an innocent) is Evil. Vengeance is like killing. The motive(s) and reason(s) behind it are what make it evil or not.
Hungry_Backpack 02-28-07, 02:45 AM	I see that many people are saying that the assasin PrC need not to be evil, and I agree with that, to an extent at least. You don't need to be evil to kill people, because it's why you do it that counts the most, at least for me. That being said, whether an assassin is evil or not depends more on the setting and the DM than anything else. Why? Because the requirement says that you have to "kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins". This tells me that there must be an organisation to join for the PC to become an assassin. And what motives does this organisation have? Do they kill only for money, or are they a group that kill people that are a threat to the inhabitants of a country? So, this organisation has to have an agenda first and foremost, then we can decide if joining them are evil. Also, I think that when you kill someone to join them, it has to be someone they've asked you to kill, not just an unlucky passerby. Assassin-spokesman: "You cannot come in. You are not an assassin." Wannabe-assassin: "But I killed Joe the Beggar with no other reason than to join you! I am an assassin!" Assassin-spokesman: "......"
SoulPower 03-03-07, 07:45 PM	An assassin not evil? Riiiiiight, only way I can see that possible is that you somehow managed to go see what you was doing is wrong and you therefor changes aligment. But ofc, you could always modifie things like Aligment restriction: Any Evil, as this backpack above me said, it may exist "good" assassin groups.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-03-07, 07:52 PM	An assassin not evil? Yes. The abilities don't have anything to do with Evil. Nothing at all. Riiiiiight, only way I can see that possible is that you somehow managed to go see what you was doing is wrong and you therefor changes aligment. Or YOU could realize that nowhere does it say that the Assassin has to take money for killing, or even kill at all (they can still kill, you know, and not become Evil for it)! BTW, Evil =/= Wrong.
Hungry_Backpack 03-03-07, 08:06 PM	Yes. The abilities don't have anything to do with Evil. Nothing at all. Or YOU could realize that nowhere does it say that the Assassin has to take money for killing, or even kill at all (they can still kill, you know, and not become Evil for it)! BTW, Evil =/= Wrong. Ehm, I kinda disagree there, to an extent at least. Evil is often described as the "wrong" way to do things. And as I said before, it really depends on what your assassin guild tells you to do, which is really what the requirement is about, joining a group of people there to kill. Who and why they kill will decide whether you have to be evil or not to join. If it is a group powerhungry killing machines, then evil is pretty much written all over the murder scene (by that I don't mean that the victim was evil). And where did you find that you don't have to kill someone to become an assassin? I mean, the assassin is all about killing people, and removing that requirement is just plain WRONG! Edit: I misread. You didn't say that the person didn't have to kill to become one, only he didn't need to after he had become one. But still, the class is all about killing people, so not doing so is kind of wrong if you ask me, at least from a RP point of view. And also, as mentioned, you have joined a guild,a nd if you stop killing for them after you've become an assassin... Well, let's just say that most guilds I can think of won't like that.
Pfisiar 03-03-07, 08:20 PM	Ehm, I kinda disagree there, to an extent at least. Evil is often described as the "wrong" way to do things. And as I said before, it really depends on what your assassin guild tells you to do, which is really what the requirement is about, joining a group of people there to kill. Who and why they kill will decide whether you have to be evil or not to join. If it is a group powerhungry killing machines, then evil is pretty much written all over the murder scene (by that I don't mean that the victim was evil). And where did you find that you don't have to kill someone to become an assassin? I mean, the assassin is all about killing people, and removing that requirement is just plain WRONG! Edit: I misread. You didn't say that the person didn't have to kill to become one, only he didn't need to after he had become one. But still, the class is all about killing people, so not doing so is kind of wrong if you ask me, at least from a RP point of view. And also, as mentioned, you have joined a guild,a nd if you stop killing for them after you've become an assassin... Well, let's just say that most guilds I can think of won't like that. Killing people is neither an act of evil nor an act of good by default. Neither is it an act of chaos or law by default. Lawful Good Paladins kill blackgaurds all the time. Does that mean Paladins are evil? I should think not. Alignment describes how and why a person kills someone. Killing people and sentients is a given, if you're an adventurer, unless some PrC or something says not to. Killing a king to return power to the legitimate ruler is an act of chaotic good. killing a king in a legitimate duel to return power to a righteous ruler is lawful good. You could make examples of chaotic evil and chaotic good for the same essential act. An assassin for good never accepts a contract to kill a kindly person. They are similar in function to a Dragonslayer, except with regards to people.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-03-07, 08:39 PM	Ehm, I kinda disagree there, to an extent at least. Evil is often described as the "wrong" way to do things. Pfisiar covered the basics of the rest of my response. But Evil is not inherently wrong in D&D. Wrong is a completely subjective term, and because of the dualism of alignments, something can only be wrong from the perspective of its opposite. Evil considers Good to be wrong because of the way Good behaves, for example. Never could I imagine a Demon admitting to being morally wrong.
Hungry_Backpack 03-03-07, 09:23 PM	Pfisiar covered the basics of the rest of my response. But Evil is not inherently wrong in D&D. Wrong is a completely subjective term, and because of the dualism of alignments, something can only be wrong from the perspective of its opposite. Evil considers Good to be wrong because of the way Good behaves, for example. Never could I imagine a Demon admitting to being morally wrong. By wrong I meant wrong by our standards, which is what D&D defines the alignments after. I mean, the tyrant of a kingdom may not look upon himself as evil, but will be considered evil by most people. Same with a zealot that kills in the name of his god with no other reason than that they "looked" evil. He'll be considered evil by most people, but he himself may not look upon himself as evil. So, to define who's evil we don't necesserily use what that person thinks is right to define what's good or evil, in D&D I mean. We define after what WE think is wrong. Of course there are many grey zones and such, so it isn't black and white as many people like to think D&D is, but some things are quite clear. Killing a person to steal some money is evil, we all agree to that I hope. And even if he was starving and such, it is still wrong for him to do it. It is not justified, but he may believe he was justified doing it, since he was starving and such.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-03-07, 09:34 PM	By wrong I meant wrong by our standards, which is what D&D defines the alignments after. I mean, the tyrant of a kingdom may not look upon himself as evil, but will be considered evil by most people. There you go mixing them up again. The tyrant will know he's Evil, but he also knows that he's not wrong. Evil is a defined, objective force that is completely known. Alignment can be detected and it's tangible (smite Evil channels it, for example). Same with a zealot that kills in the name of his god with no other reason than that they "looked" evil. He'll be considered evil by most people, but he himself may not look upon himself as evil. He will also know he's Evil, but not necessarily wrong. So, to define who's evil we don't necesserily use what that person thinks is right to define what's good or evil, in D&D I mean. No, we use the opposite. Evil is the opposite of Good, so Evil is only wrong from the perspective of Good. Smites are the effetive equivalent of telling someone they're wrong... with violence. We define after what WE think is wrong. Nope, we define it by what Good thinks is wrong. Killing a person to steal some money is evil, we all agree to that I hope. But is it wrong? Fiends certainly don't think so. Now before you continue saying Evil is wrong... can I take your word for it? I mean, you seem like you would be a Good-aligned person, so how can I trust that you're not biased?
Maekrix_Waere 03-04-07, 12:42 AM	Now before you continue saying Evil is wrong... can I take your word for it? I mean, you seem like you would be a Good-aligned person, so how can I trust that you're not biased? Exactly. I may be Lawful Evil, but at least I try not to let that bias what I post on the forums.
tombowings 03-04-07, 12:55 AM	In my world, there is a country where an assassin is a noble profession and is legal, although you need a letter to show the guards when they come to the seen. I have changed it to being Lawful and nongood. So far it has worked very well.
tombowings 03-04-07, 12:55 AM	And anyway, it is a just a combat style, just like the kinghts.
Hungry_Backpack 03-04-07, 07:00 AM	Ventilatory_Threshold, I think you've got some things wrong here, because a tyrant won't necesserily know he's evil, he might actually think he's good. I mean, how many tyrants haven't in the history meant they were only doing things for the good of people? And the zealot knowing he's evil? That's not true. As said above, he may think he's only doing good. Actually, he more likely than not believes very much that what he is doing is good. Look at the crusades for example. Christians went out to kill muslims and that was just fine, it was, as a matter of fact, considered an act of good. As for alignment being detectable, sure, but you've got to justify why people have their alignments, otherwise it's to no use. If you think that when I said that "we define after what we think is right" was a bit looosely, then I'll take that back and replace it with "what most socoties think is right". Most socities would think it was wrong to mug down or kill people just so you can take their money. I don't say that you have to do things that are wrong to be evil, or that evil is wrong. I just say that most times, evil is doing things in a "wrong" way. But let's go a bit back to the topic. It is a combat style, sure, but it is not ONLY that. The knight clearly shows that by his cod of conduct that actually says he cannot receive flank bonus without paying some sort of penalty, which is justified by flavor. Same goes for the assassin. It is a way to fight, but it should affect/reflect your character when he becomes an assassin. I mean, my character wouldn't become a member of an organisation that doesn't do things he likes or for the reasons he like it, and doing it anyway just so you get some cool abilities is, well, not what I would consider In Character.
SoulPower 03-04-07, 07:35 AM	Hmmmmmm, this is getting off-topic, doesn't it? Lets move back to the topic istead of discussing what evil and good is, if it's wrong or right :P
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-04-07, 09:55 AM	Ventilatory_Threshold, I think you've got some things wrong here, because a tyrant won't necesserily know he's evil, he might actually think he's good. I mean, how many tyrants haven't in the history meant they were only doing things for the good of people? Except that we don't really have Evil as a tangible force in real life. We do in D&D. People can actually know their alignments. That tyrant would just be in self-denial if he truly said he considered himself Good. But as always, because "Evil" and "Wrong" aren't the same thing in D&D, he is not wrong except from the perspective of Good. Dispater, for example, would probably think this man is doing everything right, depending on the paranoia of the tyrant. And the zealot knowing he's evil? That's not true. As said above, he may think he's only doing good. Actually, he more likely than not believes very much that what he is doing is good. Except that we have such things as Detect Evil and Smite Evil. Look at the crusades for example. Christians went out to kill muslims and that was just fine, it was, as a matter of fact, considered an act of good. Real life is not applicable in D&D. The differences between them will make any comparison almost instantly and inherently flawed. As for alignment being detectable, sure, but you've got to justify why people have their alignments, otherwise it's to no use. The zealot is clearly Lawful Evil, for example. He is killing people because of their faith. As a person most likely with ranks in Knowledge (Religion) or Knowledge (The Planes) he should know that his religion is not necessarily the right one (there are multiple deities), and he should also know exactly what each alignment implies and what constitutes those alignments. He should also have known it when his deity stopped granting him power. If you think that when I said that "we define after what we think is right" was a bit looosely, then I'll take that back and replace it with "what most socoties think is right". And that, my friend, is a f***ing logical fallacy. Just because there are more of someone who think something is this way doesn't make them right. Most socities would think it was wrong to mug down or kill people just so you can take their money. About a 3rd of the population doesn't think so. Wait, it's more like half (the Evil-leaning Neutral creatures might think so too). We ARE talking about D&D here, right? I don't say that you have to do things that are wrong to be evil, or that evil is wrong. I just say that most times, evil is doing things in a "wrong" way. Except that I can't take your word for it, can I?
Hungry_Backpack 03-04-07, 01:39 PM	Except that we don't really have Evil as a tangible force in real life. We do in D&D. People can actually know their alignments. That tyrant would just be in self-denial if he truly said he considered himself Good. Evil ain't a force in D&D. Evil isn't alive and has it's own agenda. Evil is a description of someone's actions, or justification for them. The tyrant could, of course know that he's evil, by hiring Bob the Wizard to cast Detect Alignment, but how much can he trust that wizard? How does he not know the wizard is just screwing with him, telling the wrong alignment? And would he even care what he was? I mean, would he even bother using money and time trying to find out what alignment he is? The answer most likely is no. Most tyrants would just continue doing whatever they were doing, and maybe still think that this is the only way that the world will become a better place, etc. But as always, because "Evil" and "Wrong" aren't the same thing in D&D, he is not wrong except from the perspective of Good. Dispater, for example, would probably think this man is doing everything right, depending on the paranoia of the tyrant. So, how do we then define if someone is evil in D&D? And don't start with "we cast Detect Alignment of course", because it only detects them, they don't tell you why they are that way. And if you can't find any reason for people being evil, good and neutral, well, they can't be any of those, now can they? Except that we have such things as Detect Evil and Smite Evil. So, the zealot shall be cast Detect Evil upon and when Joe the Paladin says that he (the zealot) is evil, well, he really has no guarentee that the guy is telling the truth. Sure, a paladin isn't allowed to lie, but how can he know this guy really is a paladin? All he has is his word for it, because he cannot look at his character sheet or sumthin' like that, because it simply does not exist! And last time I checked in PHB or any other book I have, there was no such thing as a spell of Class Detection. That paladin could very well be a cleric, a multiclassed fighter/cleric, or a disguised wizard, etc. etc. Real life is not applicable in D&D. The differences between them will make any comparison almost instantly and inherently flawed. Then I am really curious how you then manage to define the different alignments, since D&D is pretty much based on things from the real world. The zealot is clearly Lawful Evil, for example. He is killing people because of their faith. As a person most likely with ranks in Knowledge (Religion) or Knowledge (The Planes) he should know that his religion is not necessarily the right one (there are multiple deities), and he should also know exactly what each alignment implies and what constitutes those alignments. He should also have known it when his deity stopped granting him power. Lawful Evil, eh? I never said he killed them because of their faith, I said he did it because they looked evil. Also, a zealot is a fanatic, so he could really believe that his faith is the only right faith. Also, Lawful doesn't really like killing people. A lawful person follows a set of rules, and often respects the law. A Lawful Evil person also does this, but he also looks for ways to exploit the law. About a 3rd of the population doesn't think so. Wait, it's more like half (the Evil-leaning Neutral creatures might think so too). We ARE talking about D&D here, right? Except that I can't take your word for it, can I? So, are you saying that a 3rd of the population in D&D is Evil? Because I would say that it really isn't that simple. Also, Lawful people wouldn't think that mugging people, killing them and stealing their money is right, because they are Lawful. A Chaotic person would perhaps think it was ok, but then we have to make an exception for Chaotic Good, since they would find it wrong. And most people in D&D are, at least in my opinion neutral this or that.
Hungry_Backpack 03-04-07, 05:06 PM	So, the tyrant knows his own alignment. I really, REALLY want to know how you got that one figured out. I mean, he doesn't have a character sheet to look upon, so he can't do anthing like looking on it. And I don't think that a small voice in his head says now and then "you are [insert alignment]". So, seriously, how does he know? Also, even though there are forces that are purely evil, doesn't mean that evil itself has an agenda. I mean, if evil had an agenda, why doesn't all the purely evil creatures gather up under the banner of the O'Mighty Evil? It would seem logical to do that, since evil has an agenda and these creatures are pure evil. But do they do that? No. They actually keep fighting against each other, even though they are all evil and evil has it's on agenda, which they should follow, at least according to you. Sure, you've got evil gods and deities, but they are all different and fight against each other. Also, even though there are evil spells doesn't mean there's a force with it's own agenda behind them. I think that the spell descriptors are more like a way to say that a good person would, for example, deem it morally wrong to cast one of the evil ones, and therefore won't. A neutral person won't necesserily consider it such a vile thing, but wouldn't want to cast it either. With this a good person could cast an evil spell, but would, at least from an RP point of view, revolt of doing such a thing. And if he didn't think much of it, well then I wouldn't say he was good in the first place. I do not deny that Evil exist, I simply states that Evil isn't something out there speaking to it's minions, giving them commands or whatever. It doesn't plot to wipe out all good or take over the universe, because it simply isn't a thing with goals, it's just a term that's used to describe people. At least, that's my opinion. There's just one more thing on my list of things to say in this post and that is about the zealot. If he's smoted by Smite Evil, how does he know it is actually Smite Evil, or that it is even used? I can't see that it stands anywhere in the Smite Evil that something like a flashy light surrounds your weapon before you strike, so the only thing he knows is that one of those attacks hurt like hell. Also, he could believe that it was some kind of demon or a blackguard using Smite Good, so the thing is, he doesn't really know what he's fighting, or what is used against him. Thinking he's attacked by a demon may make him look deranged, but a zealot of the kind I have described would go into that catagory in my book.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-04-07, 06:20 PM	So, the tyrant knows his own alignment. I really, REALLY want to know how you got that one figured out. I mean, he doesn't have a character sheet to look upon, so he can't do anthing like looking on it. And I don't think that a small voice in his head says now and then "you are [insert alignment]". So, seriously, how does he know? It may surprise you, but alignment isn't a metagame concept. Spells like Holy Smite and Magic Circle against Good are manifestations of the alignments themselves. In fact, alignments are so integral to the multiverse that anyone would probably be able to know his own alignment, and that of others by spending some time with them on honest terms. Also, even though there are forces that are purely evil, doesn't mean that evil itself has an agenda. I mean, if evil had an agenda, why doesn't all the purely evil creatures gather up under the banner of the O'Mighty Evil? Because the strain between Law and Chaos is just as strong as the one between Good and Evil. Evil creatures, being selfish as they are, are driven to cleanse out the weak before they even think about launching a campaign against Good. It would seem logical to do that, since evil has an agenda and these creatures are pure evil. They are made of other forces, too. Don't forget that. The strain between those other forces keeps them from uniting. No. They actually keep fighting against each other, even though they are all evil and evil has it's on agenda, which they should follow, at least according to you. The Evil agenda is naturally influenced by either Law or Chaos, or neither (in case of Yugoloths). Sure, you've got evil gods and deities, but they are all different and fight against each other. Deities don't define alignment. It's the other way around. Also, even though there are evil spells doesn't mean there's a force with it's own agenda behind them. Actually, that's exactly what it means. I think that the spell descriptors are more like a way to say that a good person would, for example, deem it morally wrong to cast one of the evil ones, and therefore won't. Except that they kill creatures of the opposite alignment. An Evil creature might deem it morally wrong to cast Holy Smite, but Good doesn't. That's because Holy Word hurts it. A neutral person won't necesserily consider it such a vile thing, but wouldn't want to cast it either. Neutral doesn't mean "Less Good than Good, but still definitely Not Evil". It means that you're either influenced by both Good and Evil or neither. Neutral creatures are also hurt by Holy Word. With this a good person could cast an evil spell, but would, at least from an RP point of view, revolt of doing such a thing. Why? I do not deny that Evil exist, I simply states that Evil isn't something out there speaking to it's minions, giving them commands or whatever. But it does. In fact, it not only controls its minions; it IS its minions (at least the Evil Outsiders). Same goes for all other alignments. It doesn't plot to wipe out all good or take over the universe, because it simply isn't a thing with goals, it's just a term that's used to describe people. At least, that's my opinion. You don't know much about the nature of the D&D multiverse, do you? Evil DOES plot to eliminate Good, the same way Good plots to eliminate Evil. Same goes for Law and Chaos. There's just one more thing on my list of things to say in this post and that is about the zealot. If he's smoted by Smite Evil, how does he know it is actually Smite Evil, or that it is even used? I can't see that it stands anywhere in the Smite Evil that something like a flashy light surrounds your weapon before you strike, so the only thing he knows is that one of those attacks hurt like hell. Maybe so.
WizO_Cat 03-04-07, 10:51 PM	OK, let's keep in mind the following: 1) Attempting to bypass the Vulgar Language filter is against the Code of Conduct. 2) Telling another guest how to posts is Baiting, since the focus isn't the thread subject but another guest. Now, let's keep the posts on the subject of the thread, not other guests. If you think that someone has violated the Code of Conduct, jsut report it and leave it at that. Don't call them out on the boards. If he violations continue, disciplinary actions will as well. Fair warning.
batmanjr 03-05-07, 12:01 AM	IMO you should read up more on Chiun's philosophy on assassination. His quote is that assassination is the highest form of public service. If you google him you should find plenty of entries. He is from the Destroyer series of books, or for those that only watch movies, the Remo Williams movie. Just a thought, but I think his interpretation of assassination is more in line of what you are thinking. Not sure if this is the information you're looking for, I had difficulty actually understanding what your issue/question was.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-05-07, 10:48 AM	2) Telling another guest how to posts is Baiting, since the focus isn't the thread subject but another guest. I'm still not seeing where I did that.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-05-07, 10:49 AM	IMO you should read up more on Chiun's philosophy on assassination. His quote is that assassination is the highest form of public service. If you google him you should find plenty of entries. He is from the Destroyer series of books, or for those that only watch movies, the Remo Williams movie. Just a thought, but I think his interpretation of assassination is more in line of what you are thinking. Not sure if this is the information you're looking for, I had difficulty actually understanding what your issue/question was. As far as I'm concerned the class is a skillset with no organization-tied abilities. Furthermore, none of those abilities are Evil at all, so cutting the alignment requirement is fully justified.