Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Delvor 02-28-05, 06:55 AM	Alright most people I believe will side with the DM but I want see if anyone understands my point of view. Alright my Character, somewhat of a roguish fellow was a True Neutal follower of St. Cuthbert, Here's a quote from the SRD of Neutal.A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. Now St Cuthbert of Vengence etc. Okay now then, what happened: Our party was ambushed by some noble looking thugs, and attacked without provocation, After some lucky things for us, our party turned the tide against a losing battle. However the big bad noble leader got away. The fact that he attacked us and laughed at my Pc when he demanded that he back down (My PC is a member of the watch/Guard) my Neutal character hires an assassin (Evil action probably) but this is what he thinks is a good idea, [concidering our whole party couldn't down the guy] Now i would concider this an act of vengence, my neutral guy was doing what he thought was a good idea follwing his Deity's outlook, Vengence. What do you think?
ShadowDragon8685 02-28-05, 07:07 AM	There are only certain acts which earn an Instant Evil. Rape, Torture, Cannibalism. Note that putting out a hit is not amongst them. What you did was certainly CHAOTIC, because you're supposed to do the Lawful thing, being a follower of Cuthbert, but not enough to warrent an instant Chaos alignment, either.
quaiven 02-28-05, 07:43 AM	Just because your character thought it was a good idea, doesn't mean that it was a good idea. That being said, while what you did could be considered evil by some or at the least overeacting (were any of your pcs killed?), no DM should ever change a characters alignment for one act. Multiple acts yes, one act no.
quaiven 02-28-05, 07:46 AM	There are only certain acts which earn an Instant Evil. Rape, Torture, Cannibalism. Note that putting out a hit is not amongst them. Isn't that kind of a limited view? After all Hitler never personally commited any of those crimes so I guess he must have been LG.
Elvish Presley 02-28-05, 07:48 AM	Payback isn't evil. He attacked you, so he has whatever comes coming ;) The Assassin is evil, for obvious reasons. Your DM shouldn't mix the two.
Callista 02-28-05, 07:51 AM	I actually wouldn't count cannibalism. Do some study on anthropology, and you'll see that a lot of little-known cultures practice cannibalism as a way of actually honoring fallen enemies, or because they believe they can become stronger, or because they believe that way the enemy's soul won't haunt them.... And then there's situations like the Donner party, where it was done out of necessity. Totally weird to our culture, sure, but I wouldn't say it's evil. At any rate... Putting out a hit on someone who tried to kill you sounds like something a Neutral character *would* do. Sure, if you turned into a Mob-boss-ish character who hired assassins to kill anyone who even looked at him funny, then you'd go to Evil eventually. But you're Neutral. You can do some minor Evil stuff and stay neutral, no problem, if you're doing good stuff too.
Feather 02-28-05, 08:15 AM	I would not count that as evil. Your DM was wrong to change your alignment. Generally my group sees 'true neutral' as an extremely flexible behavioural alignment. You could tie the noble leader to the back of your chariot and run him through the streets until he'd died a slow and agonising death, and I wouldn't count that towards changing the True Neutral alignment. You're doing what you want to do, and in the name of just vengeance! If you became a knight for a group of angels however, I'd be on your back like a hungry choker... :D
quaiven 02-28-05, 10:00 AM	I would not count that as evil. Your DM was wrong to change your alignment. Generally my group sees 'true neutral' as an extremely flexible behavioural alignment. You could tie the noble leader to the back of your chariot and run him through the streets until he'd died a slow and agonising death, and I wouldn't count that towards changing the True Neutral alignment. You're doing what you want to do, and in the name of just vengeance! If you became a knight for a group of angels however, I'd be on your back like a hungry choker... :D The fact that he is neutral has nothing to do with whether the act was evil or not. A LE person would have no problems hiring an assassin, he would consider it a good idea. That doesn't change the fact that hiring the assassin in the first place was evil. If I hire an assassin to kill my wife aren't I guilty of conspiracy to commit murder? Even if I'm N? The character's alignment doesn't matter in determining the alignment of the act. I agree however that his alignment shouldn't have been changed for just one action. If he continues to do it, then after suitable warnings, yes.
Mikal 02-28-05, 10:44 AM	Alright most people I believe will side with the DM but I want see if anyone understands my point of view. Alright my Character, somewhat of a roguish fellow was a True Neutal follower of St. Cuthbert, Here's a quote from the SRD of Neutal. Now St Cuthbert of Vengence etc. Okay now then, what happened: Our party was ambushed by some noble looking thugs, and attacked without provocation, After some lucky things for us, our party turned the tide against a losing battle. However the big bad noble leader got away. The fact that he attacked us and laughed at my Pc when he demanded that he back down (My PC is a member of the watch/Guard) my Neutal character hires an assassin (Evil action probably) but this is what he thinks is a good idea, [concidering our whole party couldn't down the guy] Now i would concider this an act of vengence, my neutral guy was doing what he thought was a good idea follwing his Deity's outlook, Vengence. What do you think? I see no problems here. Vengenance comes in many forms, and, to be honest, it doesn't say in the dogma of St. Cuthbert that said Vengenance must be personally meted out.
quaiven 02-28-05, 10:50 AM	There is a thin line between vengence and revenge. Main Entry: ven·geance Pronunciation: 'ven-j&n(t)s Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from vengier to avenge, from Latin vindicare to lay claim to, avenge -- more at VINDICATE : punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense : RETRIBUTION - with a vengeance 1 : with great force or vehemence 2 : to an extreme or excessive degree Main Entry: 1re·venge Pronunciation: ri-'venj Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): re·venged; re·veng·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French revengier, from Old French, from re- + vengier to avenge -- more at VENGEANCE 1 : to avenge (as oneself) usually by retaliating in kind or degree 2 : to inflict injury in return for <revenge an insult> - re·veng·er noun One is meeting out just punishment, the other is following an eye for an eye mentality.
anders 02-28-05, 10:55 AM	in my campaign that would have been evil. I dont think I'd changed the aligment over just one action like that. But if you constantly were at the "edge" I'd tip you over.
CzarGarrett 02-28-05, 10:55 AM	There are only certain acts which earn an Instant Evil. Rape, Torture, Cannibalism. Note that putting out a hit is not amongst them. Isn't that kind of a limited view? After all Hitler never personally commited any of those crimes so I guess he must have been LG. Emphasis mine.
MarkB 02-28-05, 11:02 AM	Did you show any discrimination in your choice of assassin, or just hire the cheapest or nearest who could get the job done? Did you give the assassin any special instructions to avoid collateral damage? Did you check whether the assassin was truly capable of finding and positively identifying your target? Assassins, generally, can be rather messy. Any collateral damage and casualties caused by the one you hired are at least partially on your conscience.
Aladdar 02-28-05, 11:43 AM	I don't see it as allignment changing. I play a true neutral right now. If someone tried to kill me and we couldn't take him and I believe there was a chance he may cause us harm again, I'd probably do the same thing. I'm having someone killed who tried to kill me, imo, that's not evil for a neutral character. Now if you were taking out hits on innocent people I'd consider that evil, but not this situation. Borderline evil act maybe, but not enough to change an alignment.
Koga:The ninja trick 02-28-05, 01:45 PM	There are only certain acts which earn an Instant Evil. Rape, I'm an elf sorcerer, pots shouldn't call kettles black.. Torture, Toture=Lost time=Oppurtunity for karma to take effect. It's just not smart thinking.. I'M NOT A BAD GUY! :D oh wait.. Cannibalism. *Thinks back to when he first started this character* *Koga licking fingers and with a big hick voice*AINT TALKING NOW ARE YA' BOY?!?! ...What?! It's low-carb... *Munchmunchmunch* besides you know how much rashions cost?! Note that putting out a hit is not amongst them. I'll have to remember that.. What you did was certainly CHAOTIC, because you're supposed to do the Lawful thing, being a follower of Cuthbert, but not enough to warrent an instant Chaos alignment, either. I'll agree that one action does not an alignment make, but I'll have to disagree that hiring an assassin is a chaotic trait. Afterall, doesn't any half-worth goverment hire mercenaries to off people that commit treason? Does not the police force have snipers to kill dangerous foes? Assassination is more in itself evil/good then lawful/chaotic.. if anything i'd lead assassins toward lawful behavior.. But then again what do I know about being lawful or good? :P
Santrilla 02-28-05, 01:57 PM	I would say it's a Lawful Evil thing to do. But certainly not an Insta-Switch. What you did was more revenge than vengeance, too. As I see it, the guy didn't wrong you enough to warrant assassination. You weren't exacting retribution for great acts of injustice, you were killing a guy because he laughed at you.
JimmyJustice 02-28-05, 02:04 PM	Isn't that kind of a limited view? After all Hitler never personally commited any of those crimes so I guess he must have been LG. from his view i'm sure he was
ShadowDragon8685 02-28-05, 02:43 PM	Please note that those are only the INSTANT alignment change abuses. You do one of those, and you get shot straight to Evil. Let me add killing children to the list, as well as any acts of genocide. (For posterity only; if you cause a genocide, you've earned enough Evil points to qualify anyway.) However, if you keep putting out hits, you will eventually turn evil. It's not an instant alignment changer, but it will get you.
Reinforcements 02-28-05, 08:32 PM	Hiring an assassin to off someone who tried to kill you is mildly chaotic, and maybe mildly evil. Certainly not enough to warrant an alignment change in either direction unless you were already hovering on the edge.
danielinthewolvesden 02-28-05, 08:51 PM	Somewhat Evil. Not nice, certainly. :D Assassins are Evil, hiring one is also. But I agree with quaiven, Santrilla and others in that it wouldn't be a "one hit wonder'. I'd give you a warning.
Vatras 03-01-05, 02:36 AM	Planning and abetting murder isnt what I call neutral...thats over the edge and accelerating...I believe the correct term for hiring an assassin is "murder in the first degree", when they read the charges... Does someone know, why no one of the neutral/good guys ever turns to the Law? That seems to me the most plausible course a civilized being would take.
Delvor 03-01-05, 03:59 AM	Thanks for all the feedback, Santrilla: - The main reason wasn't he laughed at me it was he and seven followers attcked our party, dowining two members, and I also got cursed by their witch. And the assassin I found out was very eficient no collateral damage, but now he is after my character for more payment, I think this is the DM's way of saying don't use assasins, He had been following my guy, and mde threats on his familly (He has none) but I escaped pretty easilly.
ChimericalWolf 03-01-05, 04:22 AM	Imagine, if you will, that there is an area of land in which an evil dragon is flying about terrorizing the populace. The lord of this area decides to put out the word to all the citys in the nation. "There is a dragon here, if you kill it you get it's hoard, and we will pay you a sum of money in addition." Adventurers come, a group slays the dragon, they get a hunk of money and magic in the deal. Pretty basic D&D event, ne? A party is attacked by a group of thugs. The party takes some of them down, but the leader proves too powerful for the party to take care of. So a member of the party goes to a bar on the bad side of town, and puts out the word. "There is a thug here, if you kill it you can take whatever you can carry, and I have a sack of coin to sweeten the deal." Assassins go out, one slays the thug, they get whatever the thug has, and a sack of coin in the deal. How terrible. (Note that this is also why I have a problem with the Assassin PRC being Evil or Nongood, whichever it is.) The main issue I see here is that while a lord surely has the right to protect his own area, even has the duty to do so, the Character in the OP has no partcular right to do so, unless he has the authority as a Guard to hire outside help. So it could be thought of as a breaking of laws, and thusly a Chaotic act. In my view, no alignment change warrented.
PhaedrusXY 03-01-05, 04:53 AM	Hiring an assassin has absolutely nothing to do with Law/Chaos. I picture most assassins as Lawful Evil. They follow a code, get the job done, always follow a job through, etc, etc. As Koga pointed out, governments use assassins and law enforcement agencies use snipers (which are not much different). Hiring/using one is probably in general evil, but the extent is mitigated by the circumstances. In this instance, I'd say it was only mildly evil, if at all evil. It certainly did NOT warrant an instant alignment change. Your DM has a very poor conception of the alignment system.
Delvor 03-01-05, 05:00 AM	I'm not sure if my guy has he authority as a guard, He's a sergeant. But then again his superiors are all off somewhere, and the watch has more pressing egadgements to deal with
ChimericalWolf 03-01-05, 05:23 AM	Hiring an assassin has absolutely nothing to do with Law/Chaos. I picture most assassins as Lawful Evil. I didn't mean, in my post, that the act of hiring an Assassin in and of itself was chaotic, but rather going beyond the chain of command to an outside source for a solution to a problem that the guard should have handled. And it seems that at the time, he was in charge, and very busy, so it might indeed have been justified on all alignment respects.
pres_man 03-01-05, 01:59 PM	The main reason wasn't he laughed at me it was he and seven followers attcked our party, dowining two members, and I also got cursed by their witch. When you say "downed" two members do you mean, killed or knocked unconscious (- hp). What happened to the seven followers? Basically Cuthbert believes in exacting revenge and just punishment. If nobody in the party was killed, or if he didn't kill anyone and his followers who did, were killed. Then I would find it hard to justify the need to kill him, instead of bring him to justice. In this case you seem to be willing to kill him out of convience, which is a hallmark of evil. Not sure if I would make you evil, but my guess is that clerics of St. Cuthbert might start being wary of you.
Delvor 03-02-05, 04:34 AM	Double Post.
Delvor 03-02-05, 04:35 AM	When you say "downed" two members do you mean, killed or knocked unconscious (- hp). What happened to the seven followers? Basically Cuthbert believes in exacting revenge and just punishment. If nobody in the party was killed, or if he didn't kill anyone and his followers who did, were killed. Then I would find it hard to justify the need to kill him, instead of bring him to justice. In this case you seem to be willing to kill him out of convience, which is a hallmark of evil. Not sure if I would make you evil, but my guess is that clerics of St. Cuthbert might start being wary of you. One pc is now dead, a pc wizard to -8 or something and an helping NPC paladin who got into the negatives as well. Two followers fled, also their leader, I killed the witch as she was about to coup de grace a fallen PC, and a shot a crossbowman out of a second story building. The Pc wizard, got one with a fireball and weakened most the remaing enemy was killed by his own boss, via whirlwind attack.
IceFractal 03-03-05, 04:53 AM	I think your DM may be employing the "too effective = evil" line of thought. Its the same reason that poison is evil (see rant below). The fact that he made the assassin untrustworthy would seem to verify this. Here's how it was probably going in his mind: DM: :plotting: <thinking> "Perfect, I'll have this guy really **** them off but be too powerful to face yet, and make him a recurring enemy." Player: "I hire an assassin to kill him." DM: :uh-huh: <thinking> "Lousy stinking assassins ... grumble grumble ... they should charge more money ... grumble ... well they can't just go stomping my recurring foe right away!" DM: "That would be evil, are you sure?" Player: "I'm still doing it" DM: :tantrum: <thinking> "Grr, someone's gonna get a nasty surprise pretty quick!" Poison Rant: Dumping poison into the water supply is evil, sure, for reasons of collateral damage, but really, say you're just using a poisoned dagger. Poison may be painful (although some poisons might be more numbing ), but not more painful than being slashed to death with a sword, which apparently good people can do with no problem. If you're going to kill them anyway, does it really matter whether its an "honorable" duel? Only for followers of certain gods. Also, there's some cases where using a poison is the most "good" option. For instance, say you're trying to capture but not injure a criminal, and you see them in an inn. You could slip some sleeping or temporary paralysis poison in their drink, or you could beat them up with a sap until they're knocked out. Now personally I think I'd rather be knocked out with knockout drops than beat over the head with a sap (which, despite being subdual, would still leave a pretty nasty bruise, and IRL could cause a concussion). Anyway, saying that poison is always evil is stupid.
Delvor 03-03-05, 07:02 AM	He also didn't actually say it was an evil act untill after i did it , but i suppose its pretty obvious, The fact that my pc is a "sleeper agent" for a shadowy orgainisation might have something to do with it. But i still believe it was how a neutreul character who indulges in revenge if not holding to cuthbert to much for revenge. The problem was our party then went into a wizards tower that had been taken over by undead, we all had to be helped out by cuthbert clerics, who then refused to talk to my guy, now Neutral Evil and a cleric in our party. They helped the other two members of our party, beefing them up etc before suggesting we go back in. Basically us two "EVIL" characters got left behind, he waited outside i went into town, and nearly both good pcs died.
ShadowDragon8685 03-03-05, 08:48 AM	Direct your DM to this thread. If he logs in and posts in his defense, he may yet be worth saving. If he logs on and posts with some bullcrap about how putting out a hit was evil, then lose him. if he dosen't log on, lose him, because this guy is obviously not worth your time as a player.
Clawhound 03-03-05, 10:55 AM	One act can not make you evil unless it's one hell of an act. If your character has been acting good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, and evil, then an evil act should not alter his alignment. If you've been doing lots of neutral stuff, and then something evil, that should get your GMs attention. GMs should not be changing your alignment based on single actions. The PHB takes pains to explain this. Single acts don't change alignments. Consistant acts change alignments. That much said, hiring an assassin while you have VoP is a really bad idea. I can not see hiring an assassination as a good act.
screwtape 03-03-05, 01:59 PM	Your DM did not make your character evil. You did. He just made your alignment fit your actions. Imagine if a cop came across a criminal who was too tough for him to arrest alone, so he hired a mafia hitman to kill him. Does that sound good, neutral or evil? [edit spelling.]
ShadowDragon8685 03-03-05, 02:31 PM	Sounds about Neutral to me. As the OP is Lawful NEUTRAL, that's perfectly WITHIN his alignment.
Cymraegmorgan 03-03-05, 05:09 PM	True Neutral is a balancing act. If your PC had saved a child from a burning building, would your DM change your alignment to LG? Too many DMs and players regard TN as "not evil". That is true, but TN is also "not good". That one act of hiring back-up(whether an assassin or not) should not qualify your PC for an alignment change. You were attacked without provocation, your party could not defeat the BBEG, what is evil about getting help?? Over time a TN PC's actions should run the gamut of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos.
LordHell 03-03-05, 06:06 PM	True Neutral is a balancing act. If your PC had saved a child from a burning building, would your DM change your alignment to LG? Too many DMs and players regard TN as "not evil". That is true, but TN is also "not good". That one act of hiring back-up(whether an assassin or not) should not qualify your PC for an alignment change. You were attacked without provocation, your party could not defeat the BBEG, what is evil about getting help?? Over time a TN PC's actions should run the gamut of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. I agree with this post Im a very experianced DM and I certainly would not consider this an act of evil. It is not nessesarily an act of good either. If you did it out of the blue to plot to kill someone innocent, then I may consider it an act of evil. There are too many people in this thread who are ignoring the context of a D&D world. A D&D world where thugs roam around freely and attempt murder is not a world that has any resemblance to our own. If anything, this act was a chaotic act (how can people say this was Lawful? what are you smoking?). There is no difference between hiring an assassin to kill someone who tried to kill you or hunt him down yourself and do it (which a Chaotic Good person would be entitled to do). I bet if you said 'we hired a bounty hunter to finish him off' peoples reactions would be different, most people in this thread are just having a knee-jerk reaction to the phrase 'assassin'. Or what about 'I hire an Chaotic Good Ranger to help me stalk down the guy so I can kill him?' In both cases, the intent and end result are the same. The only possible not good thing about hiring an Assassin is you are contributing to that guys trade, which isn't really a good trade. Since you're neutral you don't really care do you? Why should you? You're just using ALL the tools available to you which is what a neutral character would do. What many people have gotten right however, is the DM simply shouldnt just change your alignment based on one act. The only repercussions one act can have is if you're a Paladin or Exhaulted, and that one act wont change your alignment but just make you become fallen. You should direct your DM to this thread or have a word with him out of game.
MadScientist!! 03-03-05, 06:47 PM	I would definately count it as evil, simply because you are working with a decidedly evil character (DMG assassin), and contributing to his trade. This would not be evil enough, however to flip your alignment around. TN characters can do a bunch of different acts as someone else said, and as long as you do some good things to balance it out, this would be totally in character. The reason I would count it as evil is so that you don't do it too much.
Cold Napalm 03-04-05, 07:25 AM	Hahaha...I love how some DM seems to get their alignment issues so mixed up. I'm being told I'm being evil because I want to torture our captive for info or just plain out kill him mercifully and quickly (I'm TN)...while the other player tortures to death another captive and he's (He's CG)NOT being evil?!? I think effective = evil is about right.
Heahengel 03-04-05, 09:30 AM	I don't like the idea that assassins have to be evil either. Contract assassins, who will kill anyone for money, like the one here, are evil, but there are plenty of reasons to assassinate someone, and many would be lawful, good, etc, under the D&D alignment system. To me the act described here would is pretty in keeping with a TN, CN or even CG character, though it is a bit chaotic for an LN character (not that one action should change alignment). If the motive were different, it could be evil, but I think revenge is a perfectly acceptable neutral value. 'Hes cutting my profit margins/insulted me, so I'll kill him' is evil, 'he killed my friend, and almost another, so I'll kill him' is not.
MrkGrismer 03-04-05, 10:17 AM	The assassin PrC in the DMG is required to be evil because the RP requirement to become one is to kill somebody purely for the reason to become an assassin. It is completely possible for DM to come up with a variant of the PrC that does not have this requirement, and there is one in the BoED that is required to be good. Oh, my opinion on the OP. It was an evil deed to hire and assassin to kill somebody. It would have been neutral (and probably lawful) to hire a bounty hunter to bring the person to justice.
Krelios 03-04-05, 10:29 AM	Several points... 1) St. Cuthbert's portfolio includes Retribution, not Vengeance--and yes, there is a difference. Your character sought vengeance for a personal slight; St. Cuthbert demands just retribution for actual wrongdoing. So your motives weren't in line with your deity. 2) Having someone assassinated is evil. That's pretty well spelled out in the alignment section of the PHB and the Assassin PrC in the DMG. 3) I object to the title of the thread. The DM didn't "make your guy evil," you did. Hooray for your DM!
Heahengel 03-04-05, 10:54 AM	Krelios, I woudln't say that the PC sought vengeance for a personal slight, the PCs group was attacked, and one of them was killed. Its not exactly clear from what Delvor has said why the NPC attacked him, but it may well have been real wrongdoing, especially as the PC is a guard. Also, one of the party was almost coup de graced, and killing unconscious people can also be seen as evil. Anyway, I see justice as more of a good value, not a neutral one. Besides, the issue isn't really whether he followed his god's teachings, it about his alignment. On the other hand, if the PC has been double dealing and betraying people recently, then an alignment change might have been in order. Also, the fact that the DM separated out the evil PC from the party during an adventure, and made him sit out is pretty bad. At least give him a side quest or something.
ShadowDragon8685 03-04-05, 11:19 AM	If having someone assassinated is evil, then every townsperson is evil. What do you think you're doing when you hire adventurers to save your town from kobolds, by tracking them down to their lair and killing the warriors? You're putting out a hit! The Assassin himself is Evil. An assassin (note the lack of a capital letter) is not. Know the difference. And dealing with Evil people is not itself Evil. This was not an Evil act. This was hiring a more powerful adventurer to take care of a problem you could not. This is what every town does. They put out hits on things that are giving them problems. It's that simple.
MrkGrismer 03-04-05, 12:48 PM	dealing with Evil people is not itself Evil. This was not an Evil act. This was hiring a more powerful adventurer to take care of a problem you could not. This is what every town does. They put out hits on things that are giving them problems. I agree it is not evil in every case. However, hiring an evil assassin that you know will do whatever it takes would be an evil action. Hiring an assassin that you know is not trustworthy, making him promise to do the job in a non-evil way is ... well ... crazy.
IceFractal 03-04-05, 01:06 PM	First, not all assassins (the profession) are Assassins (the PrC). Many assassins are Wizards, Rogues, Fighters, Rangers ... even Monks, Clerics, and Sorcerers. And they don't have to be evil. The line between "assassin" and "bounty hunter" is subtle when the bounty is "dead or alive". So, the character didn't necessarily know if the assassin was evil and/or trustworthy. And yes, putting a hit out is exactly what those "good" townsfolk are doing when they hire the PCs to get rid of ogre bandits/pesky kobolds/marauding orcs/etc. Being slighted isn't a good reason to put a hit out, but having your party attacked and someone get killed is a good reason. Hiring an assassin to take them out isn't that different than hiring a Paladin to take out an evil necromancer. As was said, the only thing even a little evil about it is that the assassin might be evil and cause some collateral damage (not if he's a pro, though), and if he is evil then you're contributing to his trade. However, TN characters are allowed to do stuff like this. It's no more "out of alignment" for them than doing something good, like saving townsfolk from invading orcs.
shadow master 03-04-05, 01:19 PM	i salute to your evilness :evillaugh
GoofsterStud 03-04-05, 01:35 PM	Well if your neutral That means your either niether good or bad or you have both good and bad tendencies. That's the whole point of neutral... Do what you want while still having some heart.
Cymraegmorgan 03-04-05, 03:19 PM	Well if your neutral That means your either niether good or bad or you have both good and bad tendencies. That's the whole point of neutral... Do what you want while still having some heart. Very well stated.
shultz 03-04-05, 08:45 PM	2) Having someone assassinated is evil. That's pretty well spelled out in the alignment section of the PHB and the Assassin PrC in the DMG. James Bond is an assassin. He works for British Secret Service and is instructed by M to eliminate threats to civilized society. Is he evil? It's not the ACT of hiring an assassin that is evil, but the MOTIVE of why you are hiring an assassin.
glijar 03-04-05, 09:07 PM	Speaking as a DM the act was evil. I think we need to look at the actions of the individual outside of the context of alignment. Is the act of hiring someone to kill evil? In the game I DM it would be. Would it be something that would change your alignment? I think at this point your alignment and previous actions, which we have no knowledge of, would be taken into consideration and the decision made. Ultimately however, I agree with some of the others, it is you who made your character evil not your DM.
ShadowDragon8685 03-04-05, 09:41 PM	No, the character is not evil. He did a perfectly Neutral thing. He put out a hit. The DM, however, is attempting to punish the player by the alignment change and having the Assassin follow them around and extort him. This is Bad DMing. The DM made his character Evil. You should refuse to acknowledge it. Just keep TN written there on your sheet. Whenever the DM says "You take X damage, and some more from Smite," just take off the added damage. He'll get the hint eventually. Or kick you out, but you don't need to be playing with a jerk DM anyway. And you can make him suffer your presense until he either shapes up and realizes that putting out a hit does not make you Evil, or finally gets around to kicking you out, which could take months. During that time, have fun screwing with his head. :) Remember, a DM has no authority the players do not give him. Get the rest of the players into the act, if they support you. It'll be a ball.
Andrew_980 03-05-05, 05:40 AM	I think a few too many people don't understand the alignment system. a LN PC is well within his alignment to hire some one else to finish the job if he can't and having an assassin kill the guy is justice for the unprovoked attack.does he turn good for helping, not unless it is extreme such as an attempted self-sacrifice.just like he doesn't turn evil for one act unless it is such an atrocity that it make Cuthbert cry.if he hires a hit for no reason or tells the guy "at any cost, let nothing stop you from killing him" he starts leaning but one assassination paid for makes him no more evil than the villagers that hire a paladin to kill lizardmen that have been raiding.
Delvor 03-05-05, 05:47 AM	The group attacked our party, to get a familliar we were taking to a temple after it was poisened. The Pc who died, came after tthe initial attack, I'll change the title of the thread if you wish to - Should my alignment be changed? If that clears anything up. I'll probably get to talk to the DM in two weeks but untill then, *Shrug* Hey I don't know if i want to go the way ShadowDragon8685 has suggested or do what I leant towards after my alignment got changeed, which basically was, Oh he wants evil does he? Lets give him evil... :D
Andrew_980 03-05-05, 06:24 AM	if he thinks hiring an assassin makes you evil then it is time to absolutely wallow in the evilness. do some bad stuff, but be sneaky. then "repent" and wait a few days. then spring something on them that would make Dispator flinch
nyysjan 03-05-05, 06:29 AM	your DM has told you that your character is evil make him right start massacring innocent people mutilate bodies and eat them torture the survivors etc. etc. you know what to do i know what to do but posting them here would probably get me banned from the forums
danielinthewolvesden 03-05-05, 02:50 PM	James Bond is an assassin. He works for British Secret Service and is instructed by M to eliminate threats to civilized society. Is he evil? It's not the ACT of hiring an assassin that is evil, but the MOTIVE of why you are hiring an assassin. No, he's not an Assassin in 3.5 terms. Those are hired killers, who will kill anyone for the right money. Nor is 007 usually sent out just to kill a "threat". "Neutralize" sure, and that sometimes includes killing, yes.
shultz 03-05-05, 04:53 PM	No, he's not an Assassin in 3.5 terms. Those are hired killers, who will kill anyone for the right money. Nor is 007 usually sent out just to kill a "threat". "Neutralize" sure, and that sometimes includes killing, yes. Not necessarily so. An assassin can kill for any reason, not just money. Revenge, protection, self-defense of a person, place or country, etc. Even if you want to go with the money argument, Bond is paid by the government to eliminate threats. He takes money to kill people. He is an assassin even though it is not money that drives him to do the job. Neutralize is just the political term for "KILL THE SOB". You really think Bond is sent out to bring Blofeld back for trial? "For my next witness your honor I call Blofeld's cat and henchman number 2."
ShadowDragon8685 03-05-05, 05:59 PM	James Bond is an assassin. No two ways about it. Then again, Bond, while probably nominally trained in poison, rarely if ever uses it. Bond prefers his Walther. :)
ehrin 03-05-05, 06:55 PM	Shadowdragon and I agree on a lot in this post: James Bond is an assassin (without the Capitol A). Hiring a group of adventurers to defend your town is not evil, but hiring them to go out and hunt down and kill kobolds is chaotic, and very very likely evil (depends on what your world's views are on kobold sentience, killing of evil, and if all kobolds are evil, and if the town has any legal right to order the execution of the kobolds). Defense is one thing, but hiring them to hunt and kill, that's bad. I also agree with everyone who says that while this action may have been evil, that doesn't change your alignment. One action does not make an alignment. If Asmodeus decided to swerve his chariot, and avoid hitting a dog in the road, that action, while good, would not suddenly make him a Lawful Good demon. It's the pattern of actions that determine your alignment.
shultz 03-05-05, 08:42 PM	Defense is one thing, but hiring them to hunt and kill, that's bad. Why would that be a bad thing? In the game villages, towns and cities hire adventurers all the time to clear out infested ruins, invade wizards towers and remove nearby camps or settlements of any malicious race. It is a pre-emptive strike. Instead of waiting for them to build up enough power to actively threaten the populace, they are instead confronted and eliminated before that happens.
Demon Lightfoot 03-05-05, 09:35 PM	I'd have thought that a follower of Cuthbert would hunt him down himself and break his hands and knees. Hiring an assassin in this context would be, at worst, Chaotic; hiring one to kill widows and orphans, OTOH...
ShadowDragon8685 03-05-05, 11:11 PM	Ehin, you're not understanding. This is NOT an Evil act. Putting out a hit on someone who nearly killed you and did kill a friend, and that you know you cannot defeat, and that is immune to the law, that is not an Evil action.
Andrew_980 03-06-05, 01:21 AM	in this case he is very much right This is NOT an Evil act. Putting out a hit on someone who nearly killed you and did kill a friend, and that you know you cannot defeat, and that is immune to the law, that is not an Evil action he did the only obvious thing to remove a serious threat. not only to himself and freinds, but to the next poor shmuck to get on that guys bad side. to allow someone else to suffer may be evil too, especially if you can prevent it
ehrin 03-06-05, 06:43 PM	In an effort to better understand your viewpoint(s) SHadowdragon, can you give me examples of what types of actions would be evil in your world? Perhaps that could help me understand your side of the debate.
Cold Napalm 03-06-05, 07:07 PM	Most things you consider evil, me and SD consider choatic...equal bad in our society...but there is a subtle difference. Anyways I'd place hire a hit square on neutral and not evil with the compass shifting based on who the target is.
ehrin 03-06-05, 11:06 PM	Actually, i don't consider chaotic equally bad as evil... far far from it. It was chaotic thinkers that started our country, and I personally wish we had a bit more chaotic ideology than lawful. Be nice to have personal responsibility and independent thinking in the world.
Cold Napalm 03-07-05, 01:39 PM	See what you want is CG...most people ain't good. If our society was to become chaotic...it would be CN at least or...anarchy.
The Wasp 03-08-05, 12:05 AM	On the face of it, I would say you did no evil. The man who ambushed you is probably evil, and a murderer. Certainly, by the dictates of St. Cuthbert, they deserve to die. If you were in a nation that had an established system of justice, it would probably be chaotic. Generally, the courts don't like it if you take justice into your own hands. But otherwise, this is a TN act.
Andrew_980 03-08-05, 01:22 PM	thats my vote for sure
Orion Polaris 03-08-05, 02:59 PM	Regardless of the fact that it was a good or evil act, the single act of hiring an assasin, should not have been an instant alignment switch. However, if your character has been doing these kinds of things OFTEN, then yes, it should be switched, but not if he only did it once.