# Assassins: Is Neutral okay?



## Summer-Knight925 (Aug 1, 2012)

Murder is wrong, and I as a human being in the real world am not saying that murder is okay.

But this is a fantasy world, I've killed more men than I've known in real life, it's just how it plays.

So in a world where killing is common (the inner sea) and the skills of being an assassin can be taught (by others than the Red Lotus) is it plausible to be of a neutral alignment if you 'only kill to join an assassin guild/syndicate?' 

I find it wouldn't cause that much of a hassle, but I figure asking the community couldn't hurt.

Is there any problem to changing "Any evil" to "Any non-good"? 
And 'Kill to just be an assassin' to 'Kill to join the assassins'?


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 1, 2012)

Killing and murder are two different things. Even though the result is the same, the means of causing the death is everything. If two foes are facing each other weapon to weapon or weapon to claw - it's a fair fight. Sometimes dangerous diplomacy sessions can lead to sudden violence, even when a fight wasn't prepared for. This while not a good thing, is not necessarily an evil thing - it's pretty much neutral.

Assassination is premeditated with the attempt to catch the target off guard and murdering them. This is very much an evil act. It's nothing close to opposing combat leading to death.

I have assassins in my world, and sometimes I play assassins, but I never make the mistake that an assassin is not an evil class/profession, it very much is.

That said, I've created a divine assassin class for Assassin's Amulet, whose primary job was to enforce normal aging and natural death. Their deity insists that anyone artificially extending their lives was performing an unnatural act, and her adherents included assassins whose job were to end their lives. Despite the goddess herself being a neutral entity, her spiritually inspired assassins were still evil, though they only kill in the name of their goddess, and for her divine purpose. They never assassinated for money against victims that did not require it due to extended life issues. In this rare instance, I could see a divine assassin as neutrally aligned. 

Though I think this is only a corner case, and perhaps I'm fooling myself thinking this is neutral. In every other case for certain assassination is evil.


----------



## Mr.E_Danger (Aug 1, 2012)

If an assassin kills a good person, is it evil?  If that same assassin kills an evil man, is it good?  

I guess it depends on why your assassin kills.  If he kills for money and the joy of it, then he may in fact be evil.  If he works for a good aligned god and kills evildoers, then he woudl then in fact be good.  Maybe he's been in the assassin game for a while and knows that sooner or later, everyone dies; that death is a gift and that dying is neither good or bad.  It just is.  

How have you or are you going to be playing this assassin?  Also, just becuase a person is trained as an assassin, that doesn't mean he is one.  if he is in an adventuring group and uses his skills to take down monsters and the like, then he's not really an assassin, so much as an accomplished adventurer.


----------



## paradox42 (Aug 1, 2012)

They had a "Good Assassin" prestige class in the Book of Exalted Deeds (Fist of Raziel, IIRC?), back in 3.5, whose job was specifically to slay extremely evil beings using stealth and guile- so clearly there's wiggle room depending on the GM's own morality.

My personal take is that political assassination is a valid tool of statecraft, particularly if one accepts war as a valid tool of statecraft; assassination is really a far more efficient choice than war in every case where it could be used. It usually costs far less lives in the end, actually making it the more _moral_ choice in that sense.

I would allow Neutral Assassins, though they'd be on a slippery slope with regards to alignment and would need to watch the contracts they take *very* carefully if they want to avoid becoming Evil.

EDIT: Bah, got it wrong. Slayer of Domiel. It gets _Detect Evil_, Sneak Attack, a Death Touch ability, and some spells.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 1, 2012)

Mr.E_Danger said:


> If an assassin kills a good person, is it evil? If that same assassin kills an evil man, is it good?




You need to rephrase that assassin's don't kill, they murder - premeditated and ambushed. Never good, always evil. Look at the prestige class alignment - even the publishers got it right.



Mr.E_Danger said:


> I guess it depends on why your assassin kills. If he kills for money and the joy of it, then he may in fact be evil. If he works for a good aligned god and kills evildoers, then he woudl then in fact be good. Maybe he's been in the assassin game for a while and knows that sooner or later, everyone dies; that death is a gift and that dying is neither good or bad. It just is.




If it were, I serve a good god, and the death of an evil person is right in the eyes of that god. If I say, I challenge you to a fight to the death" and you prevail - this is not necessarily an evil act.

However, if you premeditate a murder and do not warn your target - it doesn't matter whether that person's death is a good or bad thing, if this is the method of removing them, it's an evil act. Period.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 1, 2012)

Player characters kill all the time. D&D is classically about "killing things and taking their stuff".

Clearly, assassination is a naturally evil path, but not an exclusively evil one. There is a ton of gray area there. As long as you think about what you're doing and consider who your character is attacking, how, and why, I don't see any problems with a non-evil assassin.

(Personally, I am a pacifist and would say that any killing is wrong, assassin-style or not, but D&D alignments are not structured around that assumption).


----------



## Kaisoku (Aug 1, 2012)

The entry requirements for the PrC is to kill someone _for no other reason_ than to qualify for the prestige class.

I've always looked at this similar to MK-Ultra or "super soldier/spy" training stuff.
You are led to a room with a person tied to a chair, a bag over their head, and no identifying marks on them. You are given a weapon and told to kill them.
As an assassin, you do it with no questions, no hesitation, and no compunction.

This is what makes it an evil class.

NOW, that isn't to say that you couldn't basically write a version that did most of the same stuff but had a code of conduct of some kind, that allowed a more neutral or even good alignment.

The class ability to "watch a target for a bit and then striking to lay them low instantly" isn't exactly alignment focused.
Some of the "prevent raising" stuff might require more negative energy stuff, but I can see a divine "soul sealing" option working even in that situation too.

An assassin of Pharasma, for example, would seem to make an excellent Neutral Assassin.


----------



## Mr.E_Danger (Aug 1, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> You need to rephrase that assassin's don't kill, they murder - premeditated and ambushed. Never good, always evil. Look at the prestige class alignment - even the publishers got it right.
> 
> However, if you premeditate a murder and do not warn your target - it doesn't matter whether that person's death is a good or bad thing, if this is the method of removing them, it's an evil act. Period.




I don't think premeditation and using ambush tactics make it an evil act.  A soldier of any alignment can premeditate an ambush on his enemies and not be evil doing so. A farmer killing a group of bandits while they are unaware would not be an evil act.  

In terms of the prestige class alignment requirements, that is a different story.  Rule 0 means a DM can waive that.  If a PC's assassin doesn't kill innocent people, and only kills evil/unlawful people, i don't see why he couldn't be a good aligned assassin. 

If an assassin works for himself or he is ending a life for personal reasons, then the act he commits is murder.  However, like a soldier or city guard that kills because it is his job, an assassin that works for a city, king, guild, ect... is killing not murdering.  There is a slight difference between killing and murdering someone.  it is at this point that intent, purpose for the act, and who the PC works for comes into play. 

In the setting of role playing games, I would say there can be evil-neutral-good assassins (whole spectrum).  It depends on who is being killed and why, regardless of ambush, stealth, premeditation, ect... in my opinion.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 1, 2012)

Mr.E_Danger said:


> I don't think premeditation and using ambush tactics make it an evil act. A soldier of any alignment can premeditate an ambush on his enemies and not be evil doing so. A farmer killing a group of bandits while they are unaware would not be an evil act.
> 
> In terms of the prestige class alignment requirements, that is a different story. Rule 0 means a DM can waive that. If a PC's assassin doesn't kill innocent people, and only kills evil/unlawful people, i don't see why he couldn't be a good aligned assassin.
> 
> ...




War is a different animal altogether. Soldiers aren't assassins. Not to say that assassinations can't occur in war, but really such an act is still evil.

I agree killing is not murdering, even in modern law there is a difference. Assassination is not the same as killing it's murder.

You can argue all you want, but even the publishers of D&D in every single edition, as well as Pathfinder perfectly agree that an assassin is an evil class - look at your book and tell me I'm wrong. You may not agree with it, but most everyone else does. That is even why AD&D 2nd edition removed the class altogether - they didn't want to associate with a specifically evil class. Assassin is evil - no way out of that argument.


----------



## Mr.E_Danger (Aug 1, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> War is a different animal altogether. Soldiers aren't assassins. Not to say that assassinations can't occur in war, but really such an act is still evil.
> 
> I agree killing is not murdering, even in modern law there is a difference. Assassination is not the same as killing it's murder.
> 
> You can argue all you want, but even the publishers of D&D in every single edition, as well as Pathfinder perfectly agree that an assassin is an evil class - look at your book and tell me I'm wrong. You may not agree with it, but most everyone else does. That is even why AD&D 2nd edition removed the class altogether - they didn't want to associate with a specifically evil class. Assassin is evil - no way out of that argument.




I don't have knowledge of past dnd editions, so i could be wrong in the following example, so don't let the argument hinge on that.  As far as the example: the monk class in pathfinder (and possibly other additions) is always lawful.  is it possible to create a monk character that is not lawful?  I would say yes, because depending on the character's past and motivations, actions, and circumstances he could be non-lawful.  Using your quote from earlier, if all the previous editions said that monks had to be lawful, then you would seemingly say to a person looking to make a non lawful monk: "No, it has to be lawful." Because all the previous editions and publishers say so.

now to get back to the assassin in particular, my point was that depending on certain circumstances (listed in previous posts) i think a PC could have an assassin that is not evil.  would the majority of assassins most likely be evil? yeah.  Are all of them?  i would say not, and that is all i am saying.  Kaisoku listed a great example of an assassin that could be neutral: an assassin of Pharasma.

I don't think that war is a different animal altogether in the case of this "argument" as to whether an assassin is evil or not.  That is one example of a time when an assassin killing someone (as a soldier in a war or under orders from a general/commander/authority) that the kill is a kill and not a murder; and thus not be an act of evil.  

Do i think that most assassins would be evil? yes.  
Is a neutral assassin walking a slippery slope? yes.  
Can an assassin not be evil? i would say yes.

we can agree to disagree.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 1, 2012)

Mr.E_Danger said:


> I don't have knowledge of past dnd editions, so i could be wrong in the following example, so don't let the argument hinge on that. As far as the example: the monk class in pathfinder (and possibly other additions) is always lawful. is it possible to create a monk character that is not lawful? I would say yes, because depending on the character's past and motivations, actions, and circumstances he could be non-lawful. Using your quote from earlier, if all the previous editions said that monks had to be lawful, then you would seemingly say to a person looking to make a non lawful monk: "No, it has to be lawful." Because all the previous editions and publishers say so.




You don't understand, it's not an issue of a character's personal choice nor his past history. A monk is lawful because to access the ki powers in himself, and to master the martial arts requires the philosophical choice of law, otherwise ki power cannot be manifested. His powers do now work if he is not lawful.

Can a paladin be a paladin and not lawful good?



Mr.E_Danger said:


> now to get back to the assassin in particular, my point was that depending on certain circumstances (listed in previous posts) i think a PC could have an assassin that is not evil. would the majority of assassins most likely be evil? yeah. Are all of them? i would say not, and that is all i am saying. Kaisoku listed a great example of an assassin that could be neutral: an assassin of Pharasma.




Even if somebody helps people when not on assassination work, because the way assassination is accomplished and the obvious result, it's an evil act. Is it possible for an Assassin to always be good when not assassinating, thus the balace equals neutral? I think even that is reaching.



Mr.E_Danger said:


> I don't think that war is a different animal altogether in the case of this "argument" as to whether an assassin is evil or not. That is one example of a time when an assassin killing someone (as a soldier in a war or under orders from a general/commander/authority) that the kill is a kill and not a murder; and thus not be an act of evil.




Ever heard of war crimes? Assassination during war is a crime, because it's an evil act. Has the US performed assassinations in war - most certainly, but even then it was most likely a CIA backed operation. It was condoned by senior level. Despite that, it is still a crime, an illegal activity, one that the government would face the wrath of the public and the world if it gets caught. Even though it is a crime, it is done in war - that doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong (and evil).

There were attempts to assassinate Hitler during WW2. Most people would agree that killing Hitler to end the war would have been a good thing. Still the act of taking him out, not in a battle situation is assassination, and if the perpetrators get caught they will be considered criminals, war or no war.



Mr.E_Danger said:


> Do i think that most assassins would be evil? yes.
> Is a neutral assassin walking a slippery slope? yes.
> Can an assassin not be evil? i would say yes.
> 
> we can agree to disagree.




Agreeing to disagree regards opinions. Assassination being evil is a fact, no matter your opinion - so in this instance, you are wrong.


----------



## SteelDraco (Aug 2, 2012)

There are two distinct questions here - mechanical abilities and the morality of assassination.

Mechanically, an assassin studies a target and kills him with a single deadly attack. I don't view this as significantly different than a huge volley of sneak attack damage, or dropping a raging barbarian on a target with buff-scry-teleport tactics. They're all methods of killing a target before they have a chance to respond properly. It's a way of removing high-value targets quickly and with a minimum of fuss. There's nothing about the mechanics of the assassin class that suggests to me that they have to be evil. PCs do this kind of thing ALL THE TIME - the mechanics of Pathfinder and D&D really support removing targets as quickly as possible to remove the threat they pose, since a damaged target typically isn't any less effective than an unhurt one, and can be healed without too much fuss if they're prepared properly. PCs regularly make plans to kill the Big Bad, and mechanically that's really all an assassin is doing.

Morally defending assassination is difficult, but the fantasy world is inherently a much more violent one than ours. It's interesting to pose a world in which killing is morally wrong, but it's very different from the assumptions we normally make for fantasy RPGs. Assassination is really just more efficient killing, in a lot of instances. Is it more moral to kill your way through all the hired guards and then chop the Big Bad's head off than it is to put an arrow through him and disappear, leaving everybody else alive? In a lot of instances, I don't think so. It's certainly more HONORABLE to have a straight-up fight, by most definitions of the word, and thus probably lawful, but in the alignment system I don't know if it's as clear on the good/evil axis. I certainly agree that it's a very slippery slope towards "the ends justify the means", which I view as, at best, neutral on the good/evil axis.

I've always made the assumption that assassination was considered a war crime mostly because the people who decide what is and isn't a war crime didn't want to get assassinated themselves. The real world and fantasy games don't play by the same rules.



> Agreeing to disagree regards opinions. Assassination being evil is a fact, no matter your opinion - so in this instance, you are wrong.



That seems unwarranted. It's hard to find a more subjective topic of discussion than alignment debates.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 2, 2012)

SteelDraco said:


> They're all methods of killing a target before they have a chance to respond properly.




Killing a target, and assassinating a specific person with extreme prejudice are two different things. If you set an ambush to prepare for the possible arrival of enemy soldiers, this is a standard method of operating war. An ambush by itself is no evil act. However, choosing to slay a specific named target, following his moves and setting up a hidden place to kill that one person - this is assassination.

Killing a general enemy is condoned. Purposely planning and killing a specific person is not condoned. The latter is assassination, general killing is not.  



SteelDraco said:


> That seems unwarranted. It's hard to find a more subjective topic of discussion than alignment debates.




That was not a personal attack. I am not even discussing alignment in the general game per se, rather just within the definition of assassination.

Really beyond the confines of paladins, assassins and necromancers - everything in the game is neutral to me.


----------



## enrious (Aug 2, 2012)

> You need to rephrase that assassin's don't kill, they murder - premeditated and ambushed. Never good, always evil. Look at the prestige class alignment - even the publishers got it right.






> Killing a target, and assassinating a specific person with extreme prejudice are two different things. If you set an ambush to prepare for the possible arrival of enemy soldiers, this is a standard method of operating war. An ambush by itself is no evil act. However, choosing to slay a specific named target, following his moves and setting up a hidden place to kill that one person - this is assassination.
> 
> Killing a general enemy is condoned. Purposely planning and killing a specific person is not condoned. The latter is assassination, general killing is not.






> Ever heard of war crimes? Assassination during war is a crime, because it's an evil act. Has the US performed assassinations in war - most certainly, but even then it was most likely a CIA backed operation. It was condoned by senior level. Despite that, it is still a crime, an illegal activity, one that the government would face the wrath of the public and the world if it gets caught. Even though it is a crime, it is done in war - that doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong (and evil).
> 
> There were attempts to assassinate Hitler during WW2. Most people would agree that killing Hitler to end the war would have been a good thing. Still the act of taking him out, not in a battle situation is assassination, and if the perpetrators get caught they will be considered criminals, war or no war.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Murphy_(sniper)

Thomas Plunket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hesketh Hesketh-Prichard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Francis Pegahmagabow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vasily Zaytsev - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simo Häyhä - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carlos Hathcock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Avalon Project - Laws of War : Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Foxley

I will simply say that I find your historical, legal, and ethical knowledge of the subject suspect and leave it at that.


----------



## Argyle King (Aug 2, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> Can a paladin be a paladin and not lawful good?




While I know the D&D answer is "no," I personally feel the answer should be yes.  I feel that way because not all gods are Lawful Good; as such, I feel a champion of a religion should have morals and ideals which are suited to the cause he or she chooses to champion.





gamerprinter said:


> Ever heard of war crimes? Assassination during war is a crime, because it's an evil act. Has the US performed assassinations in war - most certainly, but even then it was most likely a CIA backed operation. It was condoned by senior level. Despite that, it is still a crime, an illegal activity, one that the government would face the wrath of the public and the world if it gets caught. Even though it is a crime, it is done in war - that doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong (and evil).
> 
> There were attempts to assassinate Hitler during WW2. Most people would agree that killing Hitler to end the war would have been a good thing. Still the act of taking him out, not in a battle situation is assassination, and if the perpetrators get caught they will be considered criminals, war or no war.





How would snipers fit into this idea?

Long range missile strikes?


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 2, 2012)

enrious said:


> I will simply say that I find your historical, legal, and ethical knowledge of the subject suspect and leave it at that.




I guess I painted myself into that corner - too bad you couldn't have posted all that until now. I truly make no legal claims, only as it applies to Pathfinder. The prestige class says "must be evil", that's the only real leg I can stand on.


----------



## paradox42 (Aug 2, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> I guess I painted myself into that corner - too bad you couldn't have posted all that until now. I truly make no legal claims, only as it applies to Pathfinder. The prestige class says "must be evil", that's the only real leg I can stand on.



Exactly. And the subject of this thread is whether a GM could reasonably decide to change that. House-rule it, in other words, which makes your argument irrelevant. We all *know* the RAW says "must be Evil," but the fact of the matter is, that doesn't matter to the subject in this case. 

I (and an apparent majority of others) say the answer to that question is, "yes, there is a reasonable argument for it."


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 2, 2012)

paradox42 said:


> Exactly. And the subject of this thread is whether a GM could reasonably decide to change that. House-rule it, in other words, which makes your argument irrelevant. We all *know* the RAW says "must be Evil," but the fact of the matter is, that doesn't matter to the subject in this case.
> 
> I (and an apparent majority of others) say the answer to that question is, "yes, there is a reasonable argument for it."




Well you can always house rule anything really.

I read the thread as "why is assassin not neutral", not so much as "can I make my assassins not evil in my game" - almost as a question between a player and his GM.

I never question a given GM's houserule for their own game. Whether I choose to play in that game is a completely different matter.


----------



## enrious (Aug 2, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> I guess I painted myself into that corner - too bad you couldn't have posted all that until now. I truly make no legal claims, only as it applies to Pathfinder. The prestige class says "must be evil", that's the only real leg I can stand on.




Heh.

For what it's worth, I think it speaks volumes that you're willing to admit it, dust yourself off, and continue on in a friendly and polite manner.

As it is, I realized after I made that post that in Pathfinder terms, the "must be evil" was a wobbly leg for me and one that I concede.

However, in the time spent between my post and returning to write more about it, I found a post I read a few weeks ago, written by James Jacob.

*Bolding* is mine:



			
				James Jacobs said:
			
		

> Assassins have always been evil in the game, *so on one level, we kept it that way due to tradition.*
> 
> But also, the concept of being paid money to kill someone is, in my opinion (and in the opinion of pretty much all of us at Paizo) is evil.
> 
> ...




Source: paizo.com - Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion: Why was the Assassin kept as a purely evil PrC?

I really don't have any commentary on his statement per se, because I really don't disagree with any of it.

I do find it telling that the requirement to enable a non-Evil Pathfinder Assassin is by re-writing the flavor text.  That's it.  (I hear Assassin's Creed calling)  Of course, such an action is ultimately up to the group/DM, so I sorta think everyone will end up back to where so many gaming and game rule discussions end up.

The group or individual preference.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 2, 2012)

enrious said:


> However, in the time spent between my post and returning to post more about it, I found a post I read a few weeks ago, written by James Jacob....




Well, if you read my first post, I pretty much gave an example of a fluffed non-evil assassin - it's even published. I actually created the entire premise of a 'non-evil' assassin in the publication below, and a magic-item map the whole publication is based. Except for a little design, I didn't write it though...

*Assassin's Amulet*

As an aside, I have ninjas in my Kaidan setting, except they are mostly spies.


----------



## enrious (Aug 2, 2012)

Right, but I thought it may be enlightening to show James Jacob's explanation for why it's written as evil in Pathfinder and also that those who utilize non-evil ones have a case.

As an aside, but speaking of using ninjas as spies, as I recall you also make the case for them historically being essentially "special forces samurai" (I no doubt am missing nuance and would welcome correction on it) - in other words, they were mostly samurai themselves who simply at times practiced irregular warfare.

I think that such moral or ethical complexity is a wonderful option to have in a campaign (I do emphasize option), which is essentially my take on assassins in Pathfinder.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 2, 2012)

enrious said:


> As an aside, but speaking of using ninjas as spies, as I recall you also make the case for them historically being essentially "special forces samurai" (I no doubt am missing nuance and would welcome correction on it) - in other words, they were mostly samurai themselves who simply at times practiced irregular warfare.




That's a close enough definition. I actually haven't got to my *Way of the **Shinobi* supplement for my Kaidan setting (which would contain all ninja and other stealth specialized classes), yet, since we've got the campaign setting Kickstarter going - it will have to come after that is released.

I'd hoped we could fund the Player's Guide in this Kickstarter campaign (then I could avoid even creating the shinobi guide and put that information in the player's book), but realistically, I don't think we'll get that part funded.

The GM's guide is certain to get funded, since we're only 2 week into the Kickstarter and are already at 85% to goal.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 2, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> While I know the D&D answer is "no," I personally feel the answer should be yes. I feel that way because not all gods are Lawful Good; as such, I feel a champion of a religion should have morals and ideals which are suited to the cause he or she chooses to champion.




I do see and plan to one day write up something for a Templar archetype for Paladin that is not Lawful Good, my problem has always been how best to replace Smite. Perhaps Smite the Guilty? It might even be better to create an alternate class, rather than archetype, since paladin is too defined with too long of a history in the game, to be other the LG.



Johnny3D3D said:


> How would snipers fit into this idea?




Against standard military targets, including officers? Perfectly acceptable. But to target a specific commander, that's assassination. I see enemy sniping and specific target sniping as 2 different things.



Johnny3D3D said:


> Long range missile strikes?




It would mean that I was at the wrong gaming table - anything more modern than the Renaissance is a game that I don't care for.


----------



## enrious (Aug 2, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> I do see and plan to one day write up something for a Templar archetype for Paladin that is not Lawful Good, my problem has always been how best to replace Smite. Perhaps Smite the Guilty? It might even be better to create an alternate class, rather than archetype, since paladin is too defined with too long of a history in the game, to be other the LG.




Personally, I find that Paladin = LG to be so embedded into the D&D experience (and to be fair, one that I share) that for my own campaign world I've utilized Green Ronin's Book of the Righteous concept of Holy Warrior for anything not supposed to be a LG paragon of Virtue and the Holy Church.  In other words, Paladin = LG.



> Against standard military targets, including officers? Perfectly acceptable. But to target a specific commander, that's assassination. I see enemy sniping and specific target sniping as 2 different things.




Historically and certainly in modern times, civilian and military leadership disagrees with that position.  Even in the case of specifically targeting enemy civilian leadership the available legal studies suggest that provided the legal requirements for war are met (such as a causus belli) then the targeting of a specific enemy leader, civilian or military, is legally justified.

As to an ethical stance, a common refrain from combatants, sniper or otherwise, is the idea that they believe that killing an individual, even one they specifically targeted, to be done in the belief that doing so would save their comrades.

For example, let's say for the sake of discussion that Robert E. Lee was responsible for the American Civil War lasting a year longer than it would have otherwise if the South had another general in charge of the Army of Northern Virginia *and* let's also stipulate for the sake of argument that the war lasting that extra year resulted in X amount of death, casualties, suffering etc. on both sides.

A case could be made given those two conditions that a Union sniper specifically targeting and killing Lee that year prior would have been doing the moral and ethical thing since otherwise he would have been dooming both sides to a further year of death, casualties, and suffering.

Now...what if the the Union sharpshooter taking the shot believed that to be case?


Of course, there's an another issue to be sure - in D&D worlds, Good and Evil are very tangible things; Gods typically have tangible effects, so as I argue, it will eventually come back to the group/DM as to how they answer the issues.

And I'm not sure there's a wrong answer.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 2, 2012)

I was in the US Army and aware of that point of view. I was even a 'sharp shooter', but no sniper.

My only problem with "Holy Warrior", is that word 'holy' - it's a mechanical property in the game associated with Good, as in holy vs. unholy. The problem is there isn't an easily defined term for a neutrally aligned church warrior.

Knights Templar were definitely intended to be lawful good soldiers of God fighting in the Holy Land, or against the Moors in Spain. Of course there's the opposite Muslim point of view regarding any Christian Crusader - so how morally accurate is their attributed alignment, they were people after all, and people come in all different 'alignments'.

Still, I like Templar better than Holy Warrior.


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 2, 2012)

Murdering people for money?  That's an evil act in my books.  If the PCs are hired as hitmen and follow through, their alignment goes south for the winter.


----------



## Drowbane (Aug 2, 2012)

It all comes down to motive. Killing blindly for money = probably very much evil. Killing evil bastards who have it coming = Neutral at worst. With the right code of conduct, an assassin could even be Good. Face it, L/G PCs kill sapient beings *all* the time and usually its not even a big deal. So is it murder to stealth-kill a tyrant? That depends on your viewpoint. In the absolutes of D&D? No. Good is in the right to dispose of Evil.

"Paladins must slay evil when possible. Remember that not only does an afterlife exist, but one can go there and visit it to watch Evil souls receive rewards from Evil deities. Since killing Evil people makes both them and everyone else better off (because they're no longer around in life to do Evil), it is in fact a moral duty to send successful Evil to the afterlife expediently." -excerpt from a awesome variant Paladin

Obviously it all comes down to what your DM agrees with.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Aug 2, 2012)

I have my own personal Rule 0 about this kind of thing:Nothing is absolute (not even this rule).​Or in other words:Every rule has an exception (including this one).​So in my opinion, assassins are "always" evil, but "always" doesn't always mean _always_.


----------



## paradox42 (Aug 2, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> I do see and plan to one day write up something for a Templar archetype for Paladin that is not Lawful Good, my problem has always been how best to replace Smite. Perhaps Smite the Guilty? It might even be better to create an alternate class, rather than archetype, since paladin is too defined with too long of a history in the game, to be other the LG.



Not to thread-hijack, but this is exactly what I did myself when updating the old "Paladins of alternate alignments" classes my setting has featured since way back in 1st Edition to PF. Archetypes, I decided after trying a few things out, just didn't go far enough, so I did alternate classes just as Paizo themselves did (with the Antipaladin). In particular, I made the Freedom Knight (CG, focused on Smite Law and taking down any authority that gets too onerous) and the Oppressor (LE, focused on Smite Chaos and keeping the rabble under the thumb of tyrants where they belong). Those were just my choices though; the four-way symmetry of the opposed forces appeals to me. Other choices could certainly be made.

But, that James Jacobs quote is a good one to go back to for the Assassin- fluff is really all that's necessary to change the class to make it possible to be non-Evil. There's wiggle room, and that's the important thing here for the OP (whom I got the impression of, as being a GM, FWIW).


----------



## enrious (Aug 2, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> I have my own personal Rule 0 about this kind of thing:Nothing is absolute (not even this rule).​Or in other words:Every rule has an exception (including this one).​So in my opinion, assassins are "always" evil, but "always" doesn't always mean _always_.




Nothing is true, everything is permitted.


----------



## delericho (Aug 2, 2012)

Summer-Knight925 said:


> Is there any problem to changing "Any evil" to "Any non-good"?
> And 'Kill to just be an assassin' to 'Kill to join the assassins'?




Game mechanics wise? Absolutely. The class is balanced even if you ignore the alignment restriction entirely.

Alignment-wise? Well, not as written - the Assassin PrC as written pre-supposes that the character is a member of an organisation of paid killers. Switching from "kill solely to become an assassin" to "kill to join the assassins" is a pretty trivial change - the character has still taken the choice to join an organisation that kills for money, and that's pretty clearly Evil.

But...

Here's a question for you: in "Batman Begins", Bruce Wayne has received training by the League of Shadows, but to formally join he has to kill a guy. It's basically the exact same entry requirement, and he refuses.

Now, in game terms, does BW qualify for the "League of Shadows" PrC by virtue of having received the training, or does he fail to qualify because he doesn't truly enter the order? If he doesn't qualify, does that mean he has some other PrC that is almost entirely identical, but not quite?

What I'm getting at is this: PCs are pretty much exceptional by their very nature, in just the same way as Bruce Wayne is exceptional. So, while I wouldn't replace the general "must be Evil" rule with a looser "must be non-Good" rule, if the player was able to present a strong in-story argument for his character being an exception to that rule, I would at least consider it.

And then, being me, I'd probably say "no". But I would at least _consider_ it.


----------



## Argyle King (Aug 2, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> I was in the US Army and aware of that point of view. I was even a 'sharp shooter'.





Having a similar background is what made my mind ask the question.


You have a fair point about the missiles.  That's not something which would not be in D&D.  However, there are some spells and such which would allow similar tactics to be employed.


----------



## N'raac (Aug 2, 2012)

blargney the second said:


> Murdering people for money?  That's an evil act in my books.  If the PCs are hired as hitmen and follow through, their alignment goes south for the winter.






delericho said:


> Alignment-wise? Well, not as written - the Assassin PrC as written pre-supposes that the character is a member of an organisation of paid killers. Switching from "kill solely to become an assassin" to "kill to join the assassins" is a pretty trivial change - the character has still taken the choice to join an organisation that kills for money, and that's pretty clearly Evil.






			
				Pathdfinder Good Versus Evil said:
			
		

> Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters  and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or  profit.
> 
> Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the  dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to  help others.
> Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil  creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms  if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for  sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
> ...





There's two aspects here.  First, Good protects innocent life, and Neutral has compunctions against killing the innocent.  So that's the basic "killing for money is evil" clearly falls.


But we're discussing the character who refuses to kill the innocent.  Perhaps he only takes hits on those proven to have committed evil acts themselves.  Maybe he actively Detects Evil before he will kill the target.  Perhaps he kills for something other than personal remuneration.


Good still implies respect for life.  Killing is a last resort.  Of course, that also should apply to any form of combat.  That would mean taking prisoners where possible, _stabilizing_ or _healing_ downed opponents to minimize loss of life, perhaps striking for non-lethal damage where this is practical.  How often do we enforce that respect for life?  



Finally, of course, we get to those entities who are not, perhaps, considered "life", such as the Undead and otherplanar creatures.  A PrC that teaches assassination techniques which are to be used only against such targets, and only the evil ones, could justifiably be "Fantasy Good".




delericho said:


> Here's a question for you: in "Batman Begins", Bruce Wayne has received training by the League of Shadows, but to formally join he has to kill a guy. It's basically the exact same entry requirement, and he refuses.
> 
> Now, in game terms, does BW qualify for the "League of Shadows" PrC by virtue of having received the training, or does he fail to qualify because he doesn't truly enter the order? If he doesn't qualify, does that mean he has some other PrC that is almost entirely identical, but not quite?
> 
> ...




Your scenario posits obtaining the training first, then being instructed to kill the person as a requirement of joining the organization.  But he's already received the training.  Doesn't that mean he's already gains one or more levels in the relevant PrC?  The fact you can't take a level in Assassin before you meet the prerequisite of killing a person solely to become an Assassin seems to imply you get no training before you make that kill, differentiating this from the Bruce Wayne example.

This also comes back to the nature of prestige classes.  The original theory - special classes intrinsically linked to the game world and organizations therein - faded pretty quick in favour of "options to better optimize my character and screw the backstory fluff - gimme my mechanics!".

Now, what if that evil PC with a few Assassin levels sees the light.  He WAS evil, and he DID kill a person just to join the organization.  Maybe he's killed a lot of innocent (and non so innocent) people since.  But he's changed.  He's come to respect life, and recognize that his past has been wrong.  He was Evil, but his alignment has shifted, perhaps gradually or perhaps suddenly, to Neutral or even Good.

The Assassin abilities look a lot like learned skills - many are shared by other classes.  Maybe the "can't raise" abilities are backed up by some evil power, or maybe they are learned techniques closely guarded by the Assassin organization.  If he's no longer Evil, he probably no longer works for the organization and no longer receives training.  That sounds like he can gain no further levels in the class, but there's no reason he would not retain his class abilities (possibly with the exception of the "can't raise" ones, if you view those as gifts from the Death Gods rather than learned techniques).  

Like a Paladin, this character could "Atone" and return to Evil, and the organization, by proving himself loyal, and could then gain levels in the PrC again.  

That alignment change would seem to be the crux of the unusual nature of the player character.

If we want to simulate the Bruce Wayne approach for the Assassins, it seems like that could be done in a role playing setting.  But it's not as easy as getting the training, then refusing the final test.  Here, it's a preliminary test, so it precedes the training.  Other than, arguably, the "no raise" abilities, there's nothing supernatural about the assassins.  The player needs to (in game, I expect) trick the Assassins into believing he killed that victim, but not actually have done so.  Then he has to keep up the bluff, somehow avoiding assignments to kill on a non-Good (or non-Neutral, as the case may be) basis.

That would certainly require some pretty fancy footwork - accomplishing something truly exceptional.  But you want your PC to be exceptional, so play it out in game and show that PC's exceptional nature.

The second option, of course, is a PrC that fits into YOUR game world, provides the same or similar training, and does not require killing a person to join.  Perhaps it has some other prerequisite related to the purpose for which this organization has developed these techniques, and shares them with its initiates.  IOW, re-skin the PrC - it doesn't have to be called Assassin - perhaps this is the Holy Inquisitor, rooting out the greatest of Evils and purging them as part of the Church's Holy Work.  Maybe you require the ability to Detect Evil and Smite Evil, and a demonstrated dedication to the Holy Precepts of a very Lawful Good church to even be considered for this training.  There's your "Paladin-Assassin" - assuming you wish to allow for same.


----------



## Mad Hamish (Aug 2, 2012)

blargney the second said:


> Murdering people for money?  That's an evil act in my books.  If the PCs are hired as hitmen and follow through, their alignment goes south for the winter.




So any character who gets hired to attack a goblin village is evil then?


----------



## Mad Hamish (Aug 2, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> Killing and murder are two different things. Even though the result is the same, the means of causing the death is everything. If two foes are facing each other weapon to weapon or weapon to claw - it's a fair fight. Sometimes dangerous diplomacy sessions can lead to sudden violence, even when a fight wasn't prepared for. This while not a good thing, is not necessarily an evil thing - it's pretty much neutral.
> 
> Assassination is premeditated with the attempt to catch the target off guard and murdering them. This is very much an evil act. It's nothing close to opposing combat leading to death.




So a wizard with improved invisiblity who disintegrates somebody is automatically evil?


----------



## delericho (Aug 2, 2012)

N'raac said:


> But we're discussing the character who refuses to kill the innocent.  Perhaps he only takes hits on those proven to have committed evil acts themselves.  Maybe he actively Detects Evil before he will kill the target.  Perhaps he kills for something other than personal remuneration.




I get the argument, but I'm afraid I just don't buy it. As written, the Assassin PrC relates specifically to joining an organisation dedicated to killing for money. Under those circumstances, I wouldn't relax the alignment restriction even if the specific assassin in question only murders Evil characters.

Now, if we re-fluff the class so it's basically just a matter of training in particular areas, then I can certainly see relaxing, or even removing, the alignment restriction - provided the "must kill to become an assassin" requirement also goes.



> Your scenario posits obtaining the training first, then being instructed to kill the person as a requirement of joining the organization.




Yes, it does.



> Now, what if that evil PC with a few Assassin levels sees the light.  He WAS evil, and he DID kill a person just to join the organization.  Maybe he's killed a lot of innocent (and non so innocent) people since.  But he's changed.  He's come to respect life, and recognize that his past has been wrong.  He was Evil, but his alignment has shifted, perhaps gradually or perhaps suddenly, to Neutral or even Good.




Okay, in this case, the DM would need to make a ruling. Three things to consider:

- Most classes with an alignment restriction also have a section on "Ex-XX", discussing what happens when the character no longer has the alignment in question. The Assassin PrC does not. That suggests to me that the character may actually _never_ become an Ex-Assassin, no matter what happens to his alignment - once he's met the requirements and join the class, he's fine.

- On the other hand, there's _also_ the general policy that if something (a class, feat, whatever) has prerequisites, if the character later loses those prerequisites for any reason then he also loses the class (or feat, or whatever). In which case, a non-Evil Assassin loses access to all aspects of the PrC, because he no longer qualifies.

As I said, the DM would need to make a ruling.

FWIW, the ruling that I would make is this: the character retains all existing aspects of his class, but can no longer gain levels as an Assassin - he's no longer a member of the order, so they won't give him any further training, but what he's already learned he keeps.

YMMV, of course.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 2, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> I guess I painted myself into that corner - too bad you couldn't have posted all that until now. I truly make no legal claims, only as it applies to Pathfinder. The prestige class says "must be evil", that's the only real leg I can stand on.






Mad Hamish said:


> stuff...




No, I already conceded that I was wrong. Read the whole thread.

That said, going back to the post mentioning James Jacobs comments - if the flavor includes something to not consider assassination as evil, then it works. Which means if you don't have the flavor granting some viable reason to assassinate and not be considered evil - it still should be considered evil.

Myself, I don't see assassins as exclusively taking the prestige class, any arcane spell caster would make a most excellent assassin.


----------



## N'raac (Aug 3, 2012)

delericho said:


> I get the argument, but I'm afraid I just don't buy it. As written, the Assassin PrC relates specifically to joining an organisation dedicated to killing for money. Under those circumstances, I wouldn't relax the alignment restriction even if the specific assassin in question only murders Evil characters.
> 
> Now, if we re-fluff the class so it's basically just a matter of training in particular areas, then I can certainly see relaxing, or even removing, the alignment restriction - provided the "must kill to become an assassin" requirement also goes.




Which, I believe, is addressed later in my post.  The portion you quoted was directed at whether it might be possible to be focused on killing, but not be evil by default.

The Batman Begins example makes it possible for the character to progress to some point without taking that "kill to join us" step, so a character could
advance that far without automatically being evil.  But he would probably have to keep his true colours hidden, or the assassins have no reason to train him.



delericho said:


> FWIW, the ruling that I would make is this: the character retains all existing aspects of his class, but can no longer gain levels as an Assassin - he's no longer a member of the order, so they won't give him any further training, but what he's already learned he keeps.




That would likely be my approach as well (assuming no Evil Power backstory to any of the abilities).


----------



## N'raac (Aug 3, 2012)

Mad Hamish said:


> So any character who gets hired to attack a goblin village is evil then?




Quite possibly.  

Were the goblins dangerous?  If not, then charging in to kill them for some coin seems lacking in respect for life, does it not?  Respect for life is a hallmark of good.  Did they attack first, slit the throats of the fallen and slaughter the women and children?  That strikes me as far from a good act.

Or were the goblins actively raiding the nearby town and killing villagers?  In this case, putting a stop to their actions seems a non-evil act to take.  Do the heroes do just as much damage as is needed to stop the raiding?  Do they investigate why the goblins have taken up raiding to seek a more peaceful solution?  Those seem like things Good characters would do.

Good also includes Altruism, so being hired to attack the goblin village doesn't seem to epitomize Good.  If there are valid reasons to attack the goblins - like ending their attacks on a peaceful settlement - it seems like Good characters would not need to be paid to perform such a service, but would be motivated by their altruism.

Of course, this is addressed from the point of view of the alignment descriptions, and not the point of view of most actual fantasy gaming.


----------



## delericho (Aug 3, 2012)

N'raac said:


> Which, I believe, is addressed later in my post.  The portion you quoted was directed at whether it might be possible to be focused on killing, but not be evil by default.




You're absolutely right. I just didn't quote it, because I had nothing to say beyond "I agree". Perhaps I should have said that.


----------



## N'raac (Aug 3, 2012)

No biggie, delericho. 

What this whole issue really comes down to is whether PrC's are grab bag assortments of mechanics to be used to optimize my character as I see fit, or whether they are linked to the campaign world, such that they carry requirements and results beyond simple mechanics.

Under the Assassin as written, there is clearly an organization.  They don't admit members until they kill a target just because the organization says to.  Presumably there are advantages to membership (contacts, information, perhaps access to poisons and other assassination tools, etc.) and responsibilities (you get assignments, requests from higher ups, assigned novices to train, etc.).


----------



## Remus Lupin (Aug 9, 2012)

If I had my druthers, I'd say that Assassins need to be "Any non-good," but not necessarily evil. It's possible, by my lights, for someone in a D&D context to be a ruthless killer for hire, but not evil in metaphysical sense. At the same time, I would contend that it's also not possible for such a character to be good in the metaphysical sense.


----------



## Traveon Wyvernspur (Aug 9, 2012)

I'd allow neutral assassins in my game world. To me a neutral assassin is someone who has no feelings on the matter of who he kills. It's just a job to him and he does it with a very professional manner. Sure, there are a lot of evil assassins out there and the majority of them may be evil by the strictest sense of the word, but I see room for the uncaring individual who does not take feelings into account when doing his job. 

There are plenty of reasons and alignments to an assassin:

He could be motivated by good to kill an evil  political figure or overlord, he could be motivated by coin to kill a rich merchant who has a rival with enough money to  buy the his services, or he could be an evil bastard who kills only for the  pleasure of killing and seeing his victims suffer.

I'm sure others will disagree with me and that's their prerogative, but in my world that's how I operate because it isn't always just black and white, there are shades of grey and an assassin can be one of those shades of grey.


----------



## Systole (Aug 11, 2012)

Murder is basically an evil act.  A person who is not choosy about who he murders is evil.  A person who is _extremely _choosy about murdering only the guilty might be neutral, but it's a step too far to call it good.

Personally, I would leave it on the books that assassins being evil by default.  If a PC can come up with a _very _valid reason for a neutral assassin, I would invoke Rule Zero then and allow it.  But I wouldn't broaden assassins to non-good from the get-go.  I want to see you work for it.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Aug 11, 2012)

Systole said:


> Murder is basically an evil act.  A person who is not choosy about who he murders is evil.  A person who is _extremely _choosy about murdering only the guilty might be neutral, but it's a step too far to call it good.
> 
> Personally, I would leave it on the books that assassins being evil by default.  If a PC can come up with a _very _valid reason for a neutral assassin, I would invoke Rule Zero then and allow it.  But I wouldn't broaden assassins to non-good from the get-go.  I want to see you work for it.



This says it for me pretty well, however I'd be open to creating some old ex-assassin hermit who might teach the exact same abilities without requiring the PC to actually be an assassin.

I am open to using PrC's as "bundles of abilities," but only allow one PrC per character.  If you want to be a rogue/assassin mechanically but a jolly swashbuckling adventurer in-character, works for me.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Aug 13, 2012)

I always allow N Assassins in my DnD, as the class is NOT tied to actual assassinations. It is a certain set of skills, you don't have to do hits for random punters for money. I remember a White Dwarf article describing Robin Hood as an Assassin (1E), the skills he needed were very much an Assassin but he was using them to infiltrate a keep and take out guards. Not do hits for money.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 13, 2012)

I hear ya, Mach1.9pants, but...

Assassin skills, by the prestige class, includes Poison Use which though could be use for food-tasting is otherwise not very applicable to non assassination skills, also Death Attack/True Death/Quiet Death/Swift Death and Angel of Death are all class features that only involve assassinations. An assassin who is using his skills for only stealth is not using half the skills available to him.

There are plenty of other stealth based classes, other than assassin that is far more useful in non-assassination assignments.


----------



## Traveon Wyvernspur (Aug 13, 2012)

I'll open another can of worms here, but to me the assassin is no different than any other class in the game. He kills based on his motivations just like any other class. If killing is evil by some people's standards on the forums and the act of killing is evil and thus by that argument no class should be good when they kill something or someone. Just because an assassin does it w/o face to face combat if he has the chance doesn't make him any different than the 10th level Paladin who challenges the level 5 corrupt guard captain to combat, we know the outcome ahead of time here, the Captain is going to die quickly and w/o challenging the Paladin. In the end both killed someone, the motivations were different, but the outcome the same. The way they kill is different, but they still killed and in the case of the Paladin against the captain it still would amount to murder as the chances of the captain defending himself are pretty much nil.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 13, 2012)

I don't think the issue is killing as evil, rather murder as evil. How do you determine murder from killing in game - simple, if your opponent is not in a state of combat it's murder. If the opponent unconscience (and you didin't cause the state on unconscienceness) and you're performing a coup de grace, that's murder. Or if your opponent is unaware that he is being attacked (he's not in combat) it's murder, and more probably assassination.

Assassination and killing is not even close to the same thing. Causing death is not the issue, how the death is caused and what were the circumstances is everything.


----------



## Traveon Wyvernspur (Aug 13, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> I don't think the issue is killing as evil, rather murder as evil. How do you determine murder from killing in game - simple, if your opponent is not in a state of combat it's murder. If the opponent unconscience (and you didin't cause the state on unconscienceness) and you're performing a coup de grace, that's murder. Or if your opponent is unaware that he is being attacked (he's not in combat) it's murder, and more probably assassination.
> 
> Assassination and killing is not even close to the same thing. Causing death is not the issue, how the death is caused and what were the circumstances is everything.




Then this comes down to definitions: What constitutes murder, assassination, and killing?

Murder - Killing another (person usually) with malice aforethought, chararacterized by deliberation or premeditation. To slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

Kill - To inflict or cause death, to murder, to deprive of life in any manner.

Assassinate - To kill suddenly or secretively, especially a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously. 

They are all the same, they refer back to each other with Murder being called Killing, Killing being called Murder, and Assassinating being called Killing and Murder. 

They are the same, the only way you differentiate it is the reasoning behind it and whether it was premeditated or not. So any way you slice it (no pun intended), the in-game or in real life person you kill whether in face to face combat is still someone you killed, murdered, or assassinated. 

In terms of a TTRPG, the characters are most of the time out to kill and loot stuff, it doesn't matter that they are killing an evil person or creature to do it, they are still murderers who have premeditated that they are going to this specific dungeon or wizard's tower to clear out and kill, murder or assassinate everything in their path to get the stuff (usually magical goodies). 

We all know that if mechanically you can sneak up and coup de grace an Orc guard with a ranger or rogue you will do it, that is an assassination or murder, you thought it out, you planned it with your party (even if the Paladin is in the party he won't usually say no since he probably doesn't think of the Orc as a person, but rather an evil beast to be put down), and you executed the deed. 

It's that simple to me. The assassin is just another class in the game that shouldn't be called evil just because his particular skill set is more attuned to silent take downs and killing from positions in the shadows, yeah he'd rather not get caught doing it and he is more cowardly than the fighter who will go toe-to-toe, but that's his preferred means to get the job done.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 13, 2012)

First of all, I'm not saying an assassin has to be evil, in game one can easily be flavored to some neutral alignment.

And I'm not going to compare my definition for murder, assassin, killing to anybody else's definition, my definition is obviously different.

That said, under normal circumstances, why is an assassin considered to be different from any other player in the game? Why does it need to be a prestige class? An assassin's class features makes it stand apart from other players - it gets to kill and bypass hit points altogether. It gets to kill an opponent, without that opponent ever being in a state of combat. 

This is different than standing toe-to-toe, or even ambushing a flat-footed opponent - it's still a state of combat.

While we all kill things and take their stuff, so we do kill things in game without considering it evil. But killing isn't always a necessity - you just have to get them to give up, or knocked below 0 hp. You still win. But an assassin has failed if he hasn't ended the life of his target.

There is a difference, if only slight.

It's your game, handle it how ever fits best in your game, so everybody has fun. There's no need for a common consensus among all gamers.


----------



## Traveon Wyvernspur (Aug 13, 2012)

I'm playing devil's advocate for the most part here. It's true and I completely agree with you [MENTION=50895]gamerprinter[/MENTION] that stuff like this should be handled in game and that people people involved should have fun. My reasoning behind the dictionary references was to point out that if you go by how the three actions (killing, assassinating, and murdering) are defined, they are all pretty much the same in the end. The question posed in the thread was if an assassin could be neutral because according to the prestige class it was labeled as evil, but if you define the act of assassinating to be evil you need to include killing and murder to that list, which would make every character class susceptible to label of being "evil" at some point in their adventuring careers. 

I'd actually counter-argue with you a bit on the failed attempt to kill someone by the assassin. Again playing devil's advocate I pose this to you: Perhaps the attempt was to sicken or weaken someone so that their opponent (political or other reason) could oust them while they were too sick to fight back. I'd claim that the assassin actually performed perfectly in this situation using his particular skill-set to sneak in, poison someone to near death, and escape w/o being noticed. This didn't result in the death of anyone and he effectively removed them from the game albeit only for a short while. Is this evil? If so, how is it different from knocking someone out, locking them up and treating them humanely until they can't do anything about a situation which they would have been critical to stopping?

Sure the absolute definition of the assassin is to stalk, plan, and kill his/her target, but not all the time is it the case especially in a campaign where they are part of a party and you can't take too much time to role-play out the specifics of assassination missions, but rather the player likes the flavor and the skills that an assassin has over a vanilla rogue.

This game is full of grey areas, so in the end it is really up to the players and their GM to decide on what is acceptable at their table. I just find this an interesting discussion


----------



## Traveon Wyvernspur (Aug 13, 2012)

[MENTION=707]Lord Pendragon[/MENTION] : "an interesting discussion"....so hard to resist

Yes it is, as long as it doesn't devolve into adolescent bickering I have fun with the "what if's" and intellectual arguments that are made on both sides


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 13, 2012)

To me the Ninja class is better suited to the not-necessarily-murdering assassin tasks like that, than the assassin, itself. If you don't care for the Japanese fluff, drop the name and call it a spy or black operative. Assassinate becomes available at 10th level (might be too long a wait for those ninja who want to kill things), but it's a choice to be selected and not mandatory for the class. Look at ninja tricks as just specialized skillsets, not supernatural ki. It's a better assassin, unless your true concern is killing your targetted foes.

Of course, with Kaidan (Japanese horror) being my setting, I'm just fine with the fluff.


----------



## Traveon Wyvernspur (Aug 13, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> To me the Ninja class is better suited to the not-necessarily-murdering assassin tasks like that, than the assassin, itself. If you don't care for the Japanese fluff, drop the name and call it a spy or black operative. Assassinate becomes available at 10th level (might be too long a wait for those ninja who want to kill things), but it's a choice to be selected and not mandatory for the class. Look at ninja tricks as just specialized skillsets, not supernatural ki. It's a better assassin, unless your true concern is killing your targetted foes.
> 
> Of course, with Kaidan (Japanese horror) being my setting, I'm just fine with the fluff.



Fair enough, but we were talking specifically the Assassin class. Almost any rogue (or rogue archetype) can be re-fluffed or re-skinned to do what the ninja does as far as skills go and wouldn't be called "assassin," but to me the assassin is much more than just a killer for hire if played right. Most players would just go with trying to kill with the assassin for personal gain, but others may try to utilize his specific ...lets call them 'gifts' for the removal of evil for the greater good. To me this isn't evil. 

Let's go real world for a moment. Would you call Seal Team 6 members evil? They are infiltrators and highly trained killers/soldiers who went into a heavily guarded compound specifically to kill bin Ladin, they weren't going to take that guy prisoner, he was one evil SOB by our standards and needed to be killed. They would have killed him in his sleep if they had the chance and assassinated him, say if the sniper had a clear shot into his bedroom window.

The neutral or even good assassin would do stuff like this for a 'good' king, emperor, or government. The ends justify the means in some cases right?


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 14, 2012)

I gave an example early in the thread of an assassin religious zealot who serves a deity that considers extending one's life beyond natural means (beyond the normal lifespan) a vile condition, and those who do so need to die. The church healed the living without extending their lives. They were a lawful, mostly good church who had assassins as part. They were never killkng for money, only for breaking 'divine law', and no other agenda. These assassins aren't necessarily evil.

You can always come up with an exception to the rule, but it should still be an exception, accepting that most other 'assassination orders' are probably evil.


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 14, 2012)

Traveon Wyvernspur said:


> Then this comes down to definitions: What constitutes murder, assassination, and killing?



All murders are killings, but not all killings are murders.
All assassinations are murders, but not all murders are assassinations.


----------



## Tovec (Aug 14, 2012)

blargney the second said:


> All murders are killings, but not all killings are murders.
> All assassinations are murders, but not all murders are assassinations.




In a broader sense you are probably right. But I would still have to think that if I could go back in time and assassinate Hitler I would. That doesn't make me evil by any stretch and it would be almost universally considered a good act.

I think murder is definitely a sub-set of killings and not the other way around, as you said. But I wouldn't say ALL assassinations are murders.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Aug 14, 2012)

Tovec said:


> if I could go back in time and assassinate Hitler I would. That doesn't make me evil by any stretch and it would be almost universally considered a good act.



So it's your belief that the value of the person you kill affects whether or not killing them is acceptable?


----------



## Tovec (Aug 14, 2012)

Lord Pendragon said:


> So it's your belief that the value of the person you kill affects whether or not killing them is acceptable?



No, my only point is that assassination always implies killing a person stealthily. That it always implies KILLING too. But that just as not all killings are murders not all assassinations are murders. Assassinations are probably MOSTLY murderers but I think that it depends on the goals and motivations of the killer and the killed to see if an act is a killing or a murder.

Oh and by the way I completely understand the evil requirement on assassin class - part of the requirement is killing someone expressly for the purpose of entering the organization. That pretty much means evil to me.


----------



## Derren (Aug 14, 2012)

Tovec said:


> Oh and by the way I completely understand the evil requirement on assassin class - part of the requirement is killing someone expressly for the purpose of entering the organization. That pretty much means evil to me.




So why are assassins evil then and a paladin sect which requires you to destroy an undead/demon/evil dragon to enter is good (See D&D 3.5Es Vassal of Bahamut as example)?

I would not assign any alignment to assassins because it a world with objective alignment it always depends on who you kill. Would an assassin who only kills evil creatures be evil? And if yes how can adventurers, including paladins, who do pretty much nothing else than to kill "evil" creatures be non-evil?


----------



## Tovec (Aug 14, 2012)

Derren said:


> So why are assassins evil then and a paladin sect which requires you to destroy an undead/demon/evil dragon to enter is good (See D&D 3.5Es Vassal of Bahamut as example)?
> 
> I would not assign any alignment to assassins because it a world with objective alignment it always depends on who you kill. Would an assassin who only kills evil creatures be evil? And if yes how can adventurers, including paladins, who do pretty much nothing else than to kill "evil" creatures be non-evil?






> *Special*
> 
> The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.



A. That is a requirement of the class. They must kill someone for no reason other than to join. That is generally speaking murder. In every game I've ever played this assassination is either directed by the assassin guild (ie. go kill this person to join us) or it is a significant assassination of someone important and notable so that the potential assassin can say they did it. Either way, killing a person ONLY TO JOIN strikes me as evil.

B. The paladin prestige class requires you kill EVIL*** creatures, which I stated previously I find to be generally a good idea. I don't know if killing evil creatures is a Good act compared to a neutral one but killing demons is generally different from assassinating someone just because you have to in order to join a group. The paladin was going to kill evil creatures either way, that is their job.

I know it is a matter of degrees, but everything is. I'm not saying you can't be a neutral or even a good assassin. I am saying I understand the evil requirement based on the fluff and entry requirements for the Assassin class.

EDIT:
Notice the *** - EVIL, capital e v i l. Only evil dragons, demons and undead count. Not evil people, weird huh?
Also there is no alignment that the assassins look for when they kill, they look only for the act itself and presumably how well you do it. They don't care if the target is Good, Neutral, or Evil.


----------



## Derren (Aug 14, 2012)

Tovec said:


> A. That is a requirement of the class. They must kill someone for no reason other than to join. That is generally speaking murder. In every game I've ever played this assassination is either directed by the assassin guild (ie. go kill this person to join us) or it is a significant assassination of someone important and notable so that the potential assassin can say they did it. Either way, killing a person ONLY TO JOIN strikes me as evil.
> 
> B. The paladin prestige class requires you kill EVIL*** creatures, which I stated previously I find to be generally a good idea. I don't know if killing evil creatures is a Good act compared to a neutral one but killing demons is generally different from assassinating someone just because you have to in order to join a group. The paladin was going to kill evil creatures either way, that is their job.
> 
> ...




So what happens when the paladin in question would never think of going after the dragon (he has other things to do) but decides only to do so to join that order? Maybe the order even tells him which dragon he has to slay. That would fit exactly your reasoning why assassins are evil.

Also, what if the person you have to kill in order to join the assassins is happens to be EVIL (like a vampire)? You still only kill him to become an assassin but you have done a very good act.

The whole evil vs EVIL thing is pretty arbitrary anyway. Where does evil stop and EVIL begin? Hitler? Stalin? A cultist having personally sacrificed thousands of innocents over decades in order to bring a demon lord into the world? Orcs? A lich who has done evil to become undead a few centuries ago but since then didn't bother anyone and only wants to be left alone?
And again, what if an assassin only kills EVIL creatures (Or just normal evil ones)?  There is no real difference between a assassin picky about his targets and a common adventurer or even paladin except for his methods. Adventurers kill thing for money all the time. So why are they not evil while assassins are?


----------



## Tovec (Aug 14, 2012)

Derren said:


> So what happens when the paladin in question would never think of going after the dragon (he has other things to do) but decides only to do so to join that order? Maybe the order even tells him which dragon he has to slay. That would fit exactly your reasoning why assassins are evil.



The paladin still has all the tools - smite evil and detect evil - to go kill that evil dragon either way. Usually it is mandate by their order/god/religion to do it. Just because they are being told which target doesn't mean that the target isn't worth killing. In a specific sense the paladin knows and cares the creature is evil (and majorly so) before killing it.



> Also, what if the person you have to kill in order to join the assassins is happens to be EVIL (like a vampire in disguise)? You still only kill him to become an assassin but you have done a very good act.



You can't say the same about the prospective assassin in this case. The assassin doesn't know or more importantly doesn't care the target is a vampire in disguise. It is really tangential to joining the assassins who the prospect happens to kill. It can't be a good act unless the person killing him knows who it is and is doing it for a good reason, simply doing it to join up by itself isn't a good act.



> The whole evil vs EVIL thing is pretty arbitrary anyway. Where does evil stop and EVIL begin? Hitler? Stalin?



Overall I would have to agree with you, which is why the paladins trying to join their "assassins guild" aren't killing Hitler or Stalin. They aren't killing creatures who happen to be evil. They are killing creatures who embody evil. They are going after the vile the big EVIL creatures, not just a guy who happens to be Evil.



> And again, what if an assassin only kills EVIL creatures (Or just normal evil ones)?  There is no real difference between a assassin picky about his targets and a common adventurer or even paladin except for his methods.



If the assassin (the job title not the class title) is killing only EVIL creatures for some holy purpose then that is fine. That is similar to what paladins do, though through different tactics. That is why I agree you can be neutral or even good (possibly) while still being an assassin. That assassin is probably not an Assassin.

HOWEVER, if you are someone trying to become the Assassin class and join the Assassins, then you are no longer a good guy doing it for a good reason. There are two evil requirements to join the class. You must be evil and you must do an evil act of killing someone (dare I say murdering someone?) just to join the Assassins.


----------



## Traveon Wyvernspur (Aug 14, 2012)

It's all postulation at this point everyone. As I've said before this is all determined by the table and the GM who is running the game. There are shades of grey for good/neutral/evil and at your table you need to decide what constitutes what alignment for purposes of certain classes. We can go back to Rule 0 and it really doesn't matter what the book says the alignment "should" be to be that class as long as everyone at your table is having fun.


----------



## Derren (Aug 14, 2012)

Tovec said:


> The paladin still has all the tools - smite evil and detect evil - to go kill that evil dragon either way. Usually it is mandate by their order/god/religion to do it. Just because they are being told which target doesn't mean that the target isn't worth killing. In a specific sense the paladin knows and cares the creature is evil (and majorly so) before killing it.



That is an assumption of your part. Just because the dragon is evil it doesn't automatically mean the paladin would kill it anyway. It is entirely possible that the paladin decides to go after the dragon instead of the real BBEG just so that he can join the order







> You can't say the same about the prospective assassin in this case. The assassin doesn't know or more importantly doesn't care the target is a vampire in disguise. It is really tangential to joining the assassins who the prospect happens to kill. It can't be a good act unless the person killing him knows who it is and is doing it for a good reason, simply doing it to join up by itself isn't a good act.




What if the assassin does know that the target is evil? What if he does care (because his family is suffering under this evil guy for example)? It might be a coincidence but it can happen. Also if intention matters as you say here, the paladin would be evil too as he doesn't kill the dragon to do good, but to join the Bahamut club. The would be assassin on the other hand could have tried to kill his evil target anyway and the additional job offer when doing it is a lucky coincidence.
I admit it gets a bit far fetched here, but the common adventurer is killing quite a lot of things for personal gain during his lifetime. Thats no different than an assassin killing his target to join an organization







> HOWEVER, if you are someone trying to become the Assassin class and join the Assassins, then you are no longer a good guy doing it for a good reason. There are two evil requirements to join the class. You must be evil and you must do an evil act of killing someone (dare I say murdering someone?) just to join the Assassins.




Exactly this is what being disputed/discussed in this topic so using it as an argument why assassins are evil is circular logic.

In the end you can't really defend assassins being always evil without using arbitrary limitations (evil vs EVIL, intention matters but only for the assassin, not for the paladin, etc.)


----------



## Tovec (Aug 15, 2012)

Derren said:


> That is an assumption of your part. Just because the dragon is evil it doesn't automatically mean the paladin would kill it anyway. It is entirely possible that the paladin decides to go after the dragon instead of the real BBEG just so that he can join the order
> 
> What if the assassin does know that the target is evil? What if he does  care (because his family is suffering under this evil guy for example)?  It might be a coincidence but it can happen. Also if intention matters  as you say here, the paladin would be evil too as he doesn't kill the  dragon to do good, but to join the Bahamut club. The would be assassin  on the other hand could have tried to kill his evil target anyway and  the additional job offer when doing it is a lucky coincidence.
> I admit it gets a bit far fetched here, but the common adventurer is  killing quite a lot of things for personal gain during his lifetime.  Thats no different than an assassin killing his target to join an  organization



Okay, I went looking and the only reference to Vassal of Bahamut I can find is in the Book of Exalted deeds. If you are using a different source then I can look at that one too.

So based on that I am going to make some assumptions based solely on the language used. I can't quote the Book of Exalted but I can paraphrase. The vassal of bahamut must single-handedly slay a juvenile (or older) red dragon. This version only mentions red dragons and it mentions the act must be completed before joining. Now what it doesn't mention is: that the paladin* must do this for no other reason than to join. The paladin may have done this because he was commanded to by the head of his church, or he may have been compelled to by a vision from his god, perhaps he just happened across a juvenile red dragon and slayed it all by himself out of the course of adventuring. But he isn't required and probably didn't do it JUST TO JOIN A GROUP. To me this seems pretty clearly to indicate the paladin is doing it because the red dragon is a red dragon and EVIL and needed to be put down.

The Assassin on the other hand MUST kill someone for no other reason than to join. That is their goal. It isn't clear if the guild assigns the target or not, but the motivation seems clear here. To me this seems pretty clear that the Assassin doesn't care who the target is or their alignment or anything about them EXCEPT that they need to be put down so the Assassin can join up.



> Exactly this is what being disputed/discussed in this topic so using it as an argument why assassins are evil is circular logic.
> 
> In the end you can't really defend assassins being always evil without using arbitrary limitations (evil vs EVIL, intention matters but only for the assassin, not for the paladin, etc.)



If you want to talk about the legitimacy that the class have the restrictions like that at all that is fine. I was giving my opinion based solely on how the rules and classes work NOW, not what they should be in your game.

And certainly there is a certain measure of alignments being in the grey in DnD. But paladins aren't and red dragons aren't. Assassins aren't really either, though I've admitted I can see (non classed) assassins being of any alignment based on motivation. I do see the motivation of joining other assassins and killing someone for no other reason than to join to be fairly clear cut as evil even in DnD's grey area. If you disagree that is fine but I'm giving you the best information I have on how the game DOES work not on how it SHOULD work.

Oh, and if this is your entire point then that is fine, just let me know and we can be done as I'm not going to argue it.

* the rules actually doesn't mention 'paladin' but we'll skip that part for now, it does say LG and kills a dragon so we can easily assume paladin.


----------



## N'raac (Aug 16, 2012)

It seems fairly easy for the Assassins (PrC which is a specific group occupying a niche in the campaign world) will simply use a spell to determine whether the applicant meets the job requirements.  Not Evil?  Not admitted.  And maybe the fellow someone evil is assigned to kill solely for the purpose of joining their clique.

Nothing prevents anyone else from modifying the PrC to occupy a different niche in their own campaign world which does not require Evil alignment as a prerequisite to join, and/or does not require its initiates to kill someone for the sole purpose of joining their clique.  But the one published in the rules requires the character be Evil.

Funny how much of the defense refers to a Paladin carrying out such an activity, but no one suggests that Paladins should not be absolutely required to be LG.  What's wrong with a Paladin who believes entirely in Good (NG) or even one who believes in both Good and Freedom (CG)?  Nothing, really.  But the Paladins in basic Pathfinder occupy a specific niche in the campaign - they are LG Holy Warriors.  If someone sees a need for such a group in their campaign which also allows NG or CG, or perhaps requires one of those alignments, and rejects LG applicants, what is wrong with that approach?

NOTHING - just like nothing is wrong with modifying Assassins for your campaign world.  But those Paladins, like non-evil Assassins, reflect a decision to change the rules from those applicable to the Paladin (or Assassin) organization(s) described in the RAW to those applicable to a somehow different organization in a different campaign world.


----------



## Argyle King (Aug 16, 2012)

Something I've learned from this thread is that I would probably be considered evil by either D&D/Pathfinder standards or the standards of many people who discuss the game.  I don't feel bad about that.  It's simply something which is interesting to consider.


----------

