Does it say specifically in the D&D book that the assassin kills for money? I have to admit, I haven't read it in a while because I don't play evil characters very often, but if we are going by a dictionary definition, assassins don't need to kill for money at all. "One who murders by surprise attack, especially one who carries out a plot to kill a prominent person." That's an assassin. Did John Wilkes Booth kill for money? No. Is he an assassin? Yes. Would I put his alignment as evil? No. Neutral, for sure.
*shrugs* Like I said, maybe we just see things differently. I perfer my D&D campaigns to be more human. A lawful good paladin is just as oppressing on a populace as an evil overlord, in my mind. And, regardless of why he's doing it, a paladin still makes his money by killing people and taking their stuff, even if they are 'evil'
:roll: It's always a good sign when people break out the dictionaries followed by opinions.
Uh.... it's not an opinion that John Wilkes Booth was an assassin. It's not an opinion that he didn't kill for money (his motivations are quite well known.) The alignment part is of course an opinion, but I quite stated it as such. As the question I asked was "Would I put his alignment as evil". Note the I.
So basically, what's your point again?
Inquisitor on
0
Options
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
:roll: It's always a good sign when people break out the dictionaries followed by opinions.
Uh.... it's not an opinion that John Wilkes Booth was an assassin. It's not an opinion that he didn't kill for money (his motivations are quite well known.) The alignment part is of course an opinion, but I quite stated it as such. As the question I asked was "Would I put his alignment as evil". Note the I.
So basically, what's your point again?
What's yours?
"Absolute morality in DND is really dumb because I don't like absolute morality in DND."
Good for you! Don't use it, if it causes you a problem. Rule 0's in the book for a reason. Don't get so defensive just on account of people don't agree that D&D is supposed to be some deep introspective look at the human soul (or the people who think that nine alignments do a better job of it!)
:roll: It's always a good sign when people break out the dictionaries followed by opinions.
Uh.... it's not an opinion that John Wilkes Booth was an assassin. It's not an opinion that he didn't kill for money (his motivations are quite well known.) The alignment part is of course an opinion, but I quite stated it as such. As the question I asked was "Would I put his alignment as evil". Note the I.
So basically, what's your point again?
That nothing in your post has to do with D&D.
John Wilkes Booth has as much to do the assassin class in the DMG as I do with Conan in real life. Seriously, he was a fucking nutter with a gun.
Good for you! Don't use it, if it causes you a problem. Rule 0's in the book for a reason. Don't get so defensive just on account of people don't agree that D&D is supposed to be some deep introspective look at the human soul (or the people who think that nine alignments do a better job of it!)
Honestly I think the absolute morality backdrop allows a greater exploration of these issues if you're serious about it.
Fuck, the last two characters I've played were both evil and were probably the most heroic characters in their parties. Too many people (IMO) write down good and proceed to loot the shit out of everything while demanding huge amounts of extortion money to help any innocents they come across.
To become an assassin one of the requirements is: "The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins." Which is pretty evil. It doesn't matter who you kill, you're not murdering them for it being right, or for defending someone, otherwise it doesn't count since there are other reasons. It's practically saying "Kill someone you wouldn't normally, just so you can be an assassin." Which is kinda evil.
Yeah I don't agree with the alignment system for the most part. But assassins are evil by what they have to do to become one. Sure, real life assassins don't have to do this. But real life assassins don't need to be a certain proficiency with disguises to become one either...
Edit for the post below me: No, it doesn't say they have to kill for money. They usually do, but not always.
John Wilkes Booth has as much to do the assassin class in the DMG as I do with Conan in real life. Seriously, he was a fucking nutter with a gun.
Actually, the point was for you guys to tell me if the assassin class in the DMG is specifically stated to kill for money, as the defintion of assassin doesn't imply money, and I am vague about the details of the class.
I was rather hoping to be enlightened on the topic and was using a real world example to back up my dictionary definition of assassin. I'll admit my alignment comment on Booth was a little pointless.
And yeah, I guess that's basically my point Salt. But I mean, isn't this what this whole thread has been?
"I don't like D&Ds saves system! I hope they change it" Are you going to tell people to rule zero that too? There are spells and abilities and classes that directly interact with the alignment system. Admittedly, they'd be easy to tweak, but hoping to see it changed isn't really that out of place for this thread.
Edit: Xaiber. See, I can see that requirement ruling out good. I can accept that, no problem. I don't see why that would rule out neutral as well though. Neutral people can kill people for their own benefit (ie, being admitted into an organization) no problem. Why is it different for the assassin?
Uh, I wanted you to answer a question for me. That you still haven't answered.
Does it say in the DMG that the assassin kills for money? It's a pretty simple fucking question really, man. I don't have my book on hand, so I can't look it up at the moment. I used a dictionary and real life example to point out that assassins don't necessarily need to kill for money, so I was wondering if the D&D version of assassins had this particular stipulation placed upon them.
Edit: Of course, the nuanced answer is far more in depth but I'm not going to carry on both sides of a discussion. I'm fine with the assassin class as written. I think there are some related assertions that I would support. We should have a stealthy/combative/magic-y class that is open to non-evils is a statement I would support.
Dude, I really fail to see how I'm asking you to carry on both sides of a discussion. Thanks for answering my question though.
As you said, we should really un-marry alignment from classes. I agree with you. We should also drop silly requirements like "must kill one person to get into a group." As far as I can tell, the assassin class, from a rules perspective, is a rogue who has dabbled in the arcane arts and has a knack for poison. Neither of which is particularly evil. It would also seem silly that only an evil organization would have the ability to teach such techniques to rogues. Now, if a DM wanted to rule that only an evil organization knew the techniques, then he should be able to do so.
But, it really should be up to the DM to decide such decisions about his gaming world. And it should be up to the player to play his class, in the context of his alignment. Obviously, certain classes have to follow an alignment (such as a cleric dedicated to a god of a certain alignment). But other then that, it seems silly to me.
:roll: It's always a good sign when people break out the dictionaries followed by opinions.
Uh.... it's not an opinion that John Wilkes Booth was an assassin. It's not an opinion that he didn't kill for money (his motivations are quite well known.) The alignment part is of course an opinion, but I quite stated it as such. As the question I asked was "Would I put his alignment as evil". Note the I.
So basically, what's your point again?
What's yours?
"Absolute morality in DND is really dumb because I don't like absolute morality in DND."
Good for you! Don't use it, if it causes you a problem. Rule 0's in the book for a reason. Don't get so defensive just on account of people don't agree that D&D is supposed to be some deep introspective look at the human soul (or the people who think that nine alignments do a better job of it!)
I think the issue is more
"Classes should define what i can do and not who I am. Allignment restrictions mean that classes which define crunch are dependant on what kind of person I am. An assasin is an assasin because he kills people not because he has the ability to stab a guy in the kidney, but there should be any reason that a good person cant have learned the same techniques that the class 'assasin' has".
The only real hitch in that complaint is supernatural stuff, because that stuff does have some innate connection to another plane which might be inherently good or bad. But in general, I agree with the "allignment restrictions are dumb for classes".
Then again, I also subscribe to the "Have as few classes in a system as possible and have them cover as wide a swath of possible creation options as possible" design mantra, and really dislike prestige classes in general except for me to make cool villians with[i.e. where i get to make shit up]
I don't agree that the assassin class as written shouldn't require you to be evil. I don't have an issue with it's alignment requirement.
I'm saying that since a majority of the time PC's are non-evil we need something in the same general ballpark that is open to non-evil PC's.
The assassin spends a large amount of time studying (and presumably practicing) killing intelligent beings. A rampant disrespect for life is required for this ability which is one of the hallmarks of the evil alignment (per the PHB description chapter.)
You're ignoring the Death Attack and outside Core the assassin has quite of number of hugely evil spells.
Edit: Now I'm going to go watch Dexter, which is likely directly relevant to this discussion. IMO Dexter as he stands is evil even if he is heroic. I'm comfortable with this but if you somehow want to call him "Good" I doubt we'll ever agree on this topic.
I have to admit I am unfamiliar with spells outside of Core, so you have got me there.
However, once again, why are you making a fuss over the fact that the assassin kills intelligent beings? Once again, what does a lawful good paladin kill? Orcs, kobolds, gobblins, bugbears, mindflayers. These are all intelligent beings.
And what does a fighter do? He spends a ton of time studying (and practicing) killing intelligent beings like the above. Whats the difference between a core fighter and a core assassin (discounting evil spells)? Some arcane magicking and some poison. So then he is evil? He should be defined as evil or good based on who he kills and why.
Edit: Have fun watching your TV show, I think I'm going to go to sleep. Night.
Man, read the book of exalted deeds inquisitor. It would enlighten you a great deal about how D&D defines good.
And no, a paladin who runs up to some orcs and smacks them down, is now Lawful Good. Good implies a fundamental respect for, and wish to preserve life, above all other tenets. The orcs *must* be given the opportunity to repent, must be shown mercy, and their lives must be respected. In my opinion, a paladin who doesn't do these things is not a paladin at all.
Edit: Now I'm going to go watch Dexter, which is likely directly relevant to this discussion. IMO Dexter as he stands is evil even if he is heroic. I'm comfortable with this but if you somehow want to call him "Good" I doubt we'll ever agree on this topic.
Dexter? I've only seen the first season, dunno what the second season changed. I'd definately go with Lawful Evil though. What he's doing is wrong, and he knows it, but he's at least doing it to the right people. He's like, what I imagine all lawful evil people to do: bad things for the right reasons.
Dexter? I've only seen the first season, dunno what the second season changed. I'd definately go with Lawful Evil though. What he's doing is wrong, and he knows it, but he's at least doing it to the right people. He's like, what I imagine all lawful evil people to do: bad things for the right reasons.
I don't understand how you could get to Chaotic at all. He's evil as the day is long since he kills people as a hobby. Which is one of the big issues, per the PHB going around and killing people is an evil act. Don't think he kills bad people to make the world a better place, he kills people because he wants to kill people. He tries to select bad people but that isn't why he's killing people.
He's evil. He murders people because he enjoys doing it. He's not motivated by a pure purpose, or whimsy. He does it because this is the thing he enjoys doing. It's what makes him feel alive.
However, Dexter has rules. His adopted father instilled him not with values, but with rules. Constraints. He gave him bounderies and procedures. He told him how he could do these things and still maintain the illusion of being a normal person. He maintains a girlfriend, friends, etc. not because he wants these things, but because he knows, consciously, that a normal person is supposed to want these things. What he wants is to be normal, or at the very least, appear normal enough so that he can continue to do what he does.
He targets murderers, child molestors, and the like because those are the people that are inside his rules. They're the people he can get away with. They're the people his father made it he could justify doing. He lives according to his father's rules, not according to his own moral compass. He's not guided by internal principles, but adherence to an exterior ideal.
Now, look at the PHB explanation of Lawful Evil:
"A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains."
You can't assign alignments, which are by definition fictional archetypal concepts to give a fictional character (your character) a moral framework to understand their mindset, to real people.
But you can easily see how alignments apply to other fictional characters. How many times do you see people comparing Lawful Good to Superman, or Chaotic Good to Han Solo or Robin Hood, or Lawful Evil to Darth Vader or Doctor Doom? It's because these archetypes fit.
Alignment is part of D&D because the archetypal struggles between good and evil, order and chaos, tyranny and freedom, these things are part of D&D. They're part of fantasy archetypes and tropes. Morally "grey" fantasy worlds like A Game of Thrones are the exception, not the rule. The rule is Gandalf is good, Sauron is evil. Arthur is good, Mordred is evil. Aslan is good, the Witch is evil.
You don't like moral absolutism? Fine. Remove it from your game, if you'd like. If you want to play a gritty, realistic, morally relative postmodern exploration of the fantasy genre, ala A Game of Thrones, be my guest. But that isn't D&D. It never has been. D&D is about playing to fantasy archetypes. Why do you think so much of the game is so derivative of fantasy works that existed at the time of its creation? It's a hodge-podge of a variety of different archetypal fantasy concepts woven together to have fun, swing swords, sling spells, and stomp monster ass.
If you want to explore the moral grey zone between beheading goblins in a dungeon and assassinating a corrupt noble in his sleep, that's your call, but the game by default isn't about such explorations.
Alignment is a part of the game, and will continue to be part of the game, although based on all indications in 4th Edition alignment will no longer be a "force". Meaning, spells, monsters, magic items etc. will probably no longer have the "Evil" descriptor on them, that sort of thing.
The Assassin prestige class will most likely still require you to be evil. That's if there's even an Assassin prestige class at all! You don't like that? You think that a person can still be an "Assassin" but not be evil? Don't take the assassin prestige class, then. Just call yourself an Assassin. Behave like an Assassin. If your DM feels that doing so is Evil, rather than just say, Neutral, well then your problem is with your DM, isn't it?
Man, read the book of exalted deeds inquisitor. It would enlighten you a great deal about how D&D defines good.
And no, a paladin who runs up to some orcs and smacks them down, is not Lawful Good. Good implies a fundamental respect for, and wish to preserve life, above all other tenets. The orcs *must* be given the opportunity to repent, must be shown mercy, and their lives must be respected. In my opinion, a paladin who doesn't do these things is not a paladin at all.
I doubt an archon on the plane of good would give something evil the chance to repent, but that's just me.
Good is not about whether or not you kill people, people on both sides of every spectrum kill people. To be good is to ally yourself with the cosmic force of good, and against the cosmic force of evil, and how you do it is defines whether you are lawful or chaotic.
That being said, it's unlikely a good person will kill for no reason at all. In fact, killing for no apparent reason is, in the book of exalted deeds and elsewhere, indeed a hallmarkedly evil act. If we look at the assassin prestige class special requirements, it states that you must kill "for no other reason than to become an assassin." Kill for what reason? So you can kill more. Not to defend someone else or you, not to cleanse the world of... well, anything, no reason. Thus: Evil!
In the same respect, a lawful good paladin can retain his alignment whilst cleansing entire civilizations of evil creatures, like orcs, goblins, etc etc. This is not because genocide is a good act, but because these races are inherently evil, as defined. You're unlikely to see that same paladin attack a HUMAN or DWARF on sight, they will probably use the discretion to wait a moment and find out if they are, in fact, evil, unless they catch them in the act of evil. And would a paladin kill an angel? Only if it were a fallen angel. Otherwise, he'd probably just follow it, and bring it coffee in the morning.
One of the basic things about good and evil is that Evil gets alot more tricks, because they don't care how the job gets done (lets all kill people for no apparent reason, it'll make us more skilled. See: Sith Lords and Choking), but Good tends to be alot more unified, as opposed to the power struggles and traitorous attitude of the average evil organization.
There's problems with your comparison, Rend, in that orcs and goblins, according to 3/3.5 D&D, are not inherently evil. They tend to be evil, as a result of their evil culture, but they're not racially beholden to evil.
Compare that to creatures that are listed as Always Evil. Or creatures with (Evil) as a subtype. Those creatures are inherently and universally evil.
This goes back to the old "You kill a bunch of goblins and you find their women and young. Do you kill them, is this evil" etc. thing.
That's an argument as old as 1st Edition. The easy answer? There isn't one. The easy answer, if you want a game of moral absolutes and good cleanly fighting evil, is to not put your players in a position like that. The goblin raiders are all combatants, holed up in their cave and raiding the nearby town. There are no noncombatants or children in their cave.
Is this realistic? No. In fact, it goes directly contrary to the Monster Manual, which even gives figures of how many noncombatants to expect in a big tribe of goblins.
But does this lack of realism matter? Only if your campaign makes it matter. For me, it usually doesn't, because if I wanted to explore the moral implications of killling infant goblins D&D is not the game I would play.
I'll gladly rephrase myself to say the vast majority of orcs, goblins, and such, instead of all of them, obviously because half-orc is not an alignment-restricted race
And, i agree with you 100% on the sacrifice of realism, unless specifically desired.
See the thing that gets me is the idea that an assassin’s motive's are either going to be money or some kind of perverse enjoyment. Historically assassination has often been more politically motivated; groups like Hashashin (not sure of the spelling) and Ninja did what they did to remove oppressive rulers or to throw opposing armies into disarray by eliminating key figures. The key difference between a warrior and an assassin is more about means than motive.
Novus on
I'm not smart, but thanks to the internet I can pretend.
wii Number 0648 2052 0203 3154
See the thing that gets me is the idea that an assassin’s motive's are either going to be money or some kind of perverse enjoyment. Historically assassination has often been more politically motivated; groups like Hashashin (not sure of the spelling) and Ninja did what they did to remove oppressive rulers or to throw opposing armies into disarray by eliminating key figures. The key difference between a warrior and an assassin is more about means than motive.
Discussing the morality of assassination is intrinsically linked to discussing the morality of killing people at all, and how and in what contexts are such things acceptable, if ever. If one can say assassinating the enemy general in his sleep is evil, but slaughtering armed soldiers on the battlefield is just and honorable war, then one is establishing a value system in which not all killing is evil, but that the how and the why of such killing is important.
Which is way beyond this thread and something you should go do in the other D&D, Debate and Discourse.
Pony on
0
Options
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
See the thing that gets me is the idea that an assassin’s motive's are either going to be money or some kind of perverse enjoyment. Historically assassination has often been more politically motivated; groups like Hashashin (not sure of the spelling) and Ninja did what they did to remove oppressive rulers or to throw opposing armies into disarray by eliminating key figures. The key difference between a warrior and an assassin is more about means than motive.
Historically too many random psychos get labelled assassins because it is politically convenient to do so, especially when they succeed.
Hardly any actual assassins ever get recorded because generally they are too good to get caught and/or they never attack high profile targets in public, thus not enough people care. Also, ninjas are samurai out of uniform, wholly dedicated to their daimyo's purpose. They were hardly ever sent to actually kill anyone important because it was damn near impossible to do. Poisoning an army's food on the other hand was well within their remit and capabilities. They were certainly never used to remove oppressive governments because they were the oppressive government.
If you guys start arguing about Ninjas and Samurais I am going to be slamming my finger on that god damn report button.
I will run straight to teacher.
...fine. Anyway going back to the value system of killing people; there are a few notable examples of historical figures and movements that were able to successfully defend themselves and accomplish their goals through non-violent means (Gandhi being a major example) but by and large when it's kill or watch your family and community be wiped out I think even the most ethically minded individuals are going to choose the more pragmatic route.
Novus on
I'm not smart, but thanks to the internet I can pretend.
wii Number 0648 2052 0203 3154
If you guys start arguing about Ninjas and Samurais I am going to be slamming my finger on that god damn report button.
I will run straight to teacher.
...fine. Anyway going back to the value system of killing people; there are a few notable examples of historical figures and movements that were able to successfully defend themselves and accomplish their goals through non-violent means (Gandhi being a major example) but by and large when it's kill or watch your family and community be wiped out I think even the most ethically minded individuals are going to choose the more pragmatic route.
As far as assassin and alignment goes, though, that person would be a rogue that acts assassin-y, not an assassin, though. Its obvious that good people can kill, or else the good side of the alignment would get pwned over and over every single time the evil side wanted _anything_, _ever_.
Personally, I think a revamp of assassin restriction of non-good would be acceptable, but a good-aligned assassin doesn't make much sense to me, considering the abilities they use (poison, anyone?). A good way to think of this is whether you would see a jedi or a sith performing the maneuvers. Of course, there are exceptions, like the inquisitors and such, but for the most part, unless specifically noted, Jedi don't use thermal detonators.
Part of the problem is that "assasin" in Core DnD is an organization. And you cant learn their secrets without being a part of their organization. most people dont use the organizations that the DMG provides because they suck balls and say "there is no reason i cant learn this".
It all plays back to the "trainer" mechanic for leveling that i believe has been gotten rid of.
One of the original ideas for Prestige Classes, going back to the beginning of 3rd Edition, was that prestige classes were supposed to be special, and indicative of special organizations or traditions in a campaign setting.
What they became, especially with the 3.5 Complete books, were kits to "spec" your character.
I have always considered the Assassin class to be a special, magic-using Guild Assassin, belonging to a special guild (hence the requirements). If you just wanted to be a sneaky git who used poison and killed people in the night...
I agree Pony. It was a fault of the core D&D base classes being incredibly stiff. You get x ability at y level, no ifs, ands or buts. You want something different? Well then get a prestige class. Feats were just there for tweaking and fun side abilities.
Hopefully, from what we've seen from 4.0, that will be changed though. As it has been said, the 4.0 classes are supposed to be more flexible. Hopefully, you'll be able to take the rogue archetype class and from there make something with a more assassin feel, or a more rogue feel, or a more trickster feel etc. etc.
Then prestige classes could be freed up to be something actually prestigious. So when you see someone who is a member of a prestige class you will be like "DAMN!".
Hopefully it will help cut down on multiclassing too.
i think that saga (and by extrapolation [possibly] 4e) encourages multiclassing in the sense that there are no real drawbacks other than opportunity cost, no more "spell progression down the tubes" scenario. for example, scout/noble/soldier all blend well together and there is no problem with taking levels in each if you want to mix up your Talents. i like it.
Posts
*shrugs* Like I said, maybe we just see things differently. I perfer my D&D campaigns to be more human. A lawful good paladin is just as oppressing on a populace as an evil overlord, in my mind. And, regardless of why he's doing it, a paladin still makes his money by killing people and taking their stuff, even if they are 'evil'
Uh.... it's not an opinion that John Wilkes Booth was an assassin. It's not an opinion that he didn't kill for money (his motivations are quite well known.) The alignment part is of course an opinion, but I quite stated it as such. As the question I asked was "Would I put his alignment as evil". Note the I.
So basically, what's your point again?
What's yours?
"Absolute morality in DND is really dumb because I don't like absolute morality in DND."
Good for you! Don't use it, if it causes you a problem. Rule 0's in the book for a reason. Don't get so defensive just on account of people don't agree that D&D is supposed to be some deep introspective look at the human soul (or the people who think that nine alignments do a better job of it!)
That nothing in your post has to do with D&D.
John Wilkes Booth has as much to do the assassin class in the DMG as I do with Conan in real life. Seriously, he was a fucking nutter with a gun.
Honestly I think the absolute morality backdrop allows a greater exploration of these issues if you're serious about it.
Fuck, the last two characters I've played were both evil and were probably the most heroic characters in their parties. Too many people (IMO) write down good and proceed to loot the shit out of everything while demanding huge amounts of extortion money to help any innocents they come across.
Yeah I don't agree with the alignment system for the most part. But assassins are evil by what they have to do to become one. Sure, real life assassins don't have to do this. But real life assassins don't need to be a certain proficiency with disguises to become one either...
Edit for the post below me: No, it doesn't say they have to kill for money. They usually do, but not always.
Actually, the point was for you guys to tell me if the assassin class in the DMG is specifically stated to kill for money, as the defintion of assassin doesn't imply money, and I am vague about the details of the class.
I was rather hoping to be enlightened on the topic and was using a real world example to back up my dictionary definition of assassin. I'll admit my alignment comment on Booth was a little pointless.
And yeah, I guess that's basically my point Salt. But I mean, isn't this what this whole thread has been?
"I don't like D&Ds saves system! I hope they change it" Are you going to tell people to rule zero that too? There are spells and abilities and classes that directly interact with the alignment system. Admittedly, they'd be easy to tweak, but hoping to see it changed isn't really that out of place for this thread.
Edit: Xaiber. See, I can see that requirement ruling out good. I can accept that, no problem. I don't see why that would rule out neutral as well though. Neutral people can kill people for their own benefit (ie, being admitted into an organization) no problem. Why is it different for the assassin?
Uh, no.
Uh, I wanted you to answer a question for me. That you still haven't answered.
Does it say in the DMG that the assassin kills for money? It's a pretty simple fucking question really, man. I don't have my book on hand, so I can't look it up at the moment. I used a dictionary and real life example to point out that assassins don't necessarily need to kill for money, so I was wondering if the D&D version of assassins had this particular stipulation placed upon them.
Yes.
Edit: Of course, the nuanced answer is far more in depth but I'm not going to carry on both sides of a discussion. I'm fine with the assassin class as written. I think there are some related assertions that I would support. We should have a stealthy/combative/magic-y class that is open to non-evils is a statement I would support.
As you said, we should really un-marry alignment from classes. I agree with you. We should also drop silly requirements like "must kill one person to get into a group." As far as I can tell, the assassin class, from a rules perspective, is a rogue who has dabbled in the arcane arts and has a knack for poison. Neither of which is particularly evil. It would also seem silly that only an evil organization would have the ability to teach such techniques to rogues. Now, if a DM wanted to rule that only an evil organization knew the techniques, then he should be able to do so.
But, it really should be up to the DM to decide such decisions about his gaming world. And it should be up to the player to play his class, in the context of his alignment. Obviously, certain classes have to follow an alignment (such as a cleric dedicated to a god of a certain alignment). But other then that, it seems silly to me.
I think the issue is more
"Classes should define what i can do and not who I am. Allignment restrictions mean that classes which define crunch are dependant on what kind of person I am. An assasin is an assasin because he kills people not because he has the ability to stab a guy in the kidney, but there should be any reason that a good person cant have learned the same techniques that the class 'assasin' has".
The only real hitch in that complaint is supernatural stuff, because that stuff does have some innate connection to another plane which might be inherently good or bad. But in general, I agree with the "allignment restrictions are dumb for classes".
Then again, I also subscribe to the "Have as few classes in a system as possible and have them cover as wide a swath of possible creation options as possible" design mantra, and really dislike prestige classes in general except for me to make cool villians with[i.e. where i get to make shit up]
Yeah, that's basically what I was trying to say. Also, that I find the alignment system in D&D to be stifling, but that's just me.
I'm saying that since a majority of the time PC's are non-evil we need something in the same general ballpark that is open to non-evil PC's.
The assassin spends a large amount of time studying (and presumably practicing) killing intelligent beings. A rampant disrespect for life is required for this ability which is one of the hallmarks of the evil alignment (per the PHB description chapter.)
You're ignoring the Death Attack and outside Core the assassin has quite of number of hugely evil spells.
Edit: Now I'm going to go watch Dexter, which is likely directly relevant to this discussion. IMO Dexter as he stands is evil even if he is heroic. I'm comfortable with this but if you somehow want to call him "Good" I doubt we'll ever agree on this topic.
However, once again, why are you making a fuss over the fact that the assassin kills intelligent beings? Once again, what does a lawful good paladin kill? Orcs, kobolds, gobblins, bugbears, mindflayers. These are all intelligent beings.
And what does a fighter do? He spends a ton of time studying (and practicing) killing intelligent beings like the above. Whats the difference between a core fighter and a core assassin (discounting evil spells)? Some arcane magicking and some poison. So then he is evil? He should be defined as evil or good based on who he kills and why.
Edit: Have fun watching your TV show, I think I'm going to go to sleep. Night.
And no, a paladin who runs up to some orcs and smacks them down, is now Lawful Good. Good implies a fundamental respect for, and wish to preserve life, above all other tenets. The orcs *must* be given the opportunity to repent, must be shown mercy, and their lives must be respected. In my opinion, a paladin who doesn't do these things is not a paladin at all.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
I don't understand how you could get to Chaotic at all. He's evil as the day is long since he kills people as a hobby. Which is one of the big issues, per the PHB going around and killing people is an evil act. Don't think he kills bad people to make the world a better place, he kills people because he wants to kill people. He tries to select bad people but that isn't why he's killing people.
He's evil. He murders people because he enjoys doing it. He's not motivated by a pure purpose, or whimsy. He does it because this is the thing he enjoys doing. It's what makes him feel alive.
However, Dexter has rules. His adopted father instilled him not with values, but with rules. Constraints. He gave him bounderies and procedures. He told him how he could do these things and still maintain the illusion of being a normal person. He maintains a girlfriend, friends, etc. not because he wants these things, but because he knows, consciously, that a normal person is supposed to want these things. What he wants is to be normal, or at the very least, appear normal enough so that he can continue to do what he does.
He targets murderers, child molestors, and the like because those are the people that are inside his rules. They're the people he can get away with. They're the people his father made it he could justify doing. He lives according to his father's rules, not according to his own moral compass. He's not guided by internal principles, but adherence to an exterior ideal.
Now, look at the PHB explanation of Lawful Evil:
"A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains."
You can't assign alignments, which are by definition fictional archetypal concepts to give a fictional character (your character) a moral framework to understand their mindset, to real people.
But you can easily see how alignments apply to other fictional characters. How many times do you see people comparing Lawful Good to Superman, or Chaotic Good to Han Solo or Robin Hood, or Lawful Evil to Darth Vader or Doctor Doom? It's because these archetypes fit.
Alignment is part of D&D because the archetypal struggles between good and evil, order and chaos, tyranny and freedom, these things are part of D&D. They're part of fantasy archetypes and tropes. Morally "grey" fantasy worlds like A Game of Thrones are the exception, not the rule. The rule is Gandalf is good, Sauron is evil. Arthur is good, Mordred is evil. Aslan is good, the Witch is evil.
You don't like moral absolutism? Fine. Remove it from your game, if you'd like. If you want to play a gritty, realistic, morally relative postmodern exploration of the fantasy genre, ala A Game of Thrones, be my guest. But that isn't D&D. It never has been. D&D is about playing to fantasy archetypes. Why do you think so much of the game is so derivative of fantasy works that existed at the time of its creation? It's a hodge-podge of a variety of different archetypal fantasy concepts woven together to have fun, swing swords, sling spells, and stomp monster ass.
If you want to explore the moral grey zone between beheading goblins in a dungeon and assassinating a corrupt noble in his sleep, that's your call, but the game by default isn't about such explorations.
Alignment is a part of the game, and will continue to be part of the game, although based on all indications in 4th Edition alignment will no longer be a "force". Meaning, spells, monsters, magic items etc. will probably no longer have the "Evil" descriptor on them, that sort of thing.
The Assassin prestige class will most likely still require you to be evil. That's if there's even an Assassin prestige class at all! You don't like that? You think that a person can still be an "Assassin" but not be evil? Don't take the assassin prestige class, then. Just call yourself an Assassin. Behave like an Assassin. If your DM feels that doing so is Evil, rather than just say, Neutral, well then your problem is with your DM, isn't it?
I doubt an archon on the plane of good would give something evil the chance to repent, but that's just me.
Good is not about whether or not you kill people, people on both sides of every spectrum kill people. To be good is to ally yourself with the cosmic force of good, and against the cosmic force of evil, and how you do it is defines whether you are lawful or chaotic.
That being said, it's unlikely a good person will kill for no reason at all. In fact, killing for no apparent reason is, in the book of exalted deeds and elsewhere, indeed a hallmarkedly evil act. If we look at the assassin prestige class special requirements, it states that you must kill "for no other reason than to become an assassin." Kill for what reason? So you can kill more. Not to defend someone else or you, not to cleanse the world of... well, anything, no reason. Thus: Evil!
In the same respect, a lawful good paladin can retain his alignment whilst cleansing entire civilizations of evil creatures, like orcs, goblins, etc etc. This is not because genocide is a good act, but because these races are inherently evil, as defined. You're unlikely to see that same paladin attack a HUMAN or DWARF on sight, they will probably use the discretion to wait a moment and find out if they are, in fact, evil, unless they catch them in the act of evil. And would a paladin kill an angel? Only if it were a fallen angel. Otherwise, he'd probably just follow it, and bring it coffee in the morning.
One of the basic things about good and evil is that Evil gets alot more tricks, because they don't care how the job gets done (lets all kill people for no apparent reason, it'll make us more skilled. See: Sith Lords and Choking), but Good tends to be alot more unified, as opposed to the power struggles and traitorous attitude of the average evil organization.
Compare that to creatures that are listed as Always Evil. Or creatures with (Evil) as a subtype. Those creatures are inherently and universally evil.
This goes back to the old "You kill a bunch of goblins and you find their women and young. Do you kill them, is this evil" etc. thing.
That's an argument as old as 1st Edition. The easy answer? There isn't one. The easy answer, if you want a game of moral absolutes and good cleanly fighting evil, is to not put your players in a position like that. The goblin raiders are all combatants, holed up in their cave and raiding the nearby town. There are no noncombatants or children in their cave.
Is this realistic? No. In fact, it goes directly contrary to the Monster Manual, which even gives figures of how many noncombatants to expect in a big tribe of goblins.
But does this lack of realism matter? Only if your campaign makes it matter. For me, it usually doesn't, because if I wanted to explore the moral implications of killling infant goblins D&D is not the game I would play.
And, i agree with you 100% on the sacrifice of realism, unless specifically desired.
wii Number 0648 2052 0203 3154
Discussing the morality of assassination is intrinsically linked to discussing the morality of killing people at all, and how and in what contexts are such things acceptable, if ever. If one can say assassinating the enemy general in his sleep is evil, but slaughtering armed soldiers on the battlefield is just and honorable war, then one is establishing a value system in which not all killing is evil, but that the how and the why of such killing is important.
Which is way beyond this thread and something you should go do in the other D&D, Debate and Discourse.
Historically too many random psychos get labelled assassins because it is politically convenient to do so, especially when they succeed.
Hardly any actual assassins ever get recorded because generally they are too good to get caught and/or they never attack high profile targets in public, thus not enough people care.
Also, ninjas are samurai out of uniform, wholly dedicated to their daimyo's purpose. They were hardly ever sent to actually kill anyone important because it was damn near impossible to do. Poisoning an army's food on the other hand was well within their remit and capabilities. They were certainly never used to remove oppressive governments because they were the oppressive government.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
I will run straight to teacher.
...fine. Anyway going back to the value system of killing people; there are a few notable examples of historical figures and movements that were able to successfully defend themselves and accomplish their goals through non-violent means (Gandhi being a major example) but by and large when it's kill or watch your family and community be wiped out I think even the most ethically minded individuals are going to choose the more pragmatic route.
wii Number 0648 2052 0203 3154
As far as assassin and alignment goes, though, that person would be a rogue that acts assassin-y, not an assassin, though. Its obvious that good people can kill, or else the good side of the alignment would get pwned over and over every single time the evil side wanted _anything_, _ever_.
Personally, I think a revamp of assassin restriction of non-good would be acceptable, but a good-aligned assassin doesn't make much sense to me, considering the abilities they use (poison, anyone?). A good way to think of this is whether you would see a jedi or a sith performing the maneuvers. Of course, there are exceptions, like the inquisitors and such, but for the most part, unless specifically noted, Jedi don't use thermal detonators.
It all plays back to the "trainer" mechanic for leveling that i believe has been gotten rid of.
What they became, especially with the 3.5 Complete books, were kits to "spec" your character.
I have always considered the Assassin class to be a special, magic-using Guild Assassin, belonging to a special guild (hence the requirements). If you just wanted to be a sneaky git who used poison and killed people in the night...
Play a Rogue.
Instead of just being spec'd out copies of the base classes.
Hopefully, from what we've seen from 4.0, that will be changed though. As it has been said, the 4.0 classes are supposed to be more flexible. Hopefully, you'll be able to take the rogue archetype class and from there make something with a more assassin feel, or a more rogue feel, or a more trickster feel etc. etc.
Then prestige classes could be freed up to be something actually prestigious. So when you see someone who is a member of a prestige class you will be like "DAMN!".
Hopefully it will help cut down on multiclassing too.
I think it balances well.