|
|
|
|
Author |
Topic: Assasin and Alignment (Read 669 times) |
|
Tigrius
Extreme Poster
Last On: 08/30/11
View Profile
Message Player
Denmark
Posts: 524
|
Hi
Ive been thinking bout one of my chars - Shina - who among other things are Assasin, and her alignment..
After some thinking i reached the point, where i somewhere started to find it more correct, that a Assasin should be Neutral of alignement - that be Neutral Good, True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral..
And heres why - but i would like to hear what others thing aswell, perhaps there somethings i didnt think over when reaching this point.
The entire alignement-idea behind the assasin beeing evil - is her lack of respect for life. She feels no remorse for killing a balor, a cow, a man, a child..
But is that actually Neutral or evil ?
At current, many alignment's are based on moral, killing someone - are, according to what we are thought reallife - wrong - and that is why i think Assasin's has been set as Evil - thow as the manual say, its due to lack of moral. Yet if killing someone with or without remorse is what defines a kill as good or evil - how many roleplay remorse for having to kill a Minotour, or a undead, or a evil villain trying to take over the world ? (if ure good aligned)
If killing someone is what defines the standard for good or evil, well, i guess we all are evil's 
As i see it - what defines evil - is not the desire for power - but the little things the person do/would do.. the difference - i came to think about - is this: An evil person - would torture a man, not for its nessarry needed, but because he likes to inflict pain, to have control, dominate others, not bcause it helps his case - it may, but... more from a thought of he decides who lives and dies, he decides if someone lives in pain or not... this is actually a more precis describtion of a evil.
That nothing else matters then to reach his goal..
An evil would rip of the wings of a bird.. it wouldnt have any bigger meaning, but he would like it... a evil char would seek more power, to be able to control more, to decide the life and death, and pain over more...
The good guy, wouldnt - he may seek power, but often from other reasons - mainly - bcause he dont wish others to rip of the wings of the bird, as it has no meaning, and/or it hurts the bird...
Where does the assasin come into this ?
Well, if we use the 2 definitions above as the standard for good and evil - is the Assasin then good or evil, or actually inbetween ?
IMO inbetween - i will actually go so far to say, that Assasin is perhaps the only char that can claim to "start" as beeing and upholding True Neutral.
She is told to go kill 5 paladins... she does so, fast, and with no pain - does that make her evil ? Not really - it makes her lawful - but not evil. She didnt cause them pain for her pleasure, , or to gain more power, - she did it as part of a job.
She is told to go kill a house with 5 blackguards.. does that make her good ? - again, no - part of the job.
She breaks into a house for own reasons (robbery f.ex) and are discovered by the owner, she kills him... does that make her evil or good ? - well, if the owner was some evil sorcerer, u may claim she is good, if it was a young innocent maiden - she would be evil... So, her actions, if you think it over, the killing - doesnt really have anything to do, with if she is evil or good - she is neutral... If she works for the Red Wizards, or Harpers, and kills 3 persons - good or evil - will stamp her as lawful - breaking in, persuading her own goal, and killing 3 persons, makes her chaotic, but.. it doesnt make her good or evil... it makes her neutral..
You could argue she did it with pleasure, tormenting the victims, killing them slowly for her own pleasure - yes then she would definetly be evil - but for most assasins... he/she kills preferly fast, and as effective as she can - nothing else makes sense from an assasin point of view.
So - giving much thought... shouldnt the assasin be True Neutral/Chaotic Neutral/Lawfull Neutral - instead of anything/evil ?
Just a thought
- Tigrius
(no assasins was hurt during the production of this post
|
|
 I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Rofelli
Forum God
Last On: 12/04/08
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 1433
|
There are two problems with what you're saying, though.
The first is that, contrary to popular opinion, pure evil that inflicts pain for the sake of inflicting pain is not only unrealistic, but rarely happens, even among psychotic killers and sadists (yes, it does happen, but it is on the whole, rare). Hence, even though it would fall under evil, it is wrong to think of this as the norm, much less the standard, of evil.
The second is implied by the first: the alignment system doesn't allow for much variation into what is "good" or "evil." It's spelled out in absolute, if slightly vague, terms. Hence, to kill a sentient being without a "good" reason (other than pay) is automatically "evil."
While I don't want to shake up a hornet's nest, I think a real example would illustrate the point well. In 1988, a pair of spies from North Korea planted a bomb on a passenger aircraft that was flying from India to South Korea, hoping to deter the Olympic Committee from holding the summer games in Seoul...the theory is that the "victim mentality" would help unite Korea in the long run. Was that action evil, even though the spies were simply doing their jobs and people died quickly? Was it evil if they thought that they were upholding a greater good (reunification)?
|
| « Last Edit: on: Aug 10, 2004, 1:09PM » |
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Tigrius
Extreme Poster
Last On: 08/30/11
View Profile
Message Player
Denmark
Posts: 524
|
Yet, then an assasin hired by Khelben Blackstaff to kill Maugrim, would be good
The engine/game doesnt really allow that - its not that hmm, whats the english word... fine-feeling.. (prolly not the right word, hope u understand)
I neverthe less find the assasin's role to be different, and yet, you have a point - i find the assasin-approach is so different, that it should be more Neutral then it should be evil.
An assasin, paid/ordered/taking on a mission to save a city/kingdom/world - going from lvl 1-20 (just to illustrate a "long" life) - doing all the things a good will, but from a different point of view - would still be evil.. by NWN/Game design, yet all her actions have been good - hence - he/she should imo never get an alignment hit for it, as the killing in the way, still would ne done assasin-way...
I think the "evil" evolving the assasin only relates to his/her kills, and not actions in general, so i still feel that a True Neutral - would fit more into the assasin, then setting her as Evil.. If you then by other actions can keep youre alignment on True Neutral, or shift towards the other 4 ends (Good/Evil/Chaotic/Lawful), well... but as a starter i feel - "seeing" the assasin as a evil character isnt correct.. this especially when coming to team up/helping other char's, which are either good or evil aligned..
On a side note, i find my assasin - to be the hardest probably to RP at all... but this debates i hope will also help me develop her character... RP wise i see no problem in having her in a good or evil party - but its a hard char to play... and i somewhere dont feel that the "default setting to evil" - fits into her char...
- Tigrius
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
StarStuff
Forum God
Last On: 12/29/09
View Profile
Message Player
United Kingdom
Posts: 2079
|
I do see where you're coming from, Tigrius, and partially agree with you. For me, actions that fall into the grey area are deemed to be evil if there is evil intent behind them, and enjoyment of or disregard for another's pain and suffering is a pretty good definition of evil intent as far as I'm concerned. By that definition I would have to say that both assassins and terrorists are evil... although I'm sure that both the hired killer and the devout believer in the cause would strenuously deny such an allegation!
The problem that I have with alignments lies at the opposite end of the scale, however: I don't see how a "good" character could kill, or allow to be killed, a fellow human/elf/dwarf (you get the picture!) being, no matter how "evil" that being is - and yet that happens all the time in roleplaying games. Does anyone still play the sort of character that thinks carefully before drawing their sword (or mace more probably), and afterwards sheds a tear and says a prayer for the life they've just ended?
Maybe I have a naive and simplistic view of alignments. Or maybe we all live in a world where real-life violence has become so commonplace that we no longer question the morals of such actions, just see them as a "necessary evil"?
--StarStuff
|
| « Last Edit: on: Aug 10, 2004, 3:40PM » |
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Fugitive
Veteran Poster
Last On: 03/10/11
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 89
|
That's a good point actually and it's probably wrong that an Assassin is required to be of Evil alignment.
I've always believed that the method(s) of killing along with the killing of good or innocents not in self defense is what creates an evil character.
Poisoning an innocent child, who let's say is heir to a throne, for some GPs would be evil and any character, Assassin or not that would do that is evil both due to the cowardly method and due to the fact that children are considered to be innocent under most any circumstance.
However, the Paladin who defends the town by killing barbarians, who are essentially good people that are simply worried about losing more and more land, would still be good. Although, those actions would only reinforce his Lawfulness and not his Goodness.
I think the Players Handbook does a decent job of laying out the Alignments, but it is a highly subjective thing.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Tigrius
Extreme Poster
Last On: 08/30/11
View Profile
Message Player
Denmark
Posts: 524
|
I disagree a bit on the Assasin/Terrorist - imo they got different reasons for theyre actions..
I should also add, that i find it funny how we IRL differ between Terrorists, FreedomFighters, and Resistence-ppl.. theyre actions are not that different, thow theyre motivations can varry alot
The ordinary assasin, does what he does from money (that would make him chaotic most times) or other reasons - however, i dont see his actions as evil.. he dont... "judge" his target.. if its evil or not.. he dont take side, which is also one of my arguments for stating in NWN/D&D, a assasin should be listed as True Neutral from start.. - he kills it, bcause..... again, im using the line from the manual, which i find - atleast for my char - fits pretty good... its not to be evil, its just.. lives has no values as such..
its like having... no opinion on them... if needed theyre taken, if not, theyre not taken... nothing more nothing less..
I totally agree with you on the "Good" killing.. actually i would perhaps state, that if we use the value for others life as measurement for good - then no char could be good.. they would all be neutral's..
In RP i would say in order to actually have a "working scale" - you could never have a a char killing, that could be 100% good - 85% perhaps, but not 100% - at same time, a person could never be 100% evil - if he didnt ripped the wing of the bird for ... "sports".. so, the scales are... definetly to discussion..
I would rather say, we have never left the world of violance... it is a part of human nature (we are animals after all) - and has existed since year 0... and no matter how civilizied we try to claim we are, i dont think we ever stop beeing violant to a degree or outta a reason - one could question out of survival reasons, if its wished for also..
- Tigrius
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Rofelli
Forum God
Last On: 12/04/08
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 1433
|
My overall point was this:
The aligment system dictates: to kill a person for the sole purpose of gaining money is an evil action.
Whether or not an individual agrees with that judgment is a completely different issue.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Gornt
Forum God
Last On: 06/09/11
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 758
|
First, let me say that I think alignment is dumb and leads to a lot of pointless discussions. That said:
While it's true that the actions of many adventurers can be viewed as morally ambiguous, it doesn't change the fact that assassins, as described, are evil. If you want to justify the actions of your character, you can't do it with moral relativism.
For the sake of arguement, let's say that "good" is the amount to which you put the needs of others before your own. Each action you take can be judged by the balance between your gain/cost and the gain/cost to others.
So. Taking money for killing people gives you a small benefit (some cash that you could have earned in other ways) at a very high price to others (the victim and their families). Therefore it is bad.
Compare with a soldier in an army. He may kill other people in oppossing armies but the action is less evil because his benefit to himself (staying alive and protecting his comrades and country) is greater than the cash benefit an assassin gets. The cost to himself is high, the cost to the victim is very high. But the cost to others may also be diminished as the soldiers he fights against and their familiy may be better prepared to lose him since they know he is harm's way. The family of a civilian killed by assassin doesn't have that. The terror affect on society is also less in the case of war deaths.
I think it makes sense that to qualify to do the job of assassin, you need to have a moral code that leads you in that direction. Elsewise, you'd just get a lot of pointless power-building. Like assassin-paladins and such.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
hoyasaxa
Forum God
Last On: 01/14/12
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 2470
|
Great discussion, Gornt. Speaking of assassins...
See you in the HoyaSaxa Campaign tomorrow night.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Gornt
Forum God
Last On: 06/09/11
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 758
|
I'm going to assume for the moment that you aren't just being a contrarian.
First - leave law/chaos out of it. That isn't what this discussion is about.
Second - The soldier that does that has done a "bad" thing just as if an assassin did that. Just because civilians are sometimes killed in war does not change the moral mathmatics of that particular act. It would have to be weighed with the same cost/benefit anaylsis as any other act. Obviously, the math here is tricky but most would agree that accidentally killing a civilian in war is less bad than murdering civilians for pay.
You seem to be saying that "since everyone in this game kills some things, killing any thing should be permissable."
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Lazybones
Forum God
Last On: 12/31/11
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 4695
|
An assassin who doesn't kill for money is a fighter, or a rogue, or a fighter/rogue, or a wizard/rogue, etc. (you see the pattern)... tailored with skills and abilities that allow for an effective kill. I feel that the specific attributes of the prestige class, as it is currently written, are more oriented toward the "evil" killer-for-hire.
If you want a neutral assassin-type character who approximates the abilities of the prestige class assassin, just play a rogue with a few wizard or sorcerer levels.
Sending a covert group deep into enemy territory to "assassinate" the evil warlord bent on enslaving the realm isn't evil, and while you might call the group "assassins," they won't have the assassin prestige class.
Personally I think it's a fairly weak prestige class, in any case (at least in NWN).
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Fandomlife
Expert Poster
Last On: 08/24/08
View Profile
Message Player
United Kingdom
Posts: 261
|
You also have to consider, that intrinisc to the design of D&D, is the fact that good and evil are absolutes in D&D, the game does not advocate relative morality. In that way, it's a bit like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, etc.
Not saying that is a good or bad thing, but it does influence the make-up of the game in term of spells, alignment, class ability, etc.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Silvarian
Forum God
Last On: 08/30/11
View Profile
Message Player
United Kingdom
Posts: 785
|
Yes I think the crux focuses on the point that an assassin may have a non-chalance for life and even if every single kill actually affects him, assassins usually do not pick and choose their targets depending on how 'good' they are. So by the mere fact theya re happy to kill some arguably pure of heart people on the basis of a contract puts them on the evil part of the scale rather than a neutral one...
The mere concept of killing with a disregard of who the target is implies this - I guess the argument is what an assassin actually is. For me, it is someone that simply performs the job of taking life with professional precision and at the command of another - the one who hires him. When is an assassin ever self employed - the only idea i can think of is when someone has a target list to fill a personal vendetta but I dont think they are classified as 'assassins' then. The concept demands being hired.
And thus when hired by someone, they very rarely turn downt heir targets for moral reasons (i.e the target is a nun, I can't do that) unless it is a personal interest (family, loved one?). Assassins also seem to pick off important and political targets - bounty hunters on the other hand usally go for criminals and thus are likely to be more neutralish alignments...
That is why in my opinion they have an 'evil' requirement...
P.S Someone mentioned alignment being 'dumb' - I am not sure what that means but from personal experience, it is very important to play a character within your alignment boundaries otherwise it affects the quality of the game you are taking part in (as well as reflects on you as a player for simply not roleplaying your cahr to a realistic degree). It is rather hard for a DM to get a good grasp of party composition and how they may approach the adventure put forward if they do not stick tot heir alignment boundaries. And usually each of the alignments are pretty straight forward...
Hell one of my favourite gaming moments was when a Lawful Good and Lawful Evil character ended up fighting together at the end of the adventure to ensure something that was in neithers interests did not prevailed. And it was the 'lawful' restrictions for each that prevented them from turning one ach other, even if their outlooks were quite different. For the lawful evil character, he felt a huge debt to the other character because he had ended up saving his life earlier. For the lawful good, he had an undying focus to ensure the forces of good prevail...
Alignment rocks 
|
| « Last Edit: on: Aug 11, 2004, 4:37PM » |
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Rezk
Experienced User
Last On: 05/12/11
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 28
|
I don't think alignment itself is the problem, since most folks just ignore it, but it does allow for some type of players to abuse it and then try and use it as an excuse for their weirdo game breaking actions. Not to mention nearly everyone has their own sense of what each alignment is, and the chances of any two people agreeing after an "incident" is somewhere around a million to one (Not in the Pratchett sense either). Then there are the folks who believe their vision of the alignment system is absolute and will argue up a storm to prove it, usually interrupting valuable game time to do so. After seeing these problems as a player over and over, I think its easy to realize why a lot of DMs either throw the D$D concept of alignment out completely, or at least tell their players it has little place in their world. I know I make certain its one of the first things I talk about when playing with new players. Even so as long as a character's story, and their actions fit their personality I can't see much of a problem.
Regardless, I don't think I'll ever personally be comfortable with a good Assassin (Think they can be neutral in PnP, right?) or something like a Paladin/Rogue character. Ironically D$D allows for such weird things as that, but something like a Bard/Monk isn't permitted. Apparently chanting and singing are so different they cannot exist within the same persona. 
|
| « Last Edit: on: Aug 11, 2004, 7:08PM » |
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Eliandi
Forum God
Last On: 12/25/10
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 788
|
I don't use alignment so much im my campaigns as I do "Law" and "Religious Dogma".
In most lands, murder is against the law (while killing in enemies/outlaws/monsters is often condoned). The assasin is therefore an outlaw.
In many religions, murder is forbidden. Therefore the assasin is an outcast and perhaps persecuted. In fantasy realms where clerics channel the power of the dieties, spells/heal potions might not work for the assasin...for a diety can certainly see into the past of a mortal and deny HIS/HER power from the mortal.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Tigrius
Extreme Poster
Last On: 08/30/11
View Profile
Message Player
Denmark
Posts: 524
|
Hmm, im afraid that in the world of AD&D very few kills qualify as MURDER...or...
The orc sleeping killed by the paladin, qualifies according to youre statement him as murderer... unless you have another definition of murder then i have.
Stating that:
If Assasin kills = Murder, Else Ok kill.
erh, i dont think so
It seems to most ppl who, are busy qualifying the assasin as a "only killing innocent good ppl for money" - while that may be true for many - i would add that goes for others then assasin, AND - that there is assasins who arent following the above pattern.
I recognise that the word Assasin may qualify only as this - but, taking postion in Bioware's statement in the manual - the assasin are according to theyre definition also people whom may actually kill evil bosses, save cities, doing good..
I tend to agree with the DM - that playwise, its more importent ppl play theyre char, then alignment are followed 110%... afterall it is RPing, and sometimes you go beyond what is set by alignment, but which are in char..
I see the point another poster made, that stated the Rogue/Wizard,etc.. to gain same "things" as the assasin gets... however, with the current setup - in order to get the assasin feats, you have to be assasin...
However, i guess this is like discussing religion - we will never all agree... and its ok... i think i found a way to play Shina in a party.. so thanks to all that contributed to this tread
- Tigrius
- Tigrius
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Moonunit921
Expert Poster
Last On: 03/04/05
View Profile
Message Player
Canada
Posts: 118
|
I'm no expert, and my memory is a bit fuzzy on the details, but if you check out the Book of Exalted Deeds there is a very good explanation of the difference between killing and murder, at least as it applies to good characters.
Being a lawful good paladin, for example, doesn't mean life is all cotton candy and truffles. The paladin is a holy warrior, whose lot in life is to combat the enemies of the faith. Is killing an evil orc murder? No, it's a preemptive strike, as the evil orc will most likely make his way through life spreading his evil and misery around. Is the orc redeemable? Maybe, but that's beyond the scope of the paladin - he doesn't go around trying to convert everyone's alignment to good before he draws steel on him. That'd be stupid, and good doesn't mean stupid.
I'll try to give a better explanation from the book later tonite. But, bottom line - taking a life purely for profit is evil. No argument. And, that's the basis for the D&D Assassin class - murder for profit.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
|
