|
|
|
|
Author |
Topic: Assasin and Alignment (Read 669 times) |
|
Rofelli
Forum God
Last On: 12/04/08
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 1433
|
I'm tending toward the suggestion that, at most, alignment, in terms of the game, is nothing more than a mechanic to tag things.
However, that also shouldn't make the alignment arbitrary. A paladin, for example, is restricted to lawful good because there are certain ideals that he is expected to uphold, certain duties that he is expected to perform, and a certain code he is expected to live by. And while people will fight over what these are, it's clear that the designers of the class envisioned that the code (as they saw it) can only be followed consistently if the character is lawful good; i.e., they saw that he could not act according to his code and still act as if he were, for example, a Lawful Neutral character.
Whether or not other people agree with the designers on that particular issue is, I believe, beside the point. As a personal note, I would see a paladin-like class existing for each possible variation that a cleric could have, which is, to say, a paladin-esque character for each alignment, each different depending on his deity's code...but that's a tangenital discussion.
At the same time, yes, it's wrong to assume that, therefore, every action must be dictated by alignment. The reason for this is two-fold:
1 - Context.
A certain action may have a different moral connotation depending on its context. For example, it's generally accepted the dishonesty is wrong; however, I've yet to meet a person that finds the action of denying a surprise party to the "surprisee" to be morally recriminating.
Taking this to another level of complexity, you could argue that sticking to certain virtues no longer applies when the actions of other people turn the consequences of a virtuous life into the consequences of having led a life of vice.
2 - Alignment predicts overall behavior; it does not force your hand to certain actions.
When I choose a character alignment, it's nothing more than a statement of how I intend to portray the character overall.
In other words, while people slip up, alignment is supposed to see an overall trend. Perhaps a certain assassin who loves his job won't accept contracts on the murder of children (perhaps he doesn't believe that assassination is acceptable to people who are unequipped to make choices of such moment that others would want them killed; or, perhaps, it reminds him too much of the "World's Greatest Dad" mug he got from his child). He doesn't have a "good" part of his alignment...he just has a certain point he won't cross.
Similarly, a paladin or cleric could have a nasty temper, possibly to the point of throwing moral denunciations at the objects of his anger that may not have a solid basis in reality. It's a character trait...not something large enough to make a sweeping alignment change.
|
| « Last Edit: on: Aug 26, 2004, 10:42PM » |
 I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Squidget
Expert Poster
Last On: 05/04/07
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 112
|
The confusion regarding Assassin alignment restrictions comes from definitions.
You have assassins (note the small a), who are defined by the dictionary as someone who assassinates (ie: kills for money). They could be killing anyone - a little girl, the rival of the mob boss who hired them, or a corrupt dictator. What motivates them is undefined, so an assassin can be any alignment under D&D. They also can have just about any skillset, from fighting to magecraft to sneakyness. That is, an assassin doesn't necessarily have a Death Attack or any of the other D&D PrC goodness.
Then you have Assassins (note the large A), who are members of a secret organization that worships the dark gods, practices evil arcane magic, and trains their members in the secrets of skills like Death Attack. Simply completing the rites of membership to enter this group definitely requires that one be a horribly evil person.
Assassin != assassin in D&D, so your character who assassinates but isn't evil might not be an assassin, but isn't a member of the evil Assassin's guild and as such shouldn't be taking the Assassin PrC. Unless, of course, she /was/ evil and either left or was expelled from the guild before or as a result of changing her alignment. In that case, she would still retain whatever assassin skills she picked up in the guild, but would not continue learning new ones. NWN implements this just fine, incidentally. 
As a DM, I wouldn't have a big problem with an assassin meta-classing a few levels of the Assassin PrC to represent their training, but the above is the strict rules, and why they are the way they are.
About 99% of the misconceptions I've seen on the D&D alignment system come from such problems of definitions, Good vs good and Evil vs evil being the most common. One is absolute and objective, the other is in the eye of the Beholder. The D&D alignment system only deals with the first.
Many people don't see this, and quickly declare the D&D alignment system useless and contradictory because of it.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Laureate
Newbie Poster
Last On: 07/08/05
View Profile
Message Player
Australia
Posts: 2
|
The way I see good-evil in general is:
Good= anybody that has compassion for other people, and will help people out of pity, caring, sympathy, and because they feel they should help people who are suffering. They may help someone because they are able to imagine what it would be like, in that person's situation. They will risk their life to help save someone else's.
Neutral= anybody that will help someone because if it is at little cost to them, or if they get, say, a small reward.
Evil= Someone who has no compassion for anyone else. Someone that will only ever help anyone else if it is at no risk to them and they get something out of it, or it is at a small risk to them and they get a sufficient reward. Someone that is practically incapable of empathizing or sympathizing with someone else, because they only care about themselves.
So, I think that assassins should be able to be of most different alignments (although mainly evil) because an in my opinion, as it seems to be in the game, an assassin is simply someone who knows how to kill quietly, quickly and efficiently. These abilities may be used to help someone else, or save someone from someone that is evil.
But I guess the prestige class "Assassin", in neverwinter nights, one of those heartless, kills-anyone-for-money types of assassins, and if you want to make an assassin that is chaotic good, or neutral, or something, it'd have to be a rogue/mage or something to that effect(although I am annoyed at the evil-restriction- What if you want a chaotic good liberator-of-the-people-by-means-of-killinating-the-bad-guy-stealthily kind of assassins with death attack?
That's my opinion.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Silvarian
Forum God
Last On: 08/30/11
View Profile
Message Player
United Kingdom
Posts: 785
|
Just referring to the above post.. you seem to define the alignments around the aspect of 'compassion' which is a valid argument but still an example of how this whole discussion is very subjective as is most debates within these sorts of topics.
I would say an evil character is capable of 'compassion' - but 'evil' is such a complicated issue in terms of its definition it seems almost futile to argue it. For me, an evil character could be very selective (and limited) in just whom he has 'compassion' for, most likely to do with the origins of his dark side in the first place...
Would you say evil is 'heartless' for example? A man lost on a road of revenge (for the murder of his child for example) could succumb completely to the dark doing countless evils in his question for so called 'justice', but on his journey could come across a little child who reminded him of his daughter and suddenly show her incredible levels of compassion.... he is 'human' after all.
Still.. in terms of the assassin debate, I still feel its the complete 'nonchalance' for the destruction of 'life' regardless of the target that forces the evil restriction. I have never heard of an assassin that 'picks' his prey.. their occupation by nature has always been one of a professional killer who is given their targets by their employers and surely the luxury of picking and choosing who they wish to call is not a trademark of their 'type'... at least I have never come across a character that has been classified an 'assassin' but has turned down a job because the target was a good man. I get the feeling that the job type would not attract such morally clean people who would probably gravitate to more open shows of their nature...
|
| « Last Edit: on: Sep 7, 2004, 2:49AM » |
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Laureate
Newbie Poster
Last On: 07/08/05
View Profile
Message Player
Australia
Posts: 2
|
Aye, so you're saying that evil people may take a liking to somebody, but I think there would have to be a reason for this. (Btw it may be futile to argue what evil is, but I can try if I want to, eh?)I think it'd make more sense to say 'evil' people won't show compassion towards people that they don't know and haven't reminded them of some happier time in their lives, or something. I think if something was entirely evil- i.e. a demon, it would not only be incapable of caring about anybody else, it'd like hurting people. People in real life obviously aren't ever completely good or evil or chaotic or lawful. (But I can imagine somebody with the Blackguard prc that is almost entirely evil...)
So the alignment restrictions are meant to show that you would leave or enter an organization that teaches you these skills? (harper scout has to be non-evil, monk has to be lawful, druid has to be neutral...) This would make sense, except that you don't actually have to join these organizations in-game to get the prc- (you can have never met the harpers and still be a "harper scout"(maybe you're scouting for the harpers in your mind.. hehhehe...) Anyway, to me all the classes seem to be just sets of skills and feats and such, and you can still technically know how to paralyze someone with a sneak attack, and not be evil...
Besides- an assassin cult/clan/guild might very well have motives other than money. (if i'm not remembering wrong, the original "Assassins" in Egypt were trying to kill Saladin because he was a Suni Muslim and they were Shiite Muslims?)
Because of the lack of any story in the game before you can get a prestige class, I think that you should be able to get the class with any alignment that doesn't contridict the skills. Maybe a little hard to see a lawful-good assassin...
Back on topic, I'd say the sterotypical assassin (that "lacks any morals or values" would be evil and not neutral, because you can't (and don't) care about the lives of people you don't know (i.e. someone you're about to kill).
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Dynoman
Newbie Poster
Last On: 12/18/04
View Profile
Message Player
United Kingdom
Posts: 3
|
An enjoyable discussion!
Rofelli has pretty much covered my position on the main points of this debate so I'll try to stick to things that have not been said (although some may have been hinted/mentioned).
I have always had a problem with AD&D classes being governed by the Good/Evil scale because I have always seen class as a kind of profession or "calling". To illustrate my point (very simplistically) think of sportspeople; a sprinter and a golfer have completely different skillsets neither of which is governed by their ethics.
As suggested earlier in the discussion why should there be a special class for Lawful Good (and now LE - Blackguards) religious Knights? Why not Lawful Neutral? Surely it would be better to have a generic class which could be any of the above but which might have slightly different abilities depending on moral standpoint (it works pretty well for clerics).
More to the point of this discussion, I understand the concept that an Assassin in the context of NWN is supposedly a member of a specific secret society but this does not rationalise why only members of this specific society can develop these particular skill sets. My own personal opinion is that IF there is to be an alignment restriction on Assassins the most logical one is to say that they should be LAWFUL as this would suggest the self discipline required to learn a difficult set of skills in a similar way to monks.
Finally I'd like to comment on the "definition" of assassins in general insofar as to say that in my opinion derivations (from Hashishim or wherever you wish to claim) and textbook definitions are irrelevant to this discussion.
I have before me a reputable English dictionary which reads "assassin - a murderer, esp. one who kills a prominant political figure"!
I personally think that for the purposes of this debate (and AD&D in general) it would be most constructive if an Assassin were defined as someone who specialises in the art of killing with finesse ie. without NECESSARILY having to resort to brute force.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Tigrius
Extreme Poster
Last On: 08/30/11
View Profile
Message Player
Denmark
Posts: 524
|
For me it seems as many are stuck in - a class = you must be so and so..
Well, if that was IRL - it would mean, that an IT man, can only progress in lvls aslong as he works with IT. (bad example, but lets go with it).
By doing so, we starting to make certain frames and saying "this can only be done like this".
Well - RL - you dont even have to work with computers to be good with them - perhaps you have one at home (if ure reading this, well ) - so, aha - its suddenly possible for an NONE-IT worker to exhile, and perhaps even become better then any hired IT-Man..
But - according to the frames many likes to set - this is not possible. A person can not be born with skills with a piano, if he never taken a piano-lesson.. (yet, reality shows us, that there is ppl that never seen a piano, that sits down and plays like a dream)... - well go figure.. - so, returning to the class-debate.. is it possible for a person - say a mage - to be able to do death-attack without beeing an assasin - actually yes.. IRL it is.. in D&D it isnt.. well uhm.. erh?
I for one - think that instead of having to go into a alignment-debate - or rather to use a technical alignment to get a feat, would like to see all feats possible for all classes.. however, with restriction based on stats...
The chanse of a person with 6 Dex doing an improved evasion.. hm well... a person with Str 6 doing an power attack - hmm, perhaps not..
this would far more reflect RL, then the current system - further i would like to see - that instead of forcing ppl into "u have to RP like this, bcause youre alignment is like this" - a more RL approach as i mentioned earlier - if you act like this, youre alignment takes hit towards this - UNLESS - its already there..
I tried in a session, with a CN character getting a hit towards evil for roughing up a guy, and later save a city.. Here, the DM first choose to alignment hit me towards evil, then towards good - my statement would be - an person not good, and not evil, can perform smaller act of both, without taking any hit - both ends, within reasonable lenghts are possible.. at bigger acts, his alignemtn are hit, but that dont mean he cant become a certain class. The class Paladin builds alot on the old Crusader order.. yet, im pretty sure anyone reading just a little about the old Knights, and Jerusalem will find that those holy crusaders, often pillaged, rapped, and murdered.. and, still was Knights and Crusaders.. uhm.. sorta takes the D&D debate out on thin ice..
Can a LG paladin beat up a child.. in theory yes - since he might only do it once in his entire life - and alignment for Lawful goes from hmm, think its 70 or 75-100 - so, he would take the hit, but still be able to perform within Paladins.. - while some may argue - he CANT do that - he is LG...
I see many statements all the time building on
"You choose X alignemt - you are now forced to act like this" - which are the total opposite of RL, where youre actions determine youre alignment.. ALWAYS..
Again, i would like to see D&D reflect more RL - then some odd, frames, where ppl taking the rules and beats up other ppl by them - bcause its in the rules.. uhm, rules are nice, and guidelines, but wrong rules, dont make anything right (if u get what i mean) - and rules should reflect the game, not force the game into something odd.. again - if i have a Fighter, that specialise in killing in a 100% perfect, painless way, i would argue, he should be able to take Assasin-Feat - thow without beeing assasin - i belive class should more reflect (and be more detailied) - and state what you are..
This turns this debate into broader area, im aware of that.. but.. still its linked to both alignment and class.
Perhaps let taken feats determine what sorta class you are.. instead of opposite..
I for ex. often wondered, why in earth, a Arcane Archer or a Ranger cant take Weapon Specialization in Bows.. i mean.. the AA/Ranger are considered to be foremost experts in it, and while the fighter more can cover many different weapons, and train in many weapons, it dont make him a better expert with a bow, then a AA who constantly, and always uses it, and not only uses it, but exceeds any other class in its use of it.. - why cant a Monk take weapons specialization in Unarmed strike (watching some demonstrations on TV where they break ice with theyre fingers.. well, even a lvl 20 fighter would most likely break his fingers should he try that.. ) and so forth..
Again we are back in the debate - or a broader debate - why a NG Rogue wouldnt be able to take the assasin feats?
I started to work with splitting alignment into 2 (well so far only for 1 character) - but to reflect this.. this i call Game Alignment and Technical alignment.. my Rogue Shine is Technicly Chaotic evil to get the Assasin feats, but are RPed as Chaotic Good. IRL this would be possible - Leon - the movie, we see the young girl, beeing trained by an assasin (Leon), yet i dont really see her as evil... Leon himself.. i dont know with others, but dispete him beeing an assasin, i didnt really see him beeing evil.. he even had borders he didnt pass... "No women, no children" - yet - returnign to the debate - Leon is evil.. well, uhm, sure, he gets paid.. he dont have much respect for human life, yet.. some he has anyhow.. he saves the girl, he dont always kill ppl unless he has too..
In D&D - this wouldnt be posssible, without starting to do something bout the way Alignment works.. yet, IRL...
uhm, well, just my little contribution (if it didnt make much sense, i blame im slightly tired
- Tigrius
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Penfold
Expert Poster
Last On: 07/06/10
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 269
|
A great line from a movie was, "Kill one man you're a murderer, kill a million, you're a conquerer..."
The Difference between an assassin and a hero who kills the evil overloard is the moral reasoning behind the killing. The hero who cuts down the evil necromancer does it to save lives or the spare others pain and make the world safe. His/Her moral reasoning is good. Now in the same situation, someone hires an assassin to off the Evil necromancer for the sum of 1000 gold. The Assassin's moral reasoning is driven by greed and to only benefit himself or herself. In both situations the Necromancer is killed, but only the hero does it for the good of all. The assassin is doing a job, treating murder on the same level as delivering a package. There is no morality to give them remorse or sorrow for their actions.
Clint Eastwood said in the movie, "Unforgiven"
"It's a hell of a thing kill'n a man, ya take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have".
So yes I would have too say an Assassin is evil in that they have put a price on life, any life, good, evil, young, old, man or woman.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Penfold
Expert Poster
Last On: 07/06/10
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 269
|
on Oct 2, 2004, 0:33 AM, Tigrius wrote:
I started to work with splitting alignment into 2 (well so far only for 1 character) - but to reflect this.. this i call Game Alignment and Technical alignment.. my Rogue Shine is Technicly Chaotic evil to get the Assasin feats, but are RPed as Chaotic Good. IRL this would be possible - Leon - the movie, we see the young girl, beeing trained by an assasin (Leon), yet i dont really see her as evil... Leon himself.. i dont know with others, but dispete him beeing an assasin, i didnt really see him beeing evil.. he even had borders he didnt pass... "No women, no children" - yet - returnign to the debate - Leon is evil.. well, uhm, sure, he gets paid.. he dont have much respect for human life, yet.. some he has anyhow.. he saves the girl, he dont always kill ppl unless he has too..
|
|
Ah The Professional, one of my all time favorite movies. I classified Leon as Lawful Evil. He kills, and has no other life other than that. He takes no pleasure in it, he just does it to make money, it is what he is good at. He has a code, No women no Kids. The code does not make him good, it makes him Lawful. Then it happens... Pow! Matilda, the little girl, left out of her house with a shiner... he is stirred with feelings, perhaps due to his childhood, you don't really know, but when her family is getting offed, something deep down moves him, a long lost respect for life and he takes her in to spare her from the slaughter. He is now a man in turmoil... he even goes through the motions of shooting her in her sleep, but doesn't. This is a Great example of Alignment change. By the end of the movie, he has left Lawful Evil, to chaotic good and sacrifices himself to save the girl. It just goes to show, it only takes one moment of Epiphany to change your path in life. Leons moment was when he opened the door and let Matilda into his apartment, saving her from the corrupt DEA officers slaughtering her family. At this point, Leon begins to live again.
|
| « Last Edit: on: Oct 2, 2004, 6:03AM » |
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Apolyion
Expert Poster
Last On: 08/22/07
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 165
|
Hmm I'm coming late to this discussion but since playing evil characters is something I really enjoy in NWN games, I want to chime in a few things.
First, as a class, the Assassin PRC is a bad idea. As was I believe noted: killing for money is an activity, not an archetype. The Assassin class as a member of a secret society with specific techniques is sort of a dodge - it technically makes the PRC valid as a PRC, but it maintains the confusion of the Assassin as a character class archetype, and assassination as an activity.
Second... there are three types of evil characters as I see it: villains, thugs, and idiots. We'll dismiss the idiots - they play, as I call it, "Chaotic Stupid" characters and are generally either bad roleplayers or disruptive people using their alignment as an excuse to cause grief to others.
Villains are the smart evil characters. They plan their evil, are methodical and detail-oriented, and generally long-sighted. They never kill casually, since killing is a major act, it will be something they've planned for and have weighed the risk vs reward of. They don't value the lives of others, particularly - they avoid killing because it is risky and they need to stand more to gain than to lose. They tend to have complex goals and use many means - legitimate and illegitimate - to get them.
Thugs are more of the less-smart evil characters, who tend to have simpler goals and tend to use direct means to get it with a greater disregard for consequences. That's not to say they're totally stupid and have no regard for consequences, but they tend to act more rashly than villains.
Note that I don't include diabolically evil characters - sociopaths and fanatics, for example. Those are abnormal types of people and generally are only used as a cover for playing Chaotic Stupid when declared by a player character.
But also note, neither the villain nor the thug has a belief in "the cause of evil" and that I don't include anything about if they enjoy doing evil. It doesn't matter if they enjoy it or not... what matters is that they are willing to do it. Evil tends to take the path of least resistance towards their goals without regard for right and wrong - good tends to avoid wrongdoing in the pursuit of goals. That is how I see the difference.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Squidget
Expert Poster
Last On: 05/04/07
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 112
|
on Oct 2, 2004, 0:33 AM, Tigrius wrote:I see many statements all the time building on
"You choose X alignemt - you are now forced to act like this" - which are the total opposite of RL, where youre actions determine youre alignment.. ALWAYS.. |
|
I agree, and I think it is a poor DM who restricts the player's actions based on their alignment (unless their action is trying to pass through a Magic Circle Against Good or something similar ). That is leading into "This action is a Lawful Good action", which is a recipe for trouble in the D&D alignment system.
Actions in themselves are not Good or Evil in D&D - the question is, what would motivate a Lawful Good or a Chaotic Evil character to kill the child?
Naturally, if the DM deems the paladin's motivations as wrong, then he's free to strip the paladin of their paladinish abilities, but saying "You cannot do X" solely because it does not fit your alignment is bad DMing, IMHO.
| Again, i would like to see D&D reflect more RL - then some odd, frames, where ppl taking the rules and beats up other ppl by them - bcause its in the rules.. uhm, rules are nice, and guidelines, but wrong rules, dont make anything right (if u get what i mean) - and rules should reflect the game, not force the game into something odd.. again - if i have a Fighter, that specialise in killing in a 100% perfect, painless way, i would argue, he should be able to take Assasin-Feat - thow without beeing assasin - i belive class should more reflect (and be more detailied) - and state what you are.. |
|
I suppose it depends on how you view Death Attack.
I think of it as a secret technique preserved by members of a wholly evil guild that worships dark gods and kills people for money. The only way to learn said techique is to join that guild, which requires you to be the most vile of villains around. You can't just pick up the skill elsewhere because it simply isn't available elsewhere.
On the other hand, if you think of Death Attack as just a logical evolution of Sneak Attack, by all means make a feat version of it for your campaign.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
deathchild
Extreme Poster
Last On: 08/05/09
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 534
|
Well, an assassin kills strictly for money. That is the only reason. Not in self defense, or for a "good" cause. The assassin does not care whether the target is the mother or father of 10, someones brother, sister, spouse, or child. The assassin does not care whether the target is good or evil. The death of a good and beloved person brings pain to friends and family. This is evil.
I can see your point, that the assassin simply does not care, and this is neutrality. It could never be neutral good though, since the assassin will not hesitate to kill a lawful good character, an act that certainly cannot be defined as good. In most religions greed and murder (notice i say murder not killing) are defined as evil. Most societies define murder as evil. An assassin committs murder. Good characters are usually killing in self defense, since if you did not attack the creature it would attack and kill you. Or they are killing for what seems to be a good cause, and they are killing evil beings, another act that is permitted by many religions.
So the assassin cannot be of good alignment, and they commit evil acts, so they must be evil.
Glad I could straighten that out for you. 
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
deathchild
Extreme Poster
Last On: 08/05/09
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 534
|
on Oct 7, 2004, 6:38 AM, Squidget wrote:on Oct 2, 2004, 0:33 AM, Tigrius wrote:I see many statements all the time building on
"You choose X alignemt - you are now forced to act like this" - which are the total opposite of RL, where youre actions determine youre alignment.. ALWAYS.. |
|
I agree, and I think it is a poor DM who restricts the player's actions based on their alignment (unless their action is trying to pass through a Magic Circle Against Good or something similar ). That is leading into "This action is a Lawful Good action", which is a recipe for trouble in the D&D alignment system.
Actions in themselves are not Good or Evil in D&D - the question is, what would motivate a Lawful Good or a Chaotic Evil character to kill the child?
Naturally, if the DM deems the paladin's motivations as wrong, then he's free to strip the paladin of their paladinish abilities, but saying "You cannot do X" solely because it does not fit your alignment is bad DMing, IMHO.
|
|
But what about the character who has no motivations, acting on the whim of the moment. this is of course chaotic, and his goodness or evilness MUST be defined by his actions since he has NO motives. Hence the true chaotic evil alignment.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Tigrius
Extreme Poster
Last On: 08/30/11
View Profile
Message Player
Denmark
Posts: 524
|
LOL - no offense.. but this is a debate, not a "this is how the manual says, and then its so" - im interested in people's views, not a rulebook..
For me to see in the debate, there is many different views.. many has put forward good arguments bout assasins, alignments, etc..
Basicly i reached the conclusion, that it is all in the view of the beholder...
Some goes hardcore on the rulebook/alignment, others disregard it totally, and see on ppls actions, others again works more freely.
For me to see.. D&D should mirror RL, not opposite.. that taken in account, rules can only be guidelines, and exceptions will always exist.. The assasin killing for the greater god, the Paladin robbing the bank, and so forth..
Generally i like to review, and view an characters action as not "what does alignment say he can do" , but "is this something the person could/would do" - sideviewed with Reallife.. does cops rob banks.. does Hired gunmen spare innocent women because they look like theyre littlesister... does organisations who are aligned to be good - perform evil actions.. and so forth..
Can an good character have knowledge of assasin (class) skills and abilities (feats) - in my opinion yes - if the person's bio, and character opens for it... the little sister who's big sister served in a assasin guild for many years, and trained her little sister secretly in how to make fast kills, etc...
I dont let rules set the boundres of my character, i let the RL, and imagination do it..
If there is a chanse a person would do it IRL, then there is also a chanse that it could happen for a character in D&D.
- Tigrius
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
deathchild
Extreme Poster
Last On: 08/05/09
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 534
|
Oh and, unless you are going to start your character at the age of 6, you character has already done the deeds that have defined his alignment up to this point. This is why you must pick an alignment.
on Oct 23, 2004, 3:26 PM, deathchild wrote:on Aug 25, 2004, 1:20 PM, Tigrius
wrote:So, once starting a game - you should actually go so far, to not have any alignment at all (or true neutral).. and then as youre character grows, acts, his alignment should take hits accordingly.. which also is in reallife..
This is imo the way the alignment system should work at any time....
- Tigrius |
|
I like this idea, but the way it works currently is you are supposed to pick an alignment and follow it. If you commit any acts outside your alignment you alignment moves toward another direction. This is the DM's job. So the aforementioned bankrupt paladin would have committed an evil act, but only that once and out of what may be defined as neccessity (to a point). So his alignment would move a few points toward evil. If he continued to perform evil acts he would become evil. It would be possible for him to perform penance for his evil act (depending on his diety) and correct his alignment in the case of one-time or minor transgressions. again this is the DM's job. Have you considered reading the AD&D Dungeonmasters guide. I highly recommend it. |
|
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
deathchild
Extreme Poster
Last On: 08/05/09
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 534
|
Of course there is the ages old problem of defining good and evil. Apparently most of us classify a race of creatures that hunts and eats almost all others to the point of extinction and pollutes and rapes a planet as good. I suppose that is just because we all belong to that particular race. Following along this train of thought, how can you classify the Drow as evil. This is all that they do, attempt to make their race the dominant species. This is apparently good, since that is what the human race does. It is a survival instinct. Can ingrained instincts be classified as evil. The purely good character would say "I do not need to exist if it harms any living creature". But this is not always possible since we all would eat the closest person to us if we starved long enough. I suppose we could allow them to eat us, but only if we did so before we starved long enough and if we did not hang on to this thing we call "hope" in a hopeless situation. this brings us back to motivation. I ate him because I was starving to death and could not control myself is not a motivated evil act. But how do you classify instincts.
|
| « Last Edit: on: Oct 23, 2004, 3:59PM » |
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Decider
Forum God
Last On: 09/22/11
View Profile
Message Player
United Kingdom
Posts: 1135
|
I'd say that good and evil are purely in the character's mind... A character that always does what he/she thinks is the 'right' thing to do will be a 'Good' character, even if they are misguided. Similarly, An evil character needs... Motive. Guilt. there is nothing evil about a predator, yet it kills other creatures. To me, intent is how these things are defined.
Taking the assassin example... Well, if you trusted the person paying you to know who deserved to live or die, would their death be an evil act? to say that an assassin kills indiscriminately is a misnomer... It is a profession, and in any profession a craftman will follow a set code of ethics. Not all weaponsmiths would hand a blade to a foaming sociopath covered in blood, despie their job being to make and sell weapons.
Of course, this could just be because I'm reading the assassin's quest books by Robin Hobb... Which to my mind starts off with a very decent portrayal of a good assassin.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Mistersunshine
Newbie Poster
Last On: 11/09/07
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 5
|
All right, I am NOT going to touch the "what is good?" and "what is evil?" issue, or really address alignment at all. It's too big a can of worms. I will say that in terms of the SKILLS LEARNED for the "assassin" class versus other classes, there is really nothing that has anything to do with alignment except in the most arbitrary and ridiculously contrived way.
I perform a Death Attack on someone, what am I doing? Essentially placing a highly precise strike into a vulnerable, vital area, perhaps a special pressure point or an unprotected vital organ or a major artery or something. I'm killing someone, by use of a certain VERY EFFICIENT technique. That's all. I'm not doing anything especially "evil".
A fighter, or cleric, or paladin is killing the same person, but s/he's doing it by repeatedly bashing them on the skull with a large, heavy metal object until bodily function cannot continue. The result is still death, but somehow this TECHNIQUE is less "evil" than the Death Attack. That's patently absurd. If anything, the "warrior's" way of killing causes MORE suffering than the comparatively-humane Death Attack.
IF you were absolutely going to be killed, would you rather be killed swiftly, with a single precise strike that ended your life more or less instantly, or would you rather be bashed or hacked up painfully for a while until the cumulative trauma caused your body to just give up the struggle? Cut the games. There's a reason we do executions the way we do. It's supposed to be less cruel.
So, since the "heroes" are running around killing all sorts of "bad guys", but they're doing it in the incomprehensibly-defined-as-"good" manner of repeated bashing/hacking, instead of the swift-and-comparatively-painless-death method of the "evil assassin", THEY are morally justified, while s/he (the assassin) is NOT. How does this even remotely make sense?
Could or could not a person learn the skills of the assassin with the specific intent to use those skills as a more efficient METHOD of combating evil, in the exact same way that fighters/paladins combat evil? Instead of training for hours and years to learn how to really bash/hack the crap out of people and thus combat evil, why couldn't someone train for hours and years to learn how to dispatch evildoers in a much swifter and more efficient manner?
Real-world pseudo-example:
(Disclaimer: For this example, we must at least PRETEND for a moment that the U.S. Government and its various military, intelligence, and law enforcement assets are, factually, "the good guys". Whether or not that's true has nothing to do with the example, and we really needn't discuss it here.)
Don't we have trained snipers and "special ops" people who are, in some sense, trained assassins? I mean, come on. You know there are CIA and Delta Force guys who essentially have levels in the assassin class, based on SKILL SET. They're not fighter/rogues, they're assassins. They're trained in exactly how and where to stab/punch/shoot someone to kill (or paralyze) them instantly, and how to sneak up on someone to do it. (Also, whether or not real-world people have the actual skill to do a "Death Attack" is not the issue here, either.) But the point is, they receive this training (theoretically) so that they can use it to advance the cause of "good" and eliminate "bad guys". Yes?
The answer to this is that D&D is (and has ALWAYS been) based on archetypes, not on real people. The system is not about making "real characters" as such, but about making fantasy archetypes. As a roleplayer, you can inject as much characterization and realism into your character as you wish, but the game mechanics themselves are intentionally somewhat pigeonholing in nature. I mean, who else remembers when "Elf" and "Dwarf" were CLASSES? *laughs*
In a REAL "fantasy" world, anyone could learn any skills, any feats, and the learning of such would not have any INHERENT connection to alignment/morality. But D&D is not intended to simulate a "real" world. In the classical fantasy-archetypes scheme of D&D, the "good guys" simply don't assassinate people, use poison, or cast necromantic spells. That goes back all the way to the origins of this game, and despite the fact that the game has become more liberal as time has gone on, a lot of those attitudes still exist within the game. I suspect they always will.
Personally, I dislike it, because I can completely see "good assassins" for the reasons I outlined above. But that's part of D&D, and I accept it as such. If we sit here and nitpick every aspect of the game or the system that we find unrealistic, we'll have to make ourselves a whole new game. And ultimately, you just can't make any RPG totally realistic. The more effort you make to do so, in my experience, the more the game gets bogged down in minutiae and the less fun it becomes.
Just my opinion.
Josiah
P.S. Note, I'm only addressing whether or not a "Death Attack" is inherently "good" or "evil", not issues of HONOR. Certainly, you could say that Death Attacks and stealth-killing tactics are not "HONORABLE", and thus prohibit paladins and other such honor-based characters from learning/using them. That's very reasonable. But to label such methods inherently "EVIL" while giving the big righteous thumbs up to repeated bashing/hacking with maces and swords is just silly.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a good job not everyone is as bad at explaining things as I am some days. Rofelli, is there any chance of you posting/PMing me your take on each of the different alignments please? It would be much appreciated.