|
|
|
|
Author |
Topic: Assasin and Alignment (Read 669 times) |
|
deathchild
Extreme Poster
Last On: 08/05/09
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 534
|
on Oct 25, 2004, 10:43 AM, Decider wrote: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.
|
|
Many dictators thought they were right or doing right. Hitler for example.
I do tend to agree with the intent definition though I would say that it is dependant on the actual actions themselves to an extent.
on Oct 25, 2004, 10:43 AM, Decider wrote:
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.
|
|
I tend to agree here. Depending on whether the assassin is killing for anyone that hires regardless, or is in allegiance to a King he thinks is right would determine alignment. 
|
| « Last Edit: on: Oct 31, 2004, 5:50PM » |
 I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Gornt
Forum God
Last On: 06/09/11
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 758
|
A couple people have raised the argument in this thread that the perspective of the actor is a factor in assessing the rightness of an action. For example, Decider states that:
"I'd say that good and evil are purely in the character's mind"
His claim here is that individual motives determine the goodness or badness of an act. If you think you are doing good, you are doing good.
This is an example of moral relativism. The extension of this idea, as deathchild alludes to, is that there is no absolute good and evil. How can you judge my actions since the goodness of them is based on my individual perception and belief system? You can't, so the concept of good and bad as it applies to society is useless.
One wrinkle in this reasoning is god(s). God creates the absolute that says "no, this is wrong despite what you think". There are definitely gods in D&D. Ones whose presence the players typically have direct evidence of. These gods set right and wrong and by their associated portfolios, cast moral blankets over areas of behavior. There is a god of murder and he is evil.
Also, there is more to assassins than Death Attack. They also have access to spells that they cast. Not spell-like abilities, but spells, and they don't seem to be arcane. If you want to be a neutral or good sniper/assassin type working for a righteous Lord, killing people from hiding you can certainly be a rogue and do that. But to be an assassin you need special training as one and part of that involves submitting to the rule that you have to take money for killing arbitrarily.
If the argument is: there is no good and evil so anyone can be an assassin, there is good and evil. If the argument is: being an assassin isn't any morally different than other classes, that isn't true; other classes are not defined by an proposition that is patently evil. If the argument is: D&D's alignment system stinks, I would agree, but that doesn't mean we should be too quick to toss out the system. Alignment and race restrictions exist to help balance the game. In this case, I don't think making assassins evil is too big a consession.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Mulu
Forum God
Last On: 01/20/12
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 2438
|
on Aug 19, 2004, 1:11 PM, Syas wrote:| What seperates Good/Evil to me is Compassion. |
|
I think this is a very insightful observation. Obviously, a person who kills for profit alone lacks any appreciable compassion.
Having an outlook that doesn't value life isn't "neutral." In fact, it is the definition of a sociopath. Psychology is probably a better place to try to understand concepts of good and evil than philosophy, because psychologists actually have to work with and define people who are considered "evil" by society. In other words, it's a more practical definition; though if you really want to get into it, you need to look at the biological basis of prosocial behavior, a topic way beyond the scope of a gaming forum. 
*edit* Besides, when philosophers study something, they inevitably come to the conclusion that it doesn't exist. 
I agree with Rezk's earlier statement that for game purposes, its easier to just say, "its a game" and stick to simpler models or even ignore it entirely, but I also agree with other posters who said essentially that alignment complexities and moral dilemmas can make for some great rp situations. That's a choice that every DM should make for his/her campaign: How is alignment going to be treated?
I personally have never bought the "neutral means you do both good and evil, depending on which is gaining the upper hand" idea. Nobody acts that way, in RL or in fiction. Its just too strange of an outlook to be believable, even in the context of a game about dragons. A neutral person would prefer to have good-aligned people around, because they make better neighbors, but when that neighbor asks for help defeating their evil enemy, the neutral is likely as not going to say, "not today, I've got some personal matters to attend to." Thus, the neutral tends to not get involved. This isn't indifference to the outcome; the neutral may very well hope that his good neighbors beat his evil neighbors, because the evil neighbors keep dumping toxins into his water supply, and that's bad. But it isn't bad enough for him to take up arms over it. Or, as Treebeard puts it, "I am on no one's side, because nobody is on my side." He only really got angry with Saruman when it affected his trees.
A neutral adventurer would be primarily motivated by profit, or protecting Nature, or perhaps as an act of personal exploration (there are many possibilities), as opposed to a good adventurer who would be primarily motivated by a desire to bring evil to justice, or an evil adventurer who would be primarily motivated by a desire to gain power so as to be able to control others later, through intimidation or force. Evil always seems to plan the furthest ahead....
I understand what Hahnsoo is saying with his, "it's just a game stat" explanation, but I don't think you can totally ignore it and still be roleplaying in a manner that other gamers will accept, unless everyone in the campaign agrees to ignore alignment. I myself have often roleplayed a paladin as a sometimes cowardly and decietful individual. Some gamers loved it, others hated it. Because ultimately we are playing a game, it is important that the people playing that game have some understanding and hopefully agreement on how that game should operate, and this obviously includes alignment. Although other games don't use or need alignment (Traveller comes to mind), it is inextricably woven into the D&D paradigm. Using game definitions of the term "Assassin" isn't irrelevant. In fact, it's the whole point.
Back to the primary topic. Can an assassin be neutral or good aligned? Well, theoretically, if that assassin only kills evil persons/monsters. But then, as LB pointed out, it's not really an "Assassin" anymore, and the character can be built with rogue/fighter/monk/whatever levels instead. You could create your own Assassin class or PrC that includes all alignments, D&D encourages such "home rules," but for game purposes, unless you go through the effort of doing that, the Assassin PrC is evil. Within the context of an evil assassin there are still plenty of opportunities for interesting roleplay, though admittedly they probably don't have a place in a campaign based on teamwork and good deeds. You could do it, but it probably wouldn't be worth the effort.
Oh, and Grosse Point Blank and The Professional are two of my favorite movies too. I would say that both movies are about evil assassins who undergo an alignment shift to good. 
|
| « Last Edit: on: Nov 2, 2004, 5:22PM » |
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Tigrius
Extreme Poster
Last On: 08/30/11
View Profile
Message Player
Denmark
Posts: 524
|
Hmm.. i would like to correcct that last statement too:
Techinicly the Assasin PrC demands evil align.
A Assasin Char will normally be of evil align.
However, stating you can get the same results using any other class dont fit in... there some of the feats in the Assasin PrC, no other class can gain...
However, if we look at the assasin's feats - is would only a evil char use those? - no.. a good would also be using them... therefor we are back imo to the key point, to gain the assasin feats..
I already long ago after read some of the first posts in this topic, decided to make my char
Chaotic Good as character, but CE as Tecnical alignment..
The DM i played under had no problems with that, aslong as i could provide a backstory that could support a CG char to have(get) those feats..
Some ppl have argued, that Assasin once changing alignment, are no longer an assasin, and therefor cant get the feats.. i like to turn that around.. and instead claim... an assasin changing alignment are no longer a assasin. Period... can he/she still gain the feats ? - yes - IMO.. (techicly ofc not) - but playeble.. yes... does youre ability using a sword Decrease because you stop beeing a fighter? - no, you can still train with it.. dispete youre new class is now Druid (just a example) - so.. would it be liable to claim, that if you continue training with that sword, you would keep improving (gaining sword-feats) - despite youre no longer a Fighter... - in game, you cant.. more realisticly turned, yes you can...
Again, break down the feats.. does they demand a person to be a Assasin to learn them.. no.. Death attack - no as someone argumented earlier.. youre just better at ending someones life quick and painless... then pounding on them for 45 minutes with a big mace...
Uncanny dodge? - doubt that.. Spells? - since when did Ghostly visage depend on youre alignement? - Poison resist? - doubt that too...
So, why wouldnt a none-assasin, or FORMER assasin, still be able to gain the feats in the assasin class, dispete no longer playeble beeing an assasin ?
Nothing imo...
- Tigrius
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Gornt
Forum God
Last On: 06/09/11
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 758
|
In traditional D&D (and in some PWs) you don't just one day realize you suddenly know how to cast spells. Leveling requires you to get a higher-level person to teach you before you can advance. In the case of assassins, this is usually a guild member teaching you.
So, in those kinds of games when you change alignment presumably someone in the guild (or the monestary or the paladin order) notices and there is a cultural change that accompanies your alignment change. Usually this is roleplayed out and is often very dramatic.
That's the traditional reason you lose access to those abilities when your alignment changes. Sometimes DMs would give players that happened to a second chance or a lophole around it. Like you hear of another former assassin living in secret as a normal person and you have to find him and convince him to train you.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Mulu
Forum God
Last On: 01/20/12
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 2438
|
Well, this is a huge difference between NWN and PnP. In many PnP campaigns, you don't just "level up," *PING* like you do in NWN. You actually don't level until you go to a trainer, you have to pay for training, and that training may take weeks. In the meantime you may adventure and even cease gaining xp until you train and level. In the case of an assassin, that means training under another guild assassin. In the case of a fighter, it means another fighter, etc. As a result, class abilities are not just generic feats and skills available to anyone, they are restricted to professions and only available through apprenticeships. This is a more realistic approach, and has a great deal of historical support in various craftsmen and artisan professions. For a modern example, my old college roommate wanted to learn to play the banjo better, so he sought out a folk music icon and actually got trained by him over the course of a summer. That artist would not have trained just anybody, and in fact my old roommate had to prove himself worthy to be trained by essentially auditioning at length.
NWN is a computer game that doesn't incorporate such rules. Some people do incorporate a training system in NWN (Hahnsoo's Crimsonspire is an example), but most people don't bother. This is probably the source of confusion and conflict in this discussion. Many gamers with a PnP background still think of leveling up as requiring training, even if they don't actually do that training in game. It's what happens "off camera" when your character isn't adventuring, or in between sessions, or somesuch, and can be described in journal entries or just assumed.
So, an old PnP gamer who still thinks of leveling in terms of requiring training would reject the argument that an assassin can become "good" aligned and continue to advance in her profession, because that advancement would require training by a guild assassin. On the contrary, a new computer-only gamer wouldn't understand the need for training, after all leveling-up is just a matter of selecting your skills and feats, and therefore should be independant of such considerations as guild membership or training.
This again is a matter of choice for the DM. I've encountered very few (one) DM who requires in game training in NWN (the aforementioned Hahnsoo). The rest just treat leveling as the *PING* level-up game mechanic. If that computer game mechanic limits you to leveling in classes based on alignment, then that is the restriction, independant of such issues as guild membership or trainer availability.
I do remember reading a fantasy fiction book back in college about an assassin that I would say was of Neutral alignment. Can't remember the title or character name now, but it was a good book series. Comic books have a lot of "assassin" type characters that are in the hero category, like Electra Assassin. But those characters didn't belong to a death-worshipping cult (well, I think Electra may have, but she abandoned it). Then again, comic book characters tend to be a bit unrealistic for many gamers tastes.
If your DM has no problem with a chaotic good assassin (technically CE but played as CG), then that's really the end of the discussion. Makes me wonder what diety she will worship though.
*edit* There is an interesting issue in doing this (create as CE, play as CG). Obviously spells items and other effects that target alignment will have an unintended effect on this character. For example LB tends to equip his monsters with alot of weapons, especially arrows, that do extra damage to good alignments. Your character would obviously be immune to this type of DM balancing. And what happens when the party finds some uber-item that is restricted to use by evil only? Will your character pick it up and use it? At that point you would have a meta-gaming issue. Conversely, your character would not be able to use items useable only by the good-aligned.
Sounds like more trouble than its worth to me, but I hope you enjoy it!
|
| « Last Edit: on: Nov 2, 2004, 8:44PM » |
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Tigrius
Extreme Poster
Last On: 08/30/11
View Profile
Message Player
Denmark
Posts: 524
|
OFC, having 1 tech. alignment, and RP playing another will have some things to consider.. but.. seeing great RPers, - A Sorcerer comes in mind, thow he are able to rest, choose to RP not to rest.. (and he had basicly no spells left to cast) i dont see that as an restriction.. it gives some other hmm.. things to consider.. as u mentioned a uber-sword, only usuable by evil.. would my char use it ? - unless anyone else has uber-items, and she the only one missing - no.. it could be sold - and i wouldnt consider twice to do that... certainly, it would resctrict me from using GOOD-aligned weapons only - again.. RP..
I seen a very nice player once doing a RP of a Paladin - (not one of those rightous maniacs, but one that really had the feel for it) - refusing to change his main weapon (a Bastard sword) - despite we found better and better - from a RPed twist, that the sword he was using (was a +1 +1d4 Divine) - had been his fathers, and given in honor... THATS RP.. we found a +3 1d10 Fire, we found all sorts of great sword, but he refused to use them... i dont see my char not weilding a "uber"weapon of evil, much different... it comes down to RP aswell, and how far youre willing to go.. if the DM can and will accept my character, then i would also hope he/she would make sure that some weapons either wasnt alignment restricted, or that i got something similar which i could use..
OFC alot is up to the DM - how far will he/she goes to support his/her players.. but i think most of the real good DMs, arent "locked" into a certain belief, but works out from a context of "the most importent for me is the players" (to qoute Sparky1479) - and, aslong as i can RP my CG character, then i doubt that any of the good DMs wouldnt support me, by making sure that some weapons was usuable by my char.
For my char's story, goes an extended learning from her mother, in the art of assasination... as many other things, you may first remember, and start using them later in life.. we all learn to run a bicykle.. when we get old enough, we get a car.. does that mean, that after 10 years using a car, we no longer can remember how to bicycle, perhaps become even better then we was the day we stopped with it ? - no - you can always exhile into becoming even better... you can rightfully claim that such a act - assasination, would take longer, then someone still in a assasin guild, which i would agree with, but saying that you no longer can evolve in a certain skill, just because youre no member of whatever cult/organisation etc.. makes no sense, when you compare with RL...
- Tigrius
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
Mulu
Forum God
Last On: 01/20/12
View Profile
Message Player
United States
Posts: 2438
|
on Nov 2, 2004, 0:52 AM, Mulu wrote:| Within the context of an evil assassin there are still plenty of opportunities for interesting roleplay, though admittedly they probably don't have a place in a campaign based on teamwork and good deeds. You could do it, but it probably wouldn't be worth the effort. |
|
I'm going to take back this statement. I was discussing WWII with a friend, and was reminded that the FBI cooperated with the mafia to eliminate Nazi spies from the shipyards and docks on the East coast.
The FBI would give the mafia the identity of an individual strongly suspected to be a spy, and then that person would... disappear. There was also alot of work done by the Sicilian mafia against fascism, at the behest of the American mafia, specifically that of Charles "Lucky" Luciano, the most powerful of mafia dons and founder of Murder Inc. Congress later awarded Luciano the Congressional Medal of Honor for acts of exceptional patriotism during wartime.
Comic books do this alot too, where a villan and a hero will team up to overcome a greater, more dangerous foe. I can remember Dr. Doom in particular teaming up with both Iron Man and Spiderman on different occasions.
So, in a campaign based on otherwise good-aligned PC's, an assassin could work, if the assassin's guild felt it was in their best interests to field one of their members into the team to overcome a greater threat. It would be especially interesting if the Assassin had access to knowledge the other party members didn't.
|
|
I.P. Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
|
