3E, Assasin, am I going to hell?

[Vralkie]

How can I put this... I'd like to take some levels of assasin in 3E (FR) but I'm not evil and don't see an evil concept as working for him. Aust is more of the cold, calculated, hunter of evil. He's an anti-hero, the kind that you like, the kind that works for the greater good.... Oh, and the paladin would eviscerate him in a secondl...

[Cash]

How can I put this... I'd like to take some levels of assasin in 3E (FR) but I'm not evil and don't see an evil concept as working for him.

Suck the pain and take rogue levels.

What classes/levels is he running?

[Cazmonster]

How can I put this... I'd like to take some levels of assasin in 3E (FR) but I'm not evil and don't see an evil concept as working for him. Aust is more of the cold, calculated, hunter of evil. He's an anti-hero, the kind that you like, the kind that works for the greater good.... Oh, and the paladin would eviscerate him in a secondl...

If the paladin would eviscerate you in a second, you're evil, even if you happen to have an alignment that says different.

Since you've embraced the dark side, take the assassin levels and hope like hell to never be in the Paladin's detect evil area.

If you're actually working on doing the greater good, take the ghostwalker class and get some real attack bonus points.

[MooCow]

Well I've always felt there is no reason an assasin had to be evil. Sometimes good needs assasins. TSR/WOTC can suck my nuts if they disagree with me.

That said, there is precedent in the Forgotten Realms for non-evil assasins. In Al-Qadim, they had assasins called "Holy Slayers". These were religious assasins that were not neccesarily evil. However, they could only assasinate in the cause of the church.

I don't know if that helps any or not. But there it is.

[Anguirel]

The idea of that particular kind of assassin is one who takes money to kill others, which in the D&D universe is itself an evil act. What in particular about the Assassin class is drawing you in character (i.e. in the description, not the powers available). How are you learning the powers included? If you can find a way to learn them outside an assassin's guild, as a GM I might allow it (possibly with some alterations to the class to fit the new focus).

Additionally, there are similar prestige classes available that don't require evilness. Look at Shadowdancers, Arcane Tricksters, various types of archer classes, and my favorite: the divine harrier. In the case of the Holy Assassins, I'd ask about writing up a new prestige class with the GM that uses divine spells rather than arcane ones and fits the church ethos to which it is attached.

[FlakJacket]

The idea of that particular kind of assassin is one who takes money to kill others, which in the D&D universe is itself an evil act.

Having only ever browsed D&D, is it really that black and white? What if you limited yourself to only offing the bad guys?

[MooCow]

Having only ever browsed D&D, is it really that black and white? What if you limited yourself to only offing the bad guys?

Well I think that's kinda what Anguirel was getting at. The D&D class Assassin is by definition someone who takes money to kill. It's assumed in the class the person is a member of the Assassins guild, which is where they learned their trade.

For what it's worth, here is dictionary.com's definition...

as·sas·sin
n.
1. One who murders by surprise attack, especially one who carries out a plot to kill a prominent person.
2. A member of a secret order of Muslims who terrorized and killed Christian Crusaders and others.
3. A hired Murderer

Going by this deffinition, I see no reason you couldn't have a non-evil assassin. If someone insists change the name, but keep the basic structure of the class. As Ang mentioned, you would just have to explain how you learned the skills outside the Guild. I'd go with being a former CIA op...

[Eliahad]

Ahem...Murderer? Aren't they by almost all religious designations, evil?

[Salvation122]

"Lord, you have seen my actions; now, judge my cause."

No, I don't necessarily think so, Eliahad.

[MooCow]

I should have specified going by the 1st or 2nd definition. Each of those deffinitions fits for different circumstances. The 3rd deffinition is the one that is used for the "official" class.

[Salvation122]

How can I put this... I'd like to take some levels of assasin in 3E (FR) but I'm not evil and don't see an evil concept as working for him. Aust is more of the cold, calculated, hunter of evil. He's an anti-hero, the kind that you like, the kind that works for the greater good.... Oh, and the paladin would eviscerate him in a secondl...

If the paladin would eviscerate you in a second, you're evil, even if you happen to have an alignment that says different.

Not necessarilly. A Chaotic Good character could do some genuinely good things that would really piss off a Paladin. If you're poisoning a tyrant to free the oppressed serfs under his control, is it really evil?

To a Paladin - and any Lawful Good character, really - the method is as important as the cause. The ends do not justify dishonorable deeds.

[Cazmonster]

If the paladin would eviscerate you in a second, you're evil, even if you happen to have an alignment that says different.

Not necessarilly. A Chaotic Good character could do some genuinely good things that would really piss off a Paladin. If you're poisoning a tyrant to free the oppressed serfs under his control, is it really evil?

To a Paladin - and any Lawful Good character, really - the method is as important as the cause. The ends do not justify dishonorable deeds.

Okay, I'm confused, wouldn't poisoning be an evil act, and thus outside the scope of Chaotic Good? Also, Paladins would be on the front ranks of fighting tyrants, it's part and parcel to what they do.

[MooCow]

Okay, I'm confused, wouldn't poisoning be an evil act, and thus outside the scope of Chaotic Good?

No. If one had to classify it, I would think it would fall under Chaotic. Poison is not evil, it's an inanimate object. What determins if it is evil is the reasons for using the poison. In above example, the poison is being used towards the greater good. If you were poisoning a benevolent ruler, then it would be an evil act.

At least that's my call. Feel free to disagree.

[Salvation122]

The nature of an act, to me, has nothing to do with whether it's good or evil. That's covered entirely in the motive for it. I don't actually know if D&D considers poisoning an evil act, but I've always pictured Chaotic Good as someone to whom "good ends justify any means" is a personal creedo.

And while Paladins would certainly be in the forefront of fighting tyrants, they would attempt first to do it through diplomacy and then by raising an organized revolution against the tyrant. They'd never consider assasinating him, and probably would resort to honorable personal combat with the tyrant only as a last resort.

The question then becomes "is an evil act for a good cause good?" which delves into digressions on morality and ethics better suited for SST.

[Jestyr]

Well I've always felt there is no reason an assasin had to be evil. Sometimes good needs assasins.

Damn straight. Scenario: it's wartime. You can get a whole bunch of soldiers killed - on your side and the other guy's - trying to fight normally. Or you can send in an assassin to kill the other side's commanders or political leaders, who would be viable targets in the war anyway (especially in a world without the Geneva Convention). Same end result, just a lot less civilian and military casualties on both sides. That's hardly evil, unless you count every soldier as being evil, too.

and my favorite: the divine harrier.

I read this as 'divine hamster'. I need new glasses.

Having only ever browsed D&D, is it really that black and white?

When it comes to alignment, yes. It's childishly moralistic, really.

Ahem...Murderer? Aren't they by almost all religious designations, evil?

It depends how you define murder, but I'd say certainly not.

The nature of an act, to me, has nothing to do with whether it's good or evil. That's covered entirely in the motive for it.

and

The question then becomes "is an evil act for a good cause good?"

Well, you just said that the motive defines the morality of the act. So an evil act is only evil *because* the motive is evil, not in and of itself, according to your own definition.

[/SST]

I, for one, loathe the (A)D&D alignment system. I think it's stupid and inaccurate. I'm less familiar with the 3E incarnation, but the previous versions seem pointlessly moralistic - possibly to try and counter the 'RPGs are Evil' idea in the community.

The definitions of evil, particularly, piss me off. Under those definitions, a hell of a lot of the people I know are evil, yet they manage to have functional human relationships. They love, they have friends, they're perfectly normal - they're just selfish and looking out for number one, in matters concerning the average joe. They're not altruistic just for the sake of it. Hell, by that definition half the SST posters are evil.

Yet D&D would have you believe that Evil People are all untrustworthy maniacs who will stab you in the back sooner or later if you deal with them. Which just flat out isn't true.

The only real way to be Good in D&D is to be generous and altruistic, even at cost to yourself, even with people you don't know and who don't "matter" to you. Maybe I have a low opinion of human nature, but: People aren't like that. If human nature was like that, Mother Teresa would have been just one of the crowd, instead of something remarkable.

Which leads me to think that just about every ordinary joe in D&D should be verging on evil. Not the mad, cackling, I'm-going-to-take-over-the-world kind of Evil, but just the quietly selfish me-first evil that almost everyone in the real world exhibits.

A Detect Evil spell should, effectively, be useless, because almost everyone will show up on it.

Here endeth my rant about Why I Hate The Alignment System.

[Cazmonster]

Which leads me to think that just about every ordinary joe in D&D should be verging on evil. Not the mad, cackling, I'm-going-to-take-over-the-world kind of Evil, but just the quietly selfish me-first evil that almost everyone in the real world exhibits.

Verging on evil, like say, perhaps... neutral?

[Cash]

and my favorite: the divine harrier.

I read this as 'divine hamster'. I need new glasses.

The Holy Harley?

The definitions of evil, particularly, piss me off. Under those definitions, a hell of a lot of the people I know are evil, yet they manage to have functional human relationships. They love, they have friends, they're perfectly normal - they're just selfish and looking out for number one, in matters concerning the average joe. They're not altruistic just for the sake of it. Hell, by that definition half the SST posters are evil.

Apathy is True Neutral.

The only real way to be Good in D&D is to be generous and altruistic, even at cost to yourself, even with people you don't know and who don't "matter" to you. Maybe I have a low opinion of human nature, but: People aren't like that. If human nature was like that, Mother Teresa would have been just one of the crowd, instead of something remarkable.

You don't have to be a do-gooder to be Good. My group views a Good aligned person as likely to help a person (in what ever means is appropriate for them). Although our cleric has been testing that tenant lately. "I need healing (at 2 hp)!" "No. I have to save them for myself." Chaotic Good my ass.

Verging on evil, like say, perhaps... neutral?

Apathy is True Neutral.

And yes, the D&D alignment system does suck. But it also helps. How many "remorseless lone wolfs done wrong by the system but trying to do right" do we see in Shadowrun? Gah. It could be worse. It could be the Palladium alignment system. Or the Palladium system in general.

The question then becomes "is an evil act for a good cause good?" which delves into digressions on morality and ethics better suited for SST.

That makes for some great games though. (spot the guy playing the paladin...)

For example, We're clearing out a dungeon and come across a Trogledyte lair. the med get killed. We go in and it's a few females, old trogs, and kids. What do you do? (I was still deciding how to play my paladin so I went in swinging. "They're evil!!")

Doing a task for a powerful evil dragon to remove a lesser evil that your group could deal with. Attacking the Dragon would result in new characters.

Having to sneak the "evil" Drow PC through the town. The LG Paladin and LN Cleric didn't have access to our spells for a week because of that misadventure.

A good sized Blue Dragon rules the land with a harsh hand...but the populace doesn't seem to mind and they're not evil. What does the paladin support? The good side (remove the evil) or the Lawful side (support the duly recognized authority). My DM's can be real dicks sometimes.

Since you've embraced the dark side, take the assassin levels and hope like hell to never be in the Paladin's detect evil area.

I want to be there when the Paladin does detect the PC. I always used my Detect Evil like a sonar. *ping* There's evil around here. *ping* It's through that door. *ping* There's 4 of them.

[Salvation122]

Well, you just said that the motive defines the morality of the act. So an evil act is only evil *because* the motive is evil, not in and of itself, according to your own definition.

I caught that as I was proofing, but couldn't find a better way to rewrite it. Let's try this: if an act generally associated with evil - like, say, murder - is done for a good cause, is it evil?

Screw it, I'll start a thread in SST.

That makes for some great games though. (spot the guy playing the paladin...)

Completely agreed. I'm a paladin guy, too.

For example, We're clearing out a dungeon and come across a Trogledyte lair. the med get killed. We go in and it's a few females, old trogs, and kids. What do you do? (I was still deciding how to play my paladin so I went in swinging. "They're evil!!")

[CykoSpin]

Shit like this is why I'm developing a non-class system for D&D...

[Jestyr]

The only real way to be Good in D&D is to be generous and altruistic, even at cost to yourself, even with people you don't know and who don't "matter" to you. Maybe I have a low opinion of human nature, but: People aren't like that. If human nature was like that, Mother Teresa would have been just one of the crowd, instead of something remarkable.

You don't have to be a do-gooder to be Good. My group views a Good aligned person as likely to help a person (in what ever means is appropriate for them). Although our cleric has been testing that tenant lately. "I need healing (at 2 hp)!" "No. I have to save them for myself." Chaotic Good my ass.

How often do you see people giving money to panhandlers?

"Can you spare a dollar, buddy?" "Uh, sorry." *sidestep* (Which can easily be translated as "No. I have to save it for myself.")

Real people are *not* likely to help a person, if that person isn't in some way already connected with them, unless the plight is really stunningly awful and heart-string-tugging. Real people are, IMO, not Good.

And yes, the D&D alignment system does suck. But it also helps. How many "remorseless lone wolfs done wrong by the system but trying to do right" do we see in Shadowrun?

Valid point, but I don't think game mechanics should be a stick to enforce good roleplaying. If people will roleplay, they'll roleplay, regardless of the stick. If they're a twink, they'll find ways to twink around the alignment rules.

For example, We're clearing out a dungeon and come across a Trogledyte lair. the med get killed. We go in and it's a few females, old trogs, and kids. What do you do? (I was still deciding how to play my paladin so I went in swinging. "They're evil!!")

Seems fair enough. "They're evil murderous vermin, not sentient people deserving of warm fuzzy political correctness." Easy to make a case for that kind of attitude, on the part of the more militant Good people.

[paladin2019]

On the subject of assassins as a class in D&D, read the special requirement for the class. "must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins." Yep, that's evil. Like it really matters, the only abilities you gain over a rogue are death attack and poison use. Assassins don't even have Evasion.

D&D follows the Tolkien model of moral absolutes. Why is Boromir not a "good-guy?" Why does he therefore die? Because he is willing to do anything to protect Gondor. He does believe the end justifies the means. Good and evil in this system have nothing to do with what one believes.

And using poison is not evil in this system. Otherwise, the spell poison would have an "evil" descriptor.

[Psykoguy]

And let's not forget: As a paladin, killing people in the name of your god is considered good. Does that mean you can come accross a village of orks and slaughter them? Yes, so what if you don't notice them running, for all you know, they could be getting reinforcements. Sometimes Lawful Good can be damn evil

[Cash]

Psyko:: At the end of the day, it's just your character and your character's diety. Screw the other characters...they've been tainted by the evil in the world and you don't need to justify to them. (kidding!)

For example, We're clearing out a dungeon and come across a Trogledyte lair. the med get killed.

What the *hell* did I type???

(It was "The male Trogs get killed." Sometimes I think way ahead of my typing ability.)

"Can you spare a dollar, buddy?" "Uh, sorry." *sidestep* (Which can easily be translated as "No. I have to save it for myself.")

Real people are *not* likely to help a person, if that person isn't in some way already connected with them, unless the plight is really stunningly awful and heart-string-tugging. Real people are, IMO, not Good.

Amen. Hence why humans in the D&D world are generally Neutral.

For example, We're clearing out a dungeon and come across a Trogledyte lair. the med get killed. We go in and it's a few females, old trogs, and kids. What do you do? (I was still deciding how to play my paladin so I went in swinging. "They're evil!!")

Seems fair enough. "They're evil murderous vermin, not sentient people deserving of warm fuzzy political correctness." Easy to make a case for that kind of attitude, on the part of the more militant Good people.

In hindsight, I should have tried to convert them to good. My own personal army of good aligned creatures! *mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!*

[WillyGilligan]

So..what? You'd march throughout the village of Trogs passing out copies of the Watchtower?

Side note: you really have to have a proper blend of dm and players to make things like that work. I knew a guy who was obsessed with cannablism. Not that he wanted to eat people (I think....) but it was his hot button to try to wierd people out. In a d&d game I wasn't in, he presented a village of strange, almost ethereal creatures that the party had never seen before, but as they passed by a few windows, they saw that some of the creatures were cooking and eating some of the rest. So, the party (if I remember the guys involved, it was a dwarven battlerager and a drow ranger, because that's what they always played, so no paladin), screams cannibals and starts hacking the village to ribbons. Dm explains that these things are worth zero xp, but it doesn't deter them in the slightest. He's upset about this later when he's telling me the story, but I can't really fault them. He gave a scenario and they dealt with it in a believeable fashion. You don't give a moral decision without leaving in the possibility that they'll make a choice. Odd fellow.

[Vralkie]

well... He started out as a rogue Drow Thief/Ranger. I specialised him down to stealth, sneak attacks, and the ability to get anywhere, so pretty much a thief. Now, the reason that I think he needs assassin is because of the death attack ability. Where a fighter runs in, and hacks something to death, he would sneak up, take aim, and kill on the first shot before retreating again. It's not that he wants to kill. He wants to kill humanely. I've already given hime levels of wilderness lore for hunting, plenty of stealth for stalking, hamstring, and arterial attack. When he sneak attacks, he only has to hit once... Unfortunately, I'm fucked whenever he gets even moderately surrounded because we're 5th level and start out at 1st if he dies. 3 months down the drain...

[paladin2019]

Oh, dear God. Thief.

What a dreadful thing to call yourself.

Seriously, unless your DM says otherwise, there's two niggling little problems. First ya gotta find assassins to join, then ya gotta do that kill somebody thing. The second act is kinda, who am I kiddin?, is evil, given that you're gonna pick a fight for no other reason than self-aggrandizement.

"Well, yeah, turns out I just had to kill this orc chieftain who was terrorizing the kingdom to get into the Assassin's Guild."

"And killing someone was a requirement for joining?"

"Yeah. But it was an orc, I woulda killed 'im anyway."

"Did you know who it was before you accepted the job."

"No."

"So they said you gotta kill somebody for us before we let you in?"

"Yeah."

"And didn't tell you who until you agreed?"

"Yeah."

"And you agreed before they told who the target was?"

"Yeah."

<shrug>

[MooCow]

First ya gotta find assassins to join, then ya gotta do that kill somebody thing. The second act is kinda, who am I kiddin?, is evil, given that you're gonna pick a fight for no other reason than self-aggrandizement.

Bullshit. Somewhere there are "good" assasins. If your GM says no, please kill him because he is the stupidest motherfucker on the planet. Fact: The good guys have assasins. They always have, they always will. They aren't called assasins. We give them pretty names like "Counter Intelligence Operative". You know what that means in plain english? Assasin.

Now the thing is, these groups are probably even harder to join then the Assasins guild. I would presume that you can't just go up and say "Hey I want to join!". There are probably numerous tests you'd have to pass, just like there are numerous tests you have to pass to become a modern CIA agent. What kind of tests I'm not sure, cause I'm not gonna take the time to figure it out. That's your GM's job.

[paladin2019]

No argument about the good guys having assassins. That doesn't mean said assassins aren't evil. You're talking about a group of people who murder. On orders. Regardless of who.

Why is it murder? These individuals have made their intention clear prior to any assassination they carry out that they will perform the mission. No questions asked. Give me the target and consider it taken care of. This fits my definition of evil in the real world.

DnD operates on moral absolutes. Actions are evil, regardless of why they are performed. All assassinations are murder. Murder is an evil act. Hence, one who habitually performs it is evil.

I'm not saying it's wrong to play an evil character. But assassins are evil. It's actually a quite interesting character concept, one who doesn't consider himself evil. Most good "bad guys," and I'm not sure if the title is completely correct for a protagonist, don't consider themselves evil. And Vralkie's char, the rogue Drow, who tries to reject the inherent evil of Drow (I'm making an assumption about the term 'rogue' here) and ends up deluding himself (again, an assumption) into returning to it. They say bad people make good assassins but good people make the best assassins. He has his reasons and justifcations, won't admit to his evil, and must eventually make "the big choice." Continue doing what he's doing and let the life eat a hole in him or turn his back on the assassins, returning to a good alignment (and losing all class abilities except hit dice, attack bonus and saves because the evil alignment requirement is no longer met) and everything that entails. Knowing that all his previous abilities are there, waiting, all you have to do is embrace that black hole in your soul. C'mon, ya know ya wanna. Give in, we're waiting for you.

[Cazmonster]

well... He started out as a rogue Drow Thief/Ranger. I specialised him down to stealth, sneak attacks, and the ability to get anywhere, so pretty much a thief. Now, the reason that I think he needs assassin is because of the death attack ability. Where a fighter runs in, and hacks something to death, he would sneak up, take aim, and kill on the first shot before retreating again. It's not that he wants to kill. He wants to kill humanely. I've already given hime levels of wilderness lore for hunting, plenty of stealth for stalking, hamstring, and arterial attack. When he sneak attacks, he only has to hit once... Unfortunately, I'm fucked whenever he gets even moderately surrounded because we're 5th level and start out at 1st if he dies. 3 months down the drain...

Damn dude, if you needed to dish more damage from the get go, you should have said something. Once I get to my books, I can find half a dozen different ways for you to crank up bonus damage without having the "LOOK I'M FRIGGIN' EVIL" halo over your head.

[Cash]

High level rogue (for that sneak attack damage) and a ring of Blink. Enjoy!

[Cazmonster]

Or anything that gives you haste and a couple of the "while your opponent has no dex modifier to AC" feats from Song & Silence.

[Vralkie]

Figured it out, I'm going to go with the "master spy" class, or whatever it is, and then move to assassin. It makes sense for the character progression, and after talking it over with the GM, he's allowing me to take both classes, alternating levels of each. Don't have to be evil, but will be working for a council of elves. I should be able to go up through that progression pretty far, but I think I'll be moving over to outlaw of the crimson road to replace spy whenever he gets his first really immoral assignment...

As far as feats that he has, I picked up a feat that allows me to use his INT bonus instead of his CON for HP (INT 19, 20 at 4th level), and another that makes him akin with sun-elves due to some time in their teritory. Next is one that lets him ignore the drow racial problems with sunlight. At 9th level I'll be picking up the arterial attack, and 12th will be hamstring. I also might change one of them to 15th level to get expertise... Either way, plenty of skills (4/6/8 +5/level), plenty of HP, (1d6/10 + 5/ level) and all of his classes (except ranger) add sneak attack damage... Mmmm... 2 short sword sneak attacks with... He'll be level 7 with 2 levels of Ranger, 3 levels of Rogue, 1 level of spy, and 1 level of assassin... +4d6 sneak attack + 2 swords + death attack + Average of 67 HP... Yummy...