Any Evil?

[DoctorHobo]

The requirements for the Assassin prestige class baffle me. What about the class require an evil approach to life? Disguise 4, Hide 8, and Move Silently 8 can be met easily by a rogue or ranger rather quickly, and the class itself is almost so clearly an extension of the rogue class that it makes me wonder why they don't demand all rogues be evil as well.

Sneak Attack: Using the words from the book here, "This is exactly like the rogue ability of the same name." Clearly the act of sneaking behind a foe and striking while unseen (or striking someone from behind while someone else is attacking their front) is not evil in and of itself, or else rogues would have to be evil to learn it.

Death Attack: An obvious upgrade to the sneak attack. Don't let the ominous (and pretty awesome) name fool you, if anything this attack is less evil than a sneak attack. Assume you hit with a sneak attack. What happens? "Ow! Who stabbed my bum?!" followed by combat, where the rogue will send its blades (or what have you) into the Sneak Attackee many more times before killing them. In the event of a Death Attack, they could be down in a single attack, suffering at a minimum.

Poison Use: Do only evil people use poisons? Can a poison not be slipped into the drink of an evil dictator? Is it far more righteous and pure to find said evil dictator and beat him to death with a sword?

Spells: The description in the DMG refers to their spells as "the dark arts," so I might could see where they were going here. That is, until remembering that one can be a Necromancer or even a cleric of an evil deity and still be neutral.

Save Bonus against Poison: A natural product of handling poisons often would be the increased aptitude in doing so. Not evil.

Uncanny Dodge: Another rogue ability, but one that is even less objectionable than sneak attack. Certainly nothing is evil about being uncannily reactive.

Improved Uncanny Dodge: Ditto.

Hide in Plain Sight: A ranger ability this time. Perhaps as a Supernatural ability, its source is the same "black magic" as his spells, but that would hardly necessitate evil.

I can see no reason to require an assassin be evil, because what an assassin essentially is, is a rogue (as many of them undoubtedly start as one) who can use spells and is skilled in the use of poison.

Don't get me started on how much the special requirement confuses me.
Special: The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.

"The assassins?" Not "The Assassins"? Is it not a proper group, then? I can only assume that you have to be evil because the blending of rogue and ranger skills, along with the (apparently very complex) use of potions is such a complicated feat that is must be taught in a proper academy, even if it doesn't warrant a proper noun. Surely an evil academy, and the only one of its kind, nestled perhaps in the mountains of Mordor and constructed from orphan bones.

[Starbuck_II]

The requirements for the Assassin prestige class baffle me. What about the class require an evil approach to life? Disguise 4, Hide 8, and Move Silently 8 can be met easily by a rogue or ranger rather quickly, and the class itself is almost so clearly an extension of the rogue class that it makes me wonder why they don't demand all rogues be evil as well.Don't get me started on how much the special requirement confuses me.
Special: The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.

"The assassins?" Not "The Assassins"? Is it not a proper group, then? I can only assume that you have to be evil because the blending of rogue and ranger skills, along with the (apparently very complex) use of potions is such a complicated feat that is must be taught in a proper academy, even if it doesn't warrant a proper noun. Surely an evil academy, and the only one of its kind, nestled perhaps in the mountains of Mordor and constructed from orphan bones.

The assassins should be captialized, but still that is why it is evil.
I perfer the Avenger: Any lawful version Assassin.

[AslanCross]

I think the mere fact that you basically hire yourself out to murder a person of any allegiance whatsoever (even your best friends) is considered evil in D&D's default alignment system. It's not the sneakiness that makes it evil, it's the "Will murder for cash" that does.

The prestige classes in the DMG are often assumed to be associated with organizations. In this case, it's an assassins' guild.


I think it's easy enough to adapt the class for a particular cause (see: Slayer of Domiel in the BoED) or even better, is aligned with an organization without really requiring an alignment (See: Ruby Knight Vindicator).

[Curious]

I think the general thought behind it was that most assassins were not adventurers, but contract killers, which could be easily construed as requiring an evil alignment. Personally, I always treat that 'evil' requirement as 'not good', allowing for neutral characters to at least try it out.

[Mikeavelli]

The idea was to make it specific enough to give direction to the class, but vague enough to be able to fit into any given campaign world.

The "Any Evil" is indeed justified by the requirement to kill someone for the sole purpose of joining the group that gives the character their training. This is most definitely an evil act, so yeah.

Feel free to do away with one or both requirements in your own game.

This has been debated several times on these very forums, never really coming to more of a conclusion than that.

[KillianHawkeye]

Using poison is also Evil in D&D. But yeah, the real reason is the fact that Assassins are hired killers, something the designers felt that no non-Evil person would ever be.

[Rixx]

Murdering people for money isn't really a morally debatable issue.

[Dienekes]

Murdering people for money isn't really a morally debatable issue.

You'd be surprised. Alignment debates can get... interesting.

[Trekkin]

Murdering people for money isn't really a morally debatable issue.

Does that mean mercenaries and adventurers are necessarily evil too? Assuming sufficiently intelligent targets, they're both murdering for money--the mercenaries are hired to kill the enemy and the adventurers quest, sometimes against sentient beings, for monetary reward.

I've always wondered about this.

[TheCountAlucard]

Using poison is also Evil in D&D.

Outside the Book of Exalted Deeds ("poisonz are bad, here are sum gud poisonz!" ), where does it say that?

[KillianHawkeye]

Hmm.... maybe not. I know that Paladins can't use poison, but looking at the Paladin Code reveals that poison falls under the dishonorable behavior clause. So... like any weapon, I guess it comes down to how you use it.

[TheCountAlucard]

Hmm.... maybe not.

Thanks, was just making sure I hadn't missed something.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

In AD&D, there was a thieves and assassins guild that every single assassin in the world belonged to. Seriously. The rates for killing people were standardized by level of target and level of assassin, you took over the worldwide assassin's guild at the max level of assassin (and had to fight others to get there), thieves and assassins had their own language called Thieves' Cant, and so on. The guild was composed of evil people, therefore all assassins needed to be evil.

In 3e, they tried to carry this flavor over, but removed every single bit of guild-related flavor except the Special requirement--there are no rules for contracts, guild fees, or anything else that would justify said Special requirement. As it is, there is no reason at all for the assassin to have either the Alignment or Special requirements; you can remove them with no problem.

[AslanCross]

Does that mean mercenaries and adventurers are necessarily evil too? Assuming sufficiently intelligent targets, they're both murdering for money--the mercenaries are hired to kill the enemy and the adventurers quest, sometimes against sentient beings, for monetary reward.

I've always wondered about this.

I was thinking about this.

Mercenaries are hired to serve in an army. Killing, though likely, is an act committed by the mercenary against armed opponents who can fight back. A mercenary can fight until the enemy is routed and let the fleeing army go if it doesn't go against his orders. As with being a soldier, although killing is part of the mercenary's job, it is not the whole point. As such, being a mercenary is not necessarily evil, although pillaging a city and slaying innocent people might well be.

Adventurers have the whole hero thing going on, and as such are assumed to go after things that are also a threat to some society, be it a small hamlet or the entire Material Plane. They might have to kill, but if they don't want to they can find other ways to deal with the threat.

An assassin is hired to kill, period. The killing is of course premeditated, unprovoked, and often performed against a target who is typically unaware. The assassin is fine with slaying a priest of a goodly religion as well as an evil one, but he is certainly going to try his best to kill.

[true_shinken]

An assassin is hired to kill, period. The killing is of course premeditated, unprovoked, and often performed against a target who is typically unaware. The assassin is fine with slaying a priest of a goodly religion as well as an evil one, but he is certainly going to try his best to kill.

AslanCross hit it bullseye. This is so simple. I really can't see why people argue on this.

[Sploosh]

I perfer the Avenger: Any lawful version Assassin.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a

If Assassins weren't evil then this guy would be out of a job.

[SITB]

An assassin is hired to kill, period. The killing is of course premeditated, unprovoked, and often performed against a target who is typically unaware. The assassin is fine with slaying a priest of a goodly religion as well as an evil one, but he is certainly going to try his best to kill.

So an assassin hired to kill a dictator in order to arrange a coup where a more moral person takes his place is evil? Or an assassin murdering the leader of a war horde to make the horde fall into disarray is evil too?

[AslanCross]

So an assassin hired to kill a dictator in order to arrange a coup where a more moral person takes his place is evil? Or an assassin murdering the leader of a war horde to make the horde fall into disarray is evil too?

You're going into specific acts. I'm not talking about specific acts, but the general idea of the job. I did mention an assassin being willing to kill both evil people and decent people, but the idea is he kills people for money, and nothing else.

[Rion]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a

If Assassins weren't evil then this guy would be out of a job.

Considering the fact that none of the abilities are changed, that the picture is even a colour swapped version of the assassin's picture and that it was posted on April Fool's day, I always took it as example of how easily a class' fluff can changed without any needing any mechanical changes whatsoever.

[SITB]

You're going into specific acts. I'm not talking about specific acts, but the general idea of the job. I did mention an assassin being willing to kill both evil people and decent people, but the idea is he kills people for money, and nothing else.

But the alignment restriction is "Any evil" while I pointed out how killing someone is not necessarily so. so assassins do not have to be evil and the restriction makes mo sense without the fluff details that dropped when the editions changed.

And concerning the money, adventurers kill things for money too for "good" causes, assassins should be able too do the same.

[Bakkan]

I think it's a matter of what the Assassin is willing to do for money. If you go up to a typical group of Neutral- and Good-aligned adventurers and say "I'll pay you each a thousand gold pieces to kill the baron of this town. No, he's not oppressing the villagers, yes his rents are fair, and I think he donates money to orphans. But he stepped on my foot the other day and I want revenge," the group will refuse the job. The very fact that the Assassin is willing to take such a job is likely what caused the designers to consider the Assassin profession inherently evil. And if the Assassin weren't willing to do such a job, he wouldn't be an assassin; he'd be a mercenary or adventurer.

[AslanCross]

I already mentioned it earlier: Adventurers may kill things, but typically with good cause, unless one is running a party that is entirely concerned with killing intelligent life for profit, or the group's outlook is very cynical. At that point it would be very difficult to say that it is a good-aligned party just because they're adventurers.

Killing isn't the bad part, it's killing for profit that is, (putting another's right to life beneath one's desire to profit). An assassin who kills an evil dictator performed an act with a good result. Does it make him a better person than an assassin who doesn't? Maybe. Does he perform the act with a good result because he desires a good result? Up to the guy, but it's likely that he doesn't care. That's why he hires out his killing talents anyway. Does he kill the dictator on principle? Then he's only an assassin by the media definition of the term (He killed someone important).

My argument is not that all killing is wrong, because then even a paladin would be "Always Evil." My argument is that killing for profit as the primary motive is a seriously messed up idea, and is evil.

I'm not going to say any more on this.

[FelixG]

I think it's a matter of what the Assassin is willing to do for money. If you go up to a typical group of Neutral- and Good-aligned adventurers and say "I'll pay you each a thousand gold pieces to kill the baron of this town. No, he's not oppressing the villagers, yes his rents are fair, and I think he donates money to orphans. But he stepped on my foot the other day and I want revenge," the group will refuse the job. The very fact that the Assassin is willing to take such a job is likely what caused the designers to consider the Assassin profession inherently evil. And if the Assassin weren't willing to do such a job, he wouldn't be an assassin; he'd be a mercenary or adventurer.

It ultimately comes down to who is playing the assassin though.

Like anyone else he can pick and choose what jobs he takes. Sure MOST assassins will take the job and gut him, but just because most people do something doesn't mean a PC has to. A PC assassin could just as easily decide only to take jobs involving corrupt people.

There is already one big argument for this: Assassins Creed.

Though it may be of interest to note, you could be evil, take your levels in the Assassin PRC then have a change of heart and go good while keeping all of your abilities untouched.

I already mentioned it earlier: Adventurers may kill things, but typically with good cause, unless one is running a party that is entirely concerned with killing intelligent life for profit, or the group's outlook is very cynical. At that point it would be very difficult to say that it is a good-aligned party just because they're adventurers.

Past situation from another game: The adventurers hear about a tribe of lizard folk attacking a small villiage. They report to the area, the mayor offers them each 100 GP to go clear out the tribe to stop the raids as the lizardmen have killed 12 people so far.

The adventurers charge in and slaughter the raiding lizardfolk. Congrats! you are now all Evil!

The lizard folk were only defending their territory because the humans decided they wanted it for themselves so they could expand ant the lizards were in the way.

Moral of the story: The path to the 9 hells is paved with good intentions

[AyeGill]

I agree with the fact that if killing for profit as the primary motive is evil, then adventurers are evil too. Sure killing off those kobolds has the side effect of saving that hamlet, but the adventurers usually don't really care, they just want practice(XP) and loot. But then, i do consider most classical adventuring parties evil.

[Bakkan]

It ultimately comes down to who is playing the assassin though.

Like anyone else he can pick and choose what jobs he takes. Sure MOST assassins will take the job and gut him, but just because most people do something doesn't mean a PC has to. A PC assassin could just as easily decide only to take jobs involving corrupt people.

There is already one big argument for this: Assassins Creed.

Though it may be of interest to note, you could be evil, take your levels in the Assassin PRC then have a change of heart and go good while keeping all of your abilities untouched.

I actually agree with you in principle and if one of my players really wanted a character with sneakiness, Death Attack, and a little casting, they would likely get a refluffed version of the Assassin. There is nothing about the mechanics of the Assassin that would require him to be evil, as was very nicely explained in the OP. The fluff is what makes the Assassin an Evil Only prestige class.

As far as Assassin's Creed, I don't know much about it beyond a few previews, but if we were going to stat him out using all the standard D&D fluff, I would argue against using the actual Assassin class, just like I would argue against using a Ranger in statting out Aragorn.

[FelixG]

I actually agree with you in principle and if one of my players really wanted a character with sneakiness, Death Attack, and a little casting, they would likely get a refluffed version of the Assassin. There is nothing about the mechanics of the Assassin that would require him to be evil, as was very nicely explained in the OP. The fluff is what makes the Assassin an Evil Only prestige class.

As far as Assassin's Creed, I don't know much about it beyond a few previews, but if we were going to stat him out using all the standard D&D fluff, I would argue against using the actual Assassin class, just like I would argue against using a Ranger in statting out Aragorn.

You can actually stat Enzo (if I remember his name correctly) using the Assassin class from Pathfinder very very nicely (they get better death attack but no spellcasting)

[AyeGill]

You can actually stat Enzo (if I remember his name correctly) using the Assassin class from Pathfinder very very nicely (they get better death attack but no spellcasting)

Its Ezio. And i'd make him a Rogue/Psychic Warrior(lurk?) with leap attack and battle jump. Maybe throw in some warblade. Lets face it, he's not really about sneaking, and more about killing all the guards before they see him.

[SITB]

I think it's a matter of what the Assassin is willing to do for money. If you go up to a typical group of Neutral- and Good-aligned adventurers and say "I'll pay you each a thousand gold pieces to kill the baron of this town. No, he's not oppressing the villagers, yes his rents are fair, and I think he donates money to orphans. But he stepped on my foot the other day and I want revenge," the group will refuse the job. The very fact that the Assassin is willing to take such a job is likely what caused the designers to consider the Assassin profession inherently evil. And if the Assassin weren't willing to do such a job, he wouldn't be an assassin; he'd be a mercenary or adventurer.

So the assassins are always evil because each and every assassin is willing to consider every job that pays with no regards to each specific assassin belief and morals?

If you are arguing that if you interpret the prestige class "Assassin" this way is why assassin are considered evil than I concede the point. However, I think it's silly to hammer every assassin into the same narrow mold when the current fluff is so vague and the mechanical aspects (Apart from the initiation rite which according to PairO'Dice Lost is the remnant of previous edition fluff/mechanics that no longer exists) do not pigeonhole the assassin as evil.

TL;DR: The class mechanical benefits are not evil. The requirement to get into it is evil. There is no reason for it to be so.

[FelixG]

TL;DR: The class mechanical benefits are not evil. The requirement to get into it is evil. There is no reason for it to be so.

Not to mention that you dont loose them if you stop being evil like some other classes (paladin springs to mind)

[blackseven]

Most WotC PrCs came with background/story assumptions that can usually be safely modified (PrCs for Campaign Setting books might be less flexible.)

The Assassin in the DMG, in my opinion, can be reasonably extrapolated to belong to a group of like minded individuals who expressly kill for money. These individuals are also evil. The two statements do not have to be connected logically (although I think they are.)

Being an evil group of people, they demand an applicant to kill someone, presumably innocent, for no other purpose than to show your suitability for their group. Killing someone intentionally is generally evil without a good reason.

You are free to change the flavor of the class and the story assumptions behind it, as the Avenger class shows.

Debating the "morality" of assassination or assassins "in general" is really superfluous to debating the morality of the this specific Assassin PrC.