From Russ Taylor 
Thursday, August 12, 1999

<<WE ARE ALL VIRTUEOUS [sic] IN OUR OWN EYES
NO ONE thinks to himself "I am Evil". Not the unibomber, not terrorists,
NOBODY. We all do things for what WE consider to be the "right reasons".>> (from George Neocleous)

This strikes me as naive. (me too) Not everyone thinks they are good -- some will
do things simply because of self-interest, and not try to twist them into
being good.


<<Let's take a situation like the "Equalizer" television series. You live in a
lawful society, but you have witnessed someone rape and slaughter your
sister as you lay bound in a corner. Shortly after the deed, you are able to escape,
and the killer is brought to trial. However, he is let off on a technicality.
Would it be evil if you, having no fighting skills of your own, hired someone to
"carry out justice"?

I understand that some people might not agree with my definition, and you are
correct that such things might be more neutral good, but would a truly lawful
good individual let evil or go unpunished? Feel free to respond, but I'll
leave my own views at what I have stated, since we are steadily heading for the
dreaded "Eternal Alignment Debate". :-)>> (from Brian Rodgers)

It would be what I would classify as evil, or at the very least non-good
-- the action would remove you from the good axis, but not push you into
the solidly dark areas of the alignment axis.

It would, in all likelyhood [sic], be the first sign of a descent into evil. A
Lawful Good, by the way, would by definition attempt to pursue them
WITHIN the system. That's why Superman is lawful, but Batman, a violent
vigilante, is chaotic.

Russ Taylor (http://www.cmc.net/~rtaylor/)

***

From Dan Hagy
Thursday, August 12, 1999 

<<Actually, that me you're quoting, so I hope you don't mind if I respond. I don't
see lawful good that way. Let's say a lawful good king had a stonger neighboring
nation ruled by a lawful evil wizard, for instance. This wizard makes slaving
raids into said good king's territory, yet denies it officially. Spies have
reported to him that the populace of this wizard's nation are actually good
people who are simply deathly afraid of their lord. What are his options? Go to
war? Stand by while his people are kidnapped? Something else, like, oh, have him
assassinated by someone you know will probably will get the job done? If you are
that lawful good king in that situation, what do you do? To me, killing and
assassinating is not stooping to the level of "evil," so long as it's done for
"good." Then again, I wasn't particulary repulsed by what Machievelli wrote in
"The Prince," either. (Thank the Lord there's another one of us out there.);-)>> (from Brian Rodgers)


I personally don't feel a lawful good king would do it. It's more likely the king
would try to effect change within by helping a revolt or actively removing the evil
king and replacing him with someone hand pick. These are the types of things are
government has done. Saddam Husein being a good example, the US government won't
send in an assassin (which some people would like) but it has helped rebels who were
opposing him.

<<Let's take a situation like the "Equalizer" television series. You live in a
 lawful society, but you have witnessed someone rape and slaughter your sister as
 you lay bound in a corner. Shortly after the deed, you are able to escape, and
 the killer is brought to trial. However, he is let off on a technicality. Would
 it be evil if you, having no fighting skills of your own, hired someone to
 "carry out justice"?>>

I don't think so, but then again I've developed my own set of stiuational [sic] ethics. (That's like a variant on Nichomachean ethics, right? Stiuational ethics? Right? Eh...to Hell with you.)

<< I understand that some people might not agree with my definition, and you are
 correct that such things might be more neutral good, but would a truly lawful
 good individual let evil or go unpunished? Feel free to respond, but I'll leave
 my own views at what I have stated, since we are steadily heading for the
 dreaded "Eternal Alignment Debate". :-)>>

Maybe I shouldn't have commented but I couldn't help myself.

(I think our friend here Mr. Hagy is a wonderful example of a chaotic neutral person. He does what he thinks is most appropriate for his personal moral spectrum and modifies his ethical system as circumstances call for it, running his behavioral patterns more on the gut level than on a mental one. A classic case teleologically suspending the ethical. No judgments good or bad, just an observation about what I think a CN person would act like.)

***
From Russ Taylor

Hmm. Well, the US is hardly Lawful Good (Neutral Evil might be more
likely), but are you denying that we tried multiple times to assassinate
Fidel Castro? (referring to the previous message) 
***

Text and Context from Mad Hamish
August 13, 1999
( I try to avoid quoting from Mad Hamish because he tends to quote entire letters, and that makes it difficult to splice excerpts from him. I often with him, but he does have a tendency to say what everyone else has said, merely in a slightly better thought out (and more stand-offish) version. He has a LOT to say, so if you want to hear his particular views, e-mail him or subscribe to the list.)

<<James Bond?
this is an example of an highly trained assassin that is also an hero the assassin class is interesting and if you don't want it as PC option just say it, there could even be ''good'' assassin that take only really evil people as targets>> (from Fabio Milito Pagliara)

<<In 1st Ed. the assassin had to have an evil alignment, there is no room
for evil PC's in D&D. Firstly the 3rd ed assassin seems to be radically different from the 1st
edition version.>> (from Robert Hammer)

I can't remember whether it came from the 3rd ed FAQ, the chat with Keith
or the blurb for the new computer game but as I recall the assassin is
stated to have magic to aid them in stealth related tasks. Which is
somewhat different from the 1st ed assassin.

This means that the limitation to evil characters in first ed doesn't mean
anything in second ed.

There is not a real reason why an assassin would have to be evil. Consider
one who specialised in infiltrating orc strongholds and killing their
leaders (killing an orc in D&D is hardly an evil act now is it?) Or one who
sneaks in and kills some of the Red Wizards of Thay....
Secondly who says there isn't room for evil characters in AD&D?
One of my favourite AD&D characters was a NE fighter (with the assassin kit
from Dragon actually). I've seen other evil aligned characters who did
pretty well.

Not everyone can play an evil character well, or keep it within acceptable
bounds (i.e. I'd never have a PC commit some types of criminal offences)
but that doesn't mean that nobody can.

***

From Hagy-Weatherbee
Thursday, August 12, 1999 

Most of what I have read so far concerning assassins is alignment. Only evil would... so on. Well Get rid of good and evil, and the moral absolutism attached, and do selfless/selfish. You can accept a selfless assassin more readily than a good. Why? Good and evil are opposites. (It's a shame to see people who have good minds but aren't well read. It's a shame to see webmasters with good minds who are well-read who are so fabulously arrogant. Regardless, I state and state again: If you think about it, all evil is a variant on selfish pursuit.)You can not have one with out the other ( this is the whole premise for the Lucas flicks). They almost have no choice but to BE good or evil.

Where as you have more leeway the other two. A selfless person in the good kingdom would basically sacrifice hismself [sic] to assassinate the evil ruler of other kingdom. This would most likely mean he would never be recognized for this action, and who knows if the religious climate was just so, the priesthood would want him to kill the bad ruler... then force the selfless bugger into exile for doing such a thing. The selfish guy will kill whoever for whatever reasons ( mostly).

With good/evil, they archtypes. [sic] Good should never say: We have no choice but to kill the Big Smelly Cheese. For does that not make them like the person they are supposed to fight? With moral absolutism it is much easier to end up with no consequences for actions taken. All may be explained away, hell, even roleplayed away if the DM does not do some quick thinking and acting! How many DMs have had player paladins brand, torture, burn or other nasty things and come up with some really good excuses for the actions? If the paladins were SELFLESS, they should look at things from a 'would I want this done to me?' POV. Then give the bad boy a severe beating and make a mental note as to how much they will take before they REALLY deal with the culprit.

Ramble, ramble, ramble... Whether alignment, class crap or 'i jus' do not like assassins', SEE WHAT CAN BE DONE WITH IT!!! If nothing can be to your satisfaction... DO NOT USE IT!!! Let it be known you will not ALLOW its use, and that should be that.

***

From Richard Gant 
Friday, August 13, 1999 00:28:46 -0400

Well, there's evil and there's evil. One of my favorite characters was a
Drow Webdancer (home-grown Drow counterpart to the Elven Bladesinger)
named Morely Doates (after the character from The Garret Files) in a
all-Drow campaign set in Menzoberranzan. He was Neutral Evil, infallibly
polite, quite gallant, and an egocentric casual killer. Webdancing was
his art. He was good at it, and he enjoyed it.

On the other hand, stupid is stupid. And Sard's screed is just that.
Stupid and evil are a deadly combination, because you end up alone when
the good guys come for you.

Evil doesn't have to be Evil. It can just be maladjusted. Evil also
doesn't have to be stupid. It lives longer that way.

Richard Gant

***

From The God of Creation
Nealok@aol.com

<< James Bond?
This is an example of an highly trained assassin that is also an hero>> (still from Fabio)

Damn good example.

Still, the concept of a hero is defined by the society who approves him.
James Bond operates outside the bounds of laws and orders with a decided lack of ethics, or at least a teleological suspension of the ethical. (Nonetheless, the greater good of "her majesty" is pretty silly nowadays.) But we love him so. Does a hero have to be good? Goodness is the struggle for selflessness, I think. Classic Heroism is the outward pursuit of goodness for the benefit of the most people, to the most dramatic effect. But James Bond is certainly some type of hero in many ways-- right?-- so how do we categorize him?

Because I tend to be a goody-two-shoes when I run games (No E, no CN), I have to admit that talking about an assassin class makes me nervous. I half-agree with Doc Watson and half with Mad Hamish. I do think that Doc was getting anal about the assassin class subverting the more nefarious role of the existent classes. But on a flip side of his argument, naming a class "assassin" in 3e seems like the player would be psychologically inclined to fill out his PC's class role, even though it could be quite effective in non-wetwork roles. Also, I imagine that non-assassins would be less-inclined to do things that they would think are more designed for "another class," because players can be weird like that. 

There's a hell of a lot in a name. Think of certain epithets for minorities and homosexuals.

Also, for those of you who are so heavily endorsing evil in AD&D:
Never, ever, ever discount AMS. AMS prevented me from playing RPGs with my mom's knowledge for half of my gaming career. And a national AMS effort would seriously damage, I mean SERIOUSLY damage the RPG community (in the same way that it has made the RPG phenomenon an anomaly rather than a normal hobby). If my mom knew ever took a glance at Montreal by Night or Clanbook: Baali, she would burn my dorm to purge their influence in my life, even though I personally don't own either! And moms like mine (in that respect, at least...'cause otherwise my mom rules) are a dime a dozen. Never discount the role of Angry Mother Syndrome in the formation of game worlds.

There are pragmatic concerns in forming the game beyond maintaining the artistic integrity behind your cannibalistic pirate assassin who worships Baal (or whomever). The inclusion of an assassin class seems like a bold enough (and IMO foolish) step by WotC, but don't ask for them to underline the evil undertones of that class, 'cause it's asking for trouble. And if they decide to do it anyway...well...best of luck to them.

Oh, and don't get all defensive, evil-character players; I'm not calling you serial killers. I'm just bringing up a point that I haven't heard touched on this list.

Sorry for the long message. 
I'll try not to next time.
Maybe.

R. Thompson Plyler

***

From Alexandre Dupuis 
Friday, August 13, 1999 

It seems that a lot of heated debates are taking place right now on
whether an Assassin is Good or Bad. IMO anyone who kills for money is evil.
That would mean that the players who are hired to beat someone up or kill an
other race are, to an extent, evil. In real life however there's no
difference between good or bad only infinite shades of gray, some darker
that others.

The whole problem of the situation is in the alignment. In my campaign I
use alignment not to determine whether someone is good or bad, I use it to
determine the state of mind of the characters. It's the way that the
character perceives life in general. This means that a good character could
be just as annoying as an "evil" one but his perception of how life should
be lived and how the life of others should be respected restricts him of
certain actions that other would see unvirtuous.

Also I don't use the neutral alignment. It seems to me that there is
nothing as true neutral in life. Even when you don't take sides, you take a
side. This could also be debated; whether Neutral has a place in the 3rd
Edition. After all, how can someone be neutral when he sees his friends in
arms get slaughtered, if he doesn't do anything he's on the side of the
guys who are kicking there butt and if he defends he's on the side of his
friends. :)

Neutral should be replaced by selfishness. (I know that what I'm saying may
seem a bit like Palladium). After all someone who puts his sword for hire
HAS to be to an extent a bit selfish. I mean he's doing it for the money,
so it would make any difference to him whether he'd be on one side or the
other.

Feed back on this question would be appreciated.

- The only question that is left to answer is Do we know our selves as well
as we think we do?

-ALBREK

***

From Charles Bouchard 
Friday, August 13, 1999 

Strangely, I have run more games where my player group is insidiously
evil than not. I think D&D should always be written with this
possibility in mind. What long time Dragonlance gamer has not desired to
run a character much like Raistlin? Or Elric? Or even Fafhrd and the
Grey mouser? Who though admittedly not evil, has shall we say "loose
morals". If we can identify and enjoy these types of characters by
reading a book, why not through role-playing? As a GM who has cackled
madly with the insanely evil power of Vecna while slicing the players to
ribbons, I can definitely say it is a rewarding experience. And, If you
as a GM are not role-playing your villains this way, your missing out on
a lot of fun while your players are only receiving interaction with
watered down, cookie-cutter bad guys. Done properly, an evil campaign
need not disintegrate into the players killing each other. (Something to
watch out for to be sure). Take example from some of the modules out
there. There are plenty of evil groups that work together. In my current
campaign, the party is a group of adventurers lead by a priest who is
trying to bring about the return of his dead god, Myrkul. All of the
party may be evil, but they are all devoted to this goal (and enhancing
the groups, and not just their own, power).

So long as it's an enjoyable story and your players are having fun, why
not?

***

From Brian Rodgers
Friday, August 13, 1999

I know I'm going to regret doing this, since judgments alignment is so
subjective, but, what the hey. I'm not disputing anyone else's views on
alignment, but I would like to provide some food for thought, if you will

<< It seems that a lot of heated debates are taking place right now on
 wether an Assassin is Good or Bad. IMO anyone who kills for money is evil.
 That would mean that the players who are hired to beat someone up or kill an
 other race are, to an extent, evil.>> (from Alexandre Dupuis)

Even if that race/individual/group/etc. is undeniably evil and their continued
existence would mean more pain and suffering for the innocent? The way I see it,
a good assassin would be the guy who takes pay to kill, but only if the cause is
right and the target is evil. I don't see anything wrong with making a profit
while combating evil, whether it's by going into a dusty tomb and killing a lich
and plundering his treasures or taking money to, say, kill a powerful evil
being.

<< In real life however there's no
 difference between good or bad only infinite shades of gray, some darker
 that others.>>

I agree, but I try to reflect this, to a point, in my adventures.

<< The whole problem of the situation is in the alignment. In my campaign I
 use alignment not to determine wheter someone is good or bad, I use it to
 determine the state of mind of the characters. It's the way that the
 character perceves life in general. This means that a good character could
 be just as annoying as an "evil" one but his perception of how life should
 be lived and how the life of others should be respected restricts him of
 certain actions that other would see unvirtuous.>>

This is pretty much my approach as well, but you and I might have different
ideas as to what is "unvirtous." :-) A few people see alignments as a
straight-jacket, the primary determining factor in a characters personality. You
know -- they play all lawful good characters essentially as Dudley Do-Rights,
chaotic good characters as well-meaning but somewhat disorganized in their
personality, etc. To me, alignment is more of an undercurrent in a PC/NPC's
personality than it is a strict philosophy or defining characteristic.

For instance, in an earlier post, I made mention how I could see a lawful good
assassin in the hire of a good king beset by powerful, evil enemies. Of course,
a lawful good paladin who lives up to "The Chivalric Code," for instance, would
look upon the assassin as underhanded and without honor, but that is a function
not of alignment but of personality and, in game terms, class.

I've played a lawful good fighter before, and I had one munchkin ask me, "What's
the point? Why not be a paladin and get all those benefits?" Well, my fighter,
while respecting paladins, saw them as stodgy and TOO stringent in their
beliefs, and this fighter had a problem with his temper, thus making him an
unpromising candidate for paladinhood anyway.

So, yes, I'm sure many people will concur with you that there can be a wide
variety of personalities within the same alignment.

<< Also I don't use the neutral alignment. It seems to me that there is
nothing as true neatral in life. Even when you don't take sides, you take a
 side. This could also be debated; wether Neutral has a place in the 3rd
 Edition. Afther all, how can someone be neutral when he sees his friends in
 arms get slaughtered, if he doesn't do anything he's on the side of the
 guys who are kicking there butt and if he defends he's on the side of his
 friends. :)>>

Oh, I don't even want to start discussing the neutral alignments, since it seems
to be a particular sticking point with some people. I do see what you are
getting at, but, at this point, I'm worked out just what neutral alignments mean
to me. It would just be too much for me to try to explain and still sound
sensible, though. :-)

<< Neutral should be replaced by selfishness.(I know that what I'm saying may
seem a bit like Paladium). Afther all someone who puts his sword for hire
 HAS to be to an extent a bit selfish. I mean he's doing it for the money,
 so it would make any difference to him wether he'd be on one side or the
 other.>>

Some people would argue that being selfish equals evil. ;-) I wouldn't, because
I feel that most good characters are selfish ***to a point***, which is why I
have no problem seeing a good assassin make money killing off evil NPC's. Of
course, there are those paragons of good who always put concern for others above
their own self-interest, but I would see them as an exception among good beings.

Among other things, I see alignment as a continuum of "self-interest" rather
than a set definition. People who are so selfish that they don't care what it
takes to advance their own self-interest, that they ultimately don't care who
gets hurt, are evil, IMHO, but this is just the extreme end of evil.

Well, you have what I think, not that it's worth much. ;-)

Regards,
Brian Rodgers

***

From Sebastian Dietz 
Friday, August 13, 1999


several people wrote:

<<<<<<<discussion about assassin/not-assassin>>>>>>>

The discussion if there should be an assassin in 3rd ed is the same
discussion as the one in Ultima Online about player killers. Some kill
players just for the fun (I can't think of any fun in that, but some have
it), but some also play evil characters, who have their own code of honour
and are really characters. And the same it is with the assassin. Some will
play an assassin just because he can do backstab damage and hide in shadows
or something like that. But some will play an assassin, because they have
developed an interesting story for their character, and the assassin class
fits into this story. So I think it good to include classes like the
assassin into the core rules, just to add some spice to the game, like the
player killers add sometimes excitement to Ultima Online.

Robert Hammer wrote:

<<<<<<<<<In 1st Ed. the assassin had to have an evil alignment, there is no room
for evil PC's in D&D.>>>>>>>>>

No evil PC's? What is the alignment good for then? Yes, I personally like
good characters most. But there are also players, who like evil campaigns.
The only problem I see with evil PC's are the younger players. Just because
you (and I often) dislike evil PC's, it doesn't mean the option should be
banned from the game.

***

From George Neocleous 
Friday, August 13, 1999 

<<Even if that race/individual/group/etc. is undeniably evil and their
continued existence would mean more pain and suffering for the innocent? The way I
see it, a good assassin would be the guy who takes pay to kill, but only if the
cause is right and the target is evil. I don't see anything wrong with making a profit
while combating evil, whether it's by going into a dusty tomb and killing
a lich and plundering his treasures or taking money to, say, kill a powerful evil
being.>>

I hear you paying lip-service to the "shades of gray" in your games
treatment of alignment, yet in the next breath you speak of an "undeniably
evil" race/individual/group... Seems to me, that you have quite a double
standard going in your campaign.

Also, define what actions a race/individual/group must perform to justify
assassination, in your eyes?

George

***

From Mark G.
Friday, August 13, 1999

Okay, here's my two-cents on Alignment.

 Brian Rodgers wrote:

<<To me, alignment is more of an undercurrent in a PC/NPC's
personality than it is a strict philosophy or defining characteristic.>>

I have been playing D&D in its various forms for about 20 years and have to agree with Brian's opinion on this one. In fact, for most of the time I have played, alignment played very minor roles in the overall game. On occasion, a paladin detects evil, an evil priest detects good, etc. Maybe its just the people I have had the pleasure of role-playing with but I do not recall a single instance where the player had little or no idea of what their PC was going to be like. Even when a newcomer is making their first character, I find that they usually have some idea of what their character (from their point of view) would do. When a situation arises, they simply remind themselves what the real or fictional person they based their PC on would do.
The only thing that I use alignment for on a consistent basis is to give me a rough idea of how an intelligent monster will react to an adventuring party. Alignment's primary role seems to be nothing more than letting you (the player and DM) know what to expect of the character's general behavior. Generally speaking, only in extreme cases (i.e. a paladin backstabbing the king he's sworn fealty to) should alignment effect the game. If the player is capable of roleplaying (by which I mean "acting in character"), then everything should go fine.
While I will continue to use alignment as a guide, I will never use it as a strict rule as everyone's perception of just what a certain alignment means is going to vary. Maybe someone here has an old Dragon (early issue, can't remember which - sometime around Unearthed Arcana's release, maybe its even from UA) that covered lining out a PCs belief system. I can't remember all the details but the basic idea was that you had about seven "values" (family, deity, country, self, etc) which you would rank relative to each other. In this way, by glancing at your "values list" you could determine what was more important to your character in a pinch where you're not sure what they would do. Maybe not this exact system, but something like it, would better capture the way I view alignments. I believe Top Secret S.I. also had something like this (its been WAY too long).
In any case, to each his own. In my campaign world, alignments are purely generalized viewpoints on how best to survive as individuals and as a whole.


"the Bard"
("The Bard? Pleeeeease. Pardon me while I roll my eyeballs back into my throat.)

***

From Paul Schmidt 
Sunday, August 15, 1999 

Actually most of the Star Trek crew are evil..

Example: Worfs brother illegally saves the last remants of a race who are
dying because their star is going nova. The people are primitives and have
no way of escaping thier fate.
So what happens? Worf's brother is condemed for breaking the Prime
Defective. Somehow letting 200 or so people die was better.
What a load of crap.
You can imagine the Federation coming to Earth during World War II, looking
at concentration camps and saying "Sorry, can't interfere." What a load of
drivel. The non-interference crap is predicated on the experience of
colonialisim in our world. Well if the Federation can get rid of money they
can also probably avoid acting like imperialists....

Ug