Only on a few points is it different than the Assassin. And yeah, they only have a Lawful requirement, though good, evil, or neutral depends on the country they work for. That has Good written all over it to me, even if it is dubiously so.įurthermore, Ezio and Altair are repeatedly depicted as having strong compassion and a sense of justice, which are patiently Good traits. Meanwhile the Creed prevents the killing of innocents and requires aid to those who need it. All the targets the Brotherhood kills are Evil people, targeted because they are Evil, who make those around them suffer and have plans to dominate and control those around them. The game constantly touts them working "for the greater good". They kill a few, so that the many may live in peace and without suffering (all Good characters in D&D do this). Going by the first game, the objective of the Assassin's is to kill those who would start wars and create suffering for those around them. Not that it makes any sense to me, but eh. On the bright side though, there is a Lawful (Avenger) and a Good (Slayer of ) version of the Assassin in 3.5 if you need one. They can be protagonists, and they can be sympathetic. They can see what they do as necessary evil for a greater good, and think that they are the heroes in their life stories.
I could see an argument for Neutral, but honestly Evil makes the most sense to me.Įvil people can have good reasons for what they do, and oppose other Evil people.
but they are absolutely not "Good" in the D&D sense of the word. Seriously, Altair/Ezzio are decent dudes with reasonable motives. "Nothing is True and Everything is Permitted"ĭefinitely a Good-aligned philosophy. The difference is that they don´t take money to kill someone, they take money to protect and serve their kingdom/republic/whatever.Īctually I don´t remember any of my "good" chars taking a contract to kill someone because it feels just evil ^^ If you take money to kill someone chances are high you are evil :smallwink: Maybe in a fantasy world an assassin who works for a god of good(directly or indirectly) could manage to work for the greater good in all other cases no. In that case if you killed him for "the greater good" you just furthered evil in the world. Who can say if the son of the evil guy would not become the Paladin of Goody Goodness who would have saved the world from evil? The problem with "for the greater good" is that it just does not work when you are not omniscient (or at least very close to that). People almost always mind being killed, and adventurers in any form almost always kill people. So, fighters (and anyone of any other class who is basically a soldier) are also always evil? I don't think that holds up very well in practice. I think that you can have an evil assassin (does it for the money, for an evil or even not-good cause, doesn't care about the targets), a neutral assassin (perhaps does it for the money or a not-good cause, but is very choosy about their targets), or a good assassin (does it for the greater good, doesn't kill anyone except evil people).Ī good way to look at it is, would you mind if someone tried to assassinate you? That's usually a good litmus test for this sort of thing. Me, I deal with the alignment restriction depending on what type of assassin guild/organisation/position it is. The Slayer of Domiel class from the Book of Exalted Deeds is essentially an assassin anyhow, and I believe they're stated to be always good (haven't read it in a while, though) - so there's some precedent within D&D, although I don't think that having a whole other class for it is really necessary. I think it depends very heavily on what type of an assassin they are.
0 kommentar(er)
