RPing a "good" Assassin

Remove all ads!

Keeping Keldorn until the end sounds rather neutral evil than chaotic good.
"You must do your duty even if it destroys your family."

You will miss a cleric. Jaheira can't cast "protection from evil 10'" or "restoration".

 

Who said I would drop Keldorn? Unless you mean that by taking him you are acting evil. But he does agree to come with you, provided you say that once your quest is done he is free to go on his way. You aren't forcing him to come with you, and if he agrees of his own volition, I don't think that's evil.

Keldorn has a bunch of single-person protection from evil spells as special abilities. Usually, you don't have to protect EVERYONE with protection from evil - just the frontline characters - and his skill will work for that.

For restoration, the explanation is even easier, as mages can cast restoration spells from the scrolls, and they are cheap enough to buy. Besides, if you're smart, you should only need a restoration scroll once (in Trademeet) during the entire game. Minsc is immune to level drain while berserking, and if I make sure he engages any undead who can level drain first, I won't need that spell.

 

I guess when you look at it from a "James Bond" point of view, it gets a little clearer, but still, Bond was working for a 'good' organisation, assassins don't usually, do they? But still, i guess if you REALLY WANTED to be good, but have the skills of an assassin, I guess it'd work, after all, nothing is impossible!

By the way, do you have anymore Assassin names for me Fel! Just a human will do thanks!

 

I'd say that James Bond would be LN rather than LG (which is possible for a Rogue in the 3rd edition) or Chaotic, this character has a cruel side (especially if like JSBB said you consider the books); the Punisher would perhaps be closer to being CN... on the verge of insanity and clearly working on his own without any organization to back him up.
Take Scarface for instance (the De Palma version) he is a "bad guy" but he refuses to kill children which shows that there is a line that even bad guys won't cross... NE doesn't necessarily mean random killing.
A good assassin has to believe that the end justifies the means, he/she has to believe in a greater good in order to condone certain unpalatable actions.

 

ok. Let's straighten something out here. In Second Edition Lawful is in following with the laws of the Land. Neutral is sometimes you follow them and sometimes you don't. Chaotic is that your fully willing to break them. Look into the Red Steel Campaign and this is emphasized even more by the Inheritor's kit that is only found in that campaign.

Good is the moral good line. These are your white Knights so to speak. Neutral is that you are in between. It's often found more in a balancing or lack of participation position. And Evil is of course Evil.

A Lawful good Character is not only morally good but it Follows the laws unless they are extremely unjust and wrong (This is what allows a Paladin to overtake a provenly evil Dictator but does not allow them to go against neutral laws or laws that help the populace even if they don't necessarily like them.)

A Chaotic Good Character, is ones that generally does what is morally good and right no matter what. This is your Robin Hood Alignment. They have no qualms about breaking the laws of the land while doing good deeds.

Lawful evil Characters are very law abiding. But these are your bad guys that will bend and twist the laws so that they are rarely actually breaking them but they are still able to do very evil acts.

A Chaotic Evil Character is one that is not only Morally bankrupt but can also be a Cruel tyrant unafraid to work outside of the laws.

True neutral is the balance between law and Chaos and between good and evil. Sometimes they will do good things. Sometimes they will do bad things. Sometimes they will side with you. Sometimes against you. And Sometimes they will do absolutely nothing at all.


A Neutral good Character will almost never break a good law but they are willing to fight to change or break laws that have an inherently evil quality to do good if they see it as necessary. Good is their only real driving force. not a prediliction for the laws or anarchial behavior. Consequences probably matter the most here as far as good is concerned.

Lawful Neutral is the guys that no matter what kind of law it is they always see it enforced and obey it. Whether it is the law of a kindly king or a Tyrant General. They obey the laws and the laws are their only real driving force.

Chaotic Neutral is seen as Crazy because these are the guys that are an utter lack of boundaries. Good and Evil Doesn't matter. Being a rebel in every way possible. That's all that really drives them. They are the ones that are the most unpredictable because being predictable can even be seen as a barier.

Neutral Evil are the guys that don't necessarily break the laws that serve them. But they also don't abide laws if they aren't serving them in some way. They are driven by evil. Not by Laws and not by Mayham.

Depending on how you look at him. James Bond can be deemed Neutral Good. He is certainly not Lawful Good(he doesn't have the adherence to rules for it. even his own organizations at times.) He is generally doing good but he's unafraid to break laws where it suits him and actually obey laws and uphold them when it suits him as well. There is nothing that says that good can't be a bit cruel to that bad guy to see greater good done. Only law that's saying that. Just like most well played Evil Guys aren't by majority about mass carnage. In Fact. The Mass Carnage guys only really come under Chaotic Evil. Followed by Chaotic Neutral when their unpredictable stunts go wrong.

The Punisher does push towards Chaotic Neutral but the reason that he's not is he has a strong moral code. He is about doing good and he will break any and every mortal law that have let him down to much to see good done. Every bad guy is there to be punished and he's the one that will take out the guys that the law protects. He's not unpredictable in that. He's not all in his right mind. But his predeliction for his good moral code and punishing the bad guys(Gee that works into his name well) has actually been used as a weakness against him.

 

I'd say go for it. Consider: how different is an Assasin from a Stalker? And Stalkers must be of Good alignment...

 

@ Starwalker: There goes my 3rd edition knowledge again. Still, I prefer the third edition rules of alignment. Gives you more options (you're not insene when you're CN, which is a relief, because then half of all bards would be ranting loons. Ok most still are, but that is besides the point)

 

@Truper - I actually think there are a lot of differences between a Stalker and an Assassin. Yes, they are similar in the armor and weapon choices, but at least the way I play them, I use them for different purposes. To go into it is way , but let's just say that an assassin is first and foremost a thief, while a stalker is first and foremost a fighter. Yes, they have overlapping skills, but the stalker is much better than the assassin in many areas, whereas there are skills that an assassin possesses that a stalker would never have. I certainly don't see the two as interchangable as your post implies.

Cantlos: While I agree that CN should not be the same as insane, I hardly think half of all bards are Chaotic Neutral (although I will admit that two out of the three bards in the BG series are CN, there was no reason they had to be). Most of my bards are either NG or NE depending on what kind of party I'm planning. In fact, 5 out of the possible 9 alignments are possible for bards.

 

@ Aldeth: I meant chaotic alignment in general. Most everybody I know who ever played a P&P bard played a CN one. And yes, they all played an insane one at that.

I do not see the bards necesity for neutrality however. Where did that come from? A druid I can understand: I usually end up neutral with them to (P&P), though I like deviating a bit when I build them (LN earth druids and CN Air druids for example)

One thing strikes me as odd however: If lawdul does mean following the laws of the land, then why is only lawful good excluded from the available alignment list for thieves? LN seems more likely, if not every lawful alignment (unless stealing and B&E is aproved of as legal, which I kind of doubt).

 

LN and LE more and more abuse or bend the laws and work around them to commit their crimes. Second Edition had the slightly silly but well placed idea that only LG was extruded because they were the epitome of doing everything in the right way whether it was the laws of the land or strict moral code or anything in between.

Though I myself never quite understood why LN wasn't excluded as well. The only thing I can think of since they are about a strong set of rules and having them abided by is perhaps to twist it a little and place that structure to say a thieves guild or the like since these guys are about the rules whether they are good or bad or anywhere in between. That's really all I can think of and it does overlay things like the shadow thieves well enough. Or really other thieving organizations and the like too from Second Edition.

 

LN is dedication to a set of rules regardless of their legitimacy or relevance. Following a set of principles and a code blindly. IMHO the epitome of such a behaviour would be a knight or a samurai... or a ninja type.

[EDIT: bounty hunters either law enforcement agents or freelancers would probably be lawful too]

LE means that you obey the law as long as it serves your goals. A LE character will most certainly cheat by changing the rules and thus evade any contract by finding loopholes or playing on words. A LE character may promise not to kill a prisoner only to have a henchman do it for him.

A good assassin can be either NG or CG. Think about the Harper plot regarding Xzar in Athkatla? The assassin has to be Good. Killing a Zhent is most certainly a good thing. The difference between Chaos and Neutrality is a moot point. The child of Bhaal can be both and most probably Chaotic because he is not part of any given organization. Neutrality remains a possibility however.

 

Not really. An evil person would be quite ready to kill another evil person for any number of reasons. By that same reasoning Bodhi would be good for wanting you to kill the Shadow Thieves (or vice versa).

 

Hey i'm of the opinion that Bodhi's way of doing things is the Good way to go about it anyway. When you take her side of things you are given the option NOT to do the dirtier deed when it comes up and simply choose what is really much more along the lines of a good one. Then again neither of you choices of who to side with are good. At best you could say the thieves are a neutral choice and maybe that's how they ended up getting labeled the good option by the game.

 

I don't think that the game really labels either choice as being a "good" choice - you just pick whichever "evil" choice you feel more comfortable with.

Besides, regardless of your motivations for working with Bodhi and what you do for her - that still does not make her any less of a murderous psycho.

 

@Aldeth: sure, an Assassin is a thief, and a Stalker a ranger, which makes them different, but they are both stealthy killers - and if your issues with "goodness" don't lie there, then I don't know where they do.

 

@JSBB: what I mean is that the assassin I referred to is a harper and therefore has to be good aligned.