PDA

View Full Version : Rogues & Alignments



Lerky
2009-03-30, 02:01 AM
I've recently been wondering: Rogue's have no restrictions to alignments in 3.5, but how can a rogue be lawful?:smallconfused:

Just a random thought.

Starscream
2009-03-30, 02:06 AM
A rogue does not necessarily equal a thief. And lawful does not necessary mean "obeys the law".

I don't think that rogues generally go around calling themselves rogues, anyway. A fighter who takes levels in rogue does not think of himself as a fighter/rogue. He is just a warrior who is good at fighting dirty and is somewhat more skillful than his peers.

Xefas
2009-03-30, 02:08 AM
Because a 'Rogue' is just a set of mechanics to represent someone with a lot of skills that also happens to know where the more important organs are on someone to stab.

*This also happens to represent medical doctors pretty well, so all the trained MDs in my world have a level or two of rogue. The scalpel sneak-attack helps bypass damage reduction so they can perform surgery on those pesky humanoids that have it.

*This is obviously a joke. I don't stat up every meaningless NPC, and everyone is healed by divine magic.

EDIT: You can also get badasses like the Slayers of Domiel from the Book of Exalted Deeds. I like to think politicians have to keep looking over their shoulder in case one decides to Lawful Goodly end them in the middle of the night.

kpenguin
2009-03-30, 02:09 AM
I state-sanctioned assassin who serves his nation without question would generally be considered to be Lawful and would be built using the rogue.

Lerky
2009-03-30, 02:11 AM
A rogue does not necessarily equal a thief. And lawful does not necessary mean "obeys the law".

I don't think that rogues generally go around calling themselves rogues, anyway. A fighter who takes levels in rogue does not think of himself as a fighter/rogue. He is just a warrior who is good at fighting dirty and is somewhat more skillful than his peers.

yeah but fighting dirty goes against lawful beleif. And I realize not all rogues are theives. Some can be sneaky ninja people, some can be quick-witted con artists, some can be pickpockets, some can be trap disablers or lock pickers, all of which kinda go against what would be considered lawful. This is what confuses me.

Neithan
2009-03-30, 02:11 AM
A lawful good rogue might be a specially trained spy who is completely loyal to the kingdom and tasked with investigating conspiracies for which the royal soldiers would raise far too much attention.

Or it might be a scout for a group of paladins who accompanies them into tombs and evil temples to disarm traps and pick the locks of adamantine doors and search for secret doors or hatches where more evil priests might hide after the dungeon is secured by the paladins.

Or it is a special forces rogue, who has a team of other lawful good rogues who are send behind enemy lines to kill evil shamans, get a peak at the evil warlords battle plans, or sabotage siege weapons.

Or he could be a fighter/rogue and be a martial artist trained in unarmed combat, if the setting has no monks.

Lerky
2009-03-30, 02:16 AM
A lawful good rogue might be a specially trained spy who is completely loyal to the kingdom and tasked with investigating conspiracies for which the royal soldiers would raise far too much attention.

Or it might be a scout for a group of paladins who accompanies them into tombs and evil temples to disarm traps and pick the locks of adamantine doors and search for secret doors or hatches where more evil priests might hide after the dungeon is secured by the paladins.

Or it is a special forces rogue, who has a team of other lawful good rogues who are send behind enemy lines to kill evil shamans, get a peak at the evil warlords battle plans, or sabotage siege weapons.

Or he could be a fighter/rogue and be a martial artist trained in unarmed combat, if the setting has no monks.

oh, I see. So like an inflitratior. So what about a Lawful Evil Rouge? Same deal but instead of working with a kingdom he works with a warlord?

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-30, 02:41 AM
yeah but fighting dirty goes against lawful beleif.

Not so.


"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
One can make the argument that "honor" means "no dirty fighting" but I'd take it more as "following the Rules of Engagement." Clearly, a Rogue is not going to be fighting in areas where the Rules of Engagement forbid poking out people's kidneys :smalltongue:

Some examples of Lawful Rogues:
LG - The Holy Assassin. His job is to kill the most evil of people without causing injury to innocents and people "just following orders."

LN - The Thief Catcher. The old adage "Set a thief to catch a thief" is true; someone trained in the art of thievery can figure out how a crime was committed, and follow the bandit back to his home far easier than a Fighter or other, more martial class.

LE - The Secret Policeman. Tasked with capturing dissidents before they can foment revolt; he needs to be able to eavesdrop on malcontents, capture evidence from secret hideouts, and kill for the State quietly when necessary... or when ordered :smallamused:

kamikasei
2009-03-30, 02:44 AM
yeah but fighting dirty goes against lawful beleif.

How so? Not holding yourself to chivalry or rules of formal combat != being chaotic.


Some can be sneaky ninja people... some can be trap disablers or lock pickers, all of which kinda go against what would be considered lawful.

What's non-lawful about ninja? Stereotypical honor-of-the-clan, highly-trained-assassin-for-hire ninja seem pretty lawful to me.

And: we have locksmiths who pick locks in the real world - are they all chaotic? It's easy to imagine a skilled "problem solver" who gets people past obstacles on lawful jobs.


So what about a Lawful Evil Rouge? Same deal but instead of working with a kingdom he works with a warlord?

Or just for an evil kingdom.

Ravens_cry
2009-03-30, 02:48 AM
. He may be a hired killer with a 'code' he follows, that makes him 'better' then a 'common' thug, in his eyes.
He might be an assassin who is loyal to a specific cause, closer to the historical Hashshashin. He even could be an apothecary, selling poisons and date rape drugs on the side,, consoling himself with that he doesn't know what they are being used for, a physicians who redoes wanted criminals faces, (plastic surgery is older the you might think) Just like a lawful good paladin is NOT just Captain Stick-up-arse, a rogue is more then just the sneaky cut purse. It's really the skill-monkey of the player classes, so anyone who wants to use a lot of skills should go for rogue, other class features aside.

sonofzeal
2009-03-30, 02:51 AM
Rogue list of alignments...


LG: **** Tracy. Excellent detectives, will often use saps for nonlethal SA. Generally seeks nonviolent solutions to problems, or will try to take enemies down with a minimum of fuss.

NG: Nightcrawler. Stealthy and potent, but works best as part of a group, helping his teammates with his unique skills.

CG: Robin Hood. Undermines the legitimate government in a good cause. People like this run underground railroads, resistance movements in occupied countries.

Lawful Neutral: Batman. Okay, okay, batman's alignment is fiercely debated. However, LN Rogues make excellent enforcers of whatever code of morals they choose to follow.

NN: Ocean. In it for themselves, but capable of working well in a team and not all that bad a person outside of some kleptomania.

CN: Catwoman. Also not a bad person, but can and will doublecross anyone whenever it suits her... and has the skills to get away with it. Sadly, this is the one that comes up most often in D&D.

LE: The Operative (Serenity). Similar to Batman in many ways, but much more ruthless about it. May or may not have anything resembling a conscience, but takes orders well and is good at what he does. Also makes excellent interrogators.

NE: Lex Luthor. Intelligent, manipulative, crafty, questionably legal at best, and evil by any standard. in contrast to their NG counterparts, NE Rogues are often at their best as leaders rather than followers, guiding events and only coming into battle themselves to deliver the key blow when victory is already assured.

CE: Nevada-tan. Nuff said.

Starscream
2009-03-30, 03:20 AM
yeah but fighting dirty goes against lawful beleif.

Tell that to any policeman. If you have the chance to take down a man with a gun by sneaking up behind him and whacking him with your nightstick you bloody well take it. Whatever will protect the civilians best is the right way to go.

Zaq
2009-03-30, 03:24 AM
LG: **** Tracy. Excellent detectives, will often use saps for nonlethal SA. Generally seeks nonviolent solutions to problems, or will try to take enemies down with a minimum of fuss.

Given that Tracy's MO is to shoot first and make grim, cryptic pronouncements later, and that no case is ever (EVER) solved without horrible bloody destruction, I'd see him as LN-leaning-LE, myself... (This does not mean he is not AWESOME, and also unintentionally hilarious, but I contest his LGness.)

I'd say a better example of a rogue with LG alignment would be Link. Uses whatever item he needs to get the job done, can master anything he tries almost instantaneously, can get into any ridiculously convoluted dungeon or stronghold, and most importantly, kills enemies by hitting their weak spots. If an arrow to the eye isn't a sneak attack, I don't know what is.

kpenguin
2009-03-30, 03:34 AM
Complete Scoundrel lists **** Tracy and Batman as LG.

It also lists Indiana Jones as LG, which is weird. I'd never think of Indy as Lawful. He'll work for the government and stuff, but never really struck me as the Lawful type. Unless the whole "Everything must be in a museum" thing makes him Lawful.

sonofzeal
2009-03-30, 03:40 AM
Given that Tracy's MO is to shoot first and make grim, cryptic pronouncements later, and that no case is ever (EVER) solved without horrible bloody destruction, I'd see him as LN-leaning-LE, myself... (This does not mean he is not AWESOME, and also unintentionally hilarious, but I contest his LGness.)

I'd say a better example of a rogue with LG alignment would be Link. Uses whatever item he needs to get the job done, can master anything he tries almost instantaneously, can get into any ridiculously convoluted dungeon or stronghold, and most importantly, kills enemies by hitting their weak spots. If an arrow to the eye isn't a sneak attack, I don't know what is.
Point. Link works (although tbh he's never really had much of any personality to me, so it's hard to give him any alignment). There may be a different comic book detective who fits the LG mould better than Tracy. How about the CSI: Las Vegas team?

Zaq
2009-03-30, 04:02 AM
Point. Link works (although tbh he's never really had much of any personality to me, so it's hard to give him any alignment). There may be a different comic book detective who fits the LG mould better than Tracy. How about the CSI: Las Vegas team?

I don't know too many other comic book detectives, nor do I know the CSI team. I see Link as LG because he goes on any quest asked of him selflessly and without hesitation nor expectation of recompense. Basically any authority figure can ask him to go on some crazy, life-threatening adventure, and he'll do it without a second thought. He's Good because he acts to protect innocents and battle evil (and Good and Evil are pretty black-and-white in the Zelda universe, for better or for worse), and he's Lawful because he does so out of respect for tradition and authority rather than his own restlessness or desires. (Law and Chaos are fuzzy anyway, but it works for me, at least in as simple a universe as your standard Zelda. Majora's Mask need not apply. Maybe.)

Telonius
2009-03-30, 04:40 AM
I think some of the problem you're having is the "dirty fighting" aspect of a Rogue.


If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.

"Unable to defend himself effectively" is not necessarily sneaking up on someone (though it can be that). The Rogue's sneak attack can also be activated after a feint or when flanking. Think of it like a master fencer trying to find a gap in his opponent's armor.

Now there are some classes (such as Knight) that might take their lawful schtick even farther and deny the ability to take advantage of flanking at all. But even Knights don't lose alignment for flanking, just class features - and even that, only temporarily. No Atonement necessary to get them back, just wait till the next day.

SoD
2009-03-30, 04:45 AM
Also; a fighter/rogue (or even plain martial based rogue) could be thought as a warrior-type who works well as a team, rather than a single warrior (read; flanks and sneak attacks).

SirSigfried
2009-03-30, 05:12 AM
I would place Sherlock Holmes in the category of a Lawful Good Rogue (with high wisdom/high intelligence). He also wasn't afraid to do some break-ins for his clients interests. (e.g. Taking documents from a blackmailer.)

VelvetThunder
2009-03-30, 05:40 AM
Another way the Lawful Good Rogue would still be able to steal, cheat, and lie, would be if he was doing so in order to set the law right. Say he was taking back something from an evil man who stole it. He's still be Stealing, and more than likely he's going to lie and the like as well, but it's all to set a wrongdoing of the law to right. So it's still in the lawful and the good.

AslanCross
2009-03-30, 05:42 AM
A SWAT Policeman would be a good example of a real-life Lawful Rogue (probably with some levels in Fighter). They can catch the target unaware, get the drop on them and take them out without having to call for an "honorable duel."

Given the definition of Sneak Attack in the SRD, a sniper could be considered as "sneak attacking" when sniping a target. It's simply delivering an attack that would put down the target in the fastest possible way; I don't think Sneak Attack necessarily means dirty fighting.

What would you consider to be dirty fighting anyway?

Roderick_BR
2009-03-30, 06:39 AM
yeah but fighting dirty goes against lawful beleif. And I realize not all rogues are theives. Some can be sneaky ninja people, some can be quick-witted con artists, some can be pickpockets, some can be trap disablers or lock pickers, all of which kinda go against what would be considered lawful. This is what confuses me.
Not exact. I remember reading something that paladins are allowed to use guerrilha tactics (sp?) that means attacking from behind, hit and runs, and setting traps. Everything that rogues are good at.

Yeah, some rogues could just be good with mechanical stuff, like trap disablers/builders, like dwarves and gnomes that usually focus on these areas.

Lerky
2009-03-30, 02:23 PM
All of these are quite interesting and make good points. I think while making the background for my rouge his father is like...a warlord or something and he (eager to impress his father) begins acting as a spy and infiltrator to kingdoms his father is planning to attack. Any other ideas for a more creative backstory would be good.:smallbiggrin:
also I was thinking of quoting this, 'cause it made me laugh out loud.:smallamused:

Tell that to any policeman. If you have the chance to take down a man with a gun by sneaking up behind him and whacking him with your nightstick you bloody well take it. Whatever will protect the civilians best is the right way to go.

Person_Man
2009-03-30, 02:31 PM
Crunch does not equal fluff.

Rogues get a bunch of Skills, Sneak Attack, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, and some Special Abilities. Of those, only Sneak Attack could be considered sneaky, and thus, not honorable in some way. But it's easy enough to just think of it as being very precise in how you hit your enemy.

Agrippa
2009-03-30, 02:34 PM
Complete Scoundrel lists **** Tracy and Batman as LG.

It also lists Indiana Jones as LG, which is weird. I'd never think of Indy as Lawful. He'll work for the government and stuff, but never really struck me as the Lawful type. Unless the whole "Everything must be in a museum" thing makes him Lawful.

Just having a code of honor dosen't make you Lawful. You can even be outright Chaotic, even Chaotic Evil and have a code of honor, it's just that your code of honor is a personal code. No one else decided it for you, you took on that burden your self.

Paramour Pink
2009-03-30, 02:46 PM
I've found DMs are surprisingly hell-bent *against* a rogue being Lawful, and especially not Lawful Good. None of the other alignments (save Chaotic Evil, which everyone is understandably wary of) have that problem, but I haven't found one willing to accept the idea that any rogue can have a LG alignment. Tbh, I'm not sure what to make of it...

Tengu_temp
2009-03-30, 03:07 PM
Tbh, I'm not sure what to make of it...

The fact that these DMs are very closed-minded, perhaps? Which is not a good quality for anyone, and especially not a DM...

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-03-30, 03:11 PM
I've found DMs are surprisingly hell-bent *against* a rogue being Lawful, and especially not Lawful Good. None of the other alignments (save Chaotic Evil, which everyone is understandably wary of) have that problem, but I haven't found one willing to accept the idea that any rogue can have a LG alignment. Tbh, I'm not sure what to make of it...Mention the fact that there is a Rogue/Paladin multiclass class. That generally is enough to make them think for a minute.

Saint Nil
2009-03-30, 03:25 PM
Mention the fact that there is a Rogue/Paladin multiclass class. That generally is enough to make them think for a minute.

A good example of this is Batman from The Dark Knight. He is an expert at stealth, attacking when you least expect it, and obviously has a high bluff skill. Yet at the same time he is standing for Justice, trying to clean up a city, and never breakin ghis moral code while doing so.

Tam_OConnor
2009-03-30, 05:17 PM
One explanation for DMs who don't allow LG-Rogues: Way back in AD&D, Thieves couldn't be Lawful Good. But note the name switch since then. A LG thief is an intrinsic contradiction, barring extraordinary circumstances. Nowadays, a Rogue is not necessarily a Thief.

LG Rogue-types:
Government Thief-catchers, Bounty Hunters and Spies (Bloodhound prestige class from CAdv, Justicar from CWar)
Paladins of the less hidebound deities (Sune from Faerun, Domiel from BoED; Shadowbane Inquisitors from CAdv)
Holy Assassins (the historical Hashashim, depending on your perspective, Slayers of Domiel from BoED)
Vigilantes who limit themselves to catching criminals, not punishing them (most of the DC Universe heroes)

Personally, I find the Lawful/Chaotic divide not in the methods used to bring opponents down, but in what the character does after their opponent is at their mercy. The Lawful defers to the laws of the land; when outside the law, they defer to their own moral code. Ideally, they're empowered by the law to take action as they see fit. Even a 'Wanted: Dead' sign can so empower them.

Chronos
2009-03-30, 06:25 PM
Quoth SirSigfreid:
I would place Sherlock Holmes in the category of a Lawful Good Rogue (with high wisdom/high intelligence). He also wasn't afraid to do some break-ins for his clients interests. (e.g. Taking documents from a blackmailer.)Precisely who I was going to mention: He's got tons of skills (almost all of them rogue class skills), he doesn't do anything supernatural, and when he fights, it's always with a sneaky advantage (for instance, when he "introduced" himself to an amateur boxer by KOing the guy). I would argue that the break-in at the blackmailer's house was a chaotic act, but his great propensity for law otherwise more than makes up for that.


One explanation for DMs who don't allow LG-Rogues: Way back in AD&D, Thieves couldn't be Lawful Good. But note the name switch since then. A LG thief is an intrinsic contradiction, barring extraordinary circumstances. Nowadays, a Rogue is not necessarily a Thief.One of my favorite 2nd edition characters was a halfling Professional Treasure-Hunter, and he took great offense at being called a "thief". He'd only work on behalf of the legitimate owner of a treasure, or in cases where there was no legitimate owner. Basically, he was what the dwarves thought Bilbo was. Crunch-wise, he was identical to a thief, but fortunately I had a DM who recognized that the fluff was more important to the game anyway.

Paramour Pink
2009-03-30, 06:34 PM
One explanation for DMs who don't allow LG-Rogues: Way back in AD&D, Thieves couldn't be Lawful Good. But note the name switch since then. A LG thief is an intrinsic contradiction, barring extraordinary circumstances.

Makes sense. I don't know anything about the older versions.


One of my favorite 2nd edition characters was a halfling Professional Treasure-Hunter, and he took great offense at being called a "thief". He'd only work on behalf of the legitimate owner of a treasure, or in cases where there was no legitimate owner. Basically, he was what the dwarves thought Bilbo was. Crunch-wise, he was identical to a thief, but fortunately I had a DM who recognized that the fluff was more important to the game anyway.

Heh, sounds like Locke. :smallcool:

Lerky
2009-03-30, 07:47 PM
Heh, sounds like Locke. :smallcool:
John Locke? From Lost?:smallconfused:

Paramour Pink
2009-03-30, 08:09 PM
John Locke? From Lost?:smallconfused:

Nope. Idk much anything Lost (it was popular for five seconds, and then everyone I knew started caring about music only again). I was talking about Locke from Final Fantasy 6. It's some really old game on the playstation. A running joke in the game is/was roughly:

NPC: Locke? You mean the theif?
Locke: I'm a treasure hunter!

So, obvious similarity there. :smallsmile:

ZeroNumerous
2009-03-30, 08:13 PM
I was talking about Locke from Final Fantasy 6. It's some really old game on the playstation.

On the Super Nintendo, ya whippersnapper. :smalltongue:

Optimator
2009-03-30, 10:53 PM
On the Super Nintendo, ya whippersnapper. :smalltongue:

I hear that.

Anyway, one of the best ways, in my opinion, to get around the lawful/chaotic problem is to think about the alignments on the ethical axis as personality traits. Don't think of a rogue as Lawful Good. If you think of him as being Good aligned and Lawful aligned, it might be clearer. Anyway, that's just what I do. Also, don't have a One-Drop Rule mindset with alignments i.e. one infraction switches alignment or one chaotic habit of a character prohibiting a lawful alignment, etc. Alignments are a great place to start but a terrible place to stop.

Killer Angel
2009-03-31, 06:02 AM
One explanation for DMs who don't allow LG-Rogues: Way back in AD&D, Thieves couldn't be Lawful Good. But note the name switch since then. A LG thief is an intrinsic contradiction, barring extraordinary circumstances. Nowadays, a Rogue is not necessarily a Thief.



That's true, but it's not an excuse for a D.M. to be close-minded.
I begin playing in 1990, with AD&D: in my campaigns ther were some thieves lawful, and even a PC paladin of Lolth lawful evil. With npc, i've often removed most of the alignment limitations, for the sake of the story (a Kobold paladin? oh yeah) or in specific settings (Planescape, Sigil).

Devils_Advocate
2009-03-31, 03:11 PM
"Contrary to popular belief, ninjas do have a code of honor. It just happens to be totally different from everyone else's code of honor."

Here's the thing: The Law/Chaos axis doesn't really work like the Good/Evil axis does. Basically, Good is helping others and Evil is harming others; so if you hurt one group to help another, your actions have both Good and Evil aspects that mitigate each other and bring the overall alignment of your actions closer to Neutral than if just one of those aspects were present. But while Law is basically following rules -- traditions, conventions, duties, orders, and, well, laws -- Chaos isn't defined as breaking rules. So if you break another group's rules in order to follow your group's rules, there's actually not a Chaotic element to that that mitigates the Lawfulness of your actions. RAW Chaos is more about not following anyone's rules.

So there's not a single code of honor that defines Law; rather, a Lawful character can follow any of several different codes of honor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/honor.htm#sampleCodesOfHonor). What qualifies a code as Lawful? Basically, that it's not just your code, but also somebody else's. Your character isn't Lawful just because you can state his personality in imperative form. (If your character doesn't have a personality, that's not an alignment, that's just bad roleplaying.) Completely rejecting society's values in favor of your own personal moral code (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ubermensch) should be considered strongly Chaotic.

One could make a case that the Lawfulness of a given whatchamahoozit is just a matter of how many people follow it, either in absolute or percentage terms. Legitimate authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political_science)), for example, is just authority that a populace accepts. (Which doesn't indicate that they like it in an absolute sense, but does indicate that they like it better than any available alternative.)

So a lot of ideological conflicts actually tend to be not Law vs. Chaos, but Law vs. Law: battles for whose ideology gets implemented. You can even have a violent conflict between two or more Lawful and non-Good groups each primarily motivated by the value "My group should control everything (or at least one particular nearby valuable thing)". Acheron is all over that like syrup on a tasty breakfast waffle. Occasionally an oppressive regime may be opposed by a coalition of anarcholibertarian freedom fighters, but that's a fairly rare exception to the general rule. You're far more likely to see a conflict over how citizens should be restricted than over whether there should be any top-down restrictions (or indeed "citizenship") at all.


also I was thinking of quoting this, 'cause it made me laugh out loud.:smallamused:
That's odd. It struck me as a fairly serious point. Mainly: Isn't that "honorable combat" stuff for consensual or non-lethal fights, anyway?

Like, if a bully starts a fight with you because he wants your girlfriend, people may look down on you if you resort to "unfair" tactics to win the fight. Provided that this happens in a (sub)culture where unprovoked (but pre-announced!) assault is, for reasons I'll probably never understand, not itself considered unfair.

And if you and your rival agree to a duel where you both walk twelve paces, turn, and fire exactly once, then violating the terms of the duel by firing twice is very dishonorable.

But if someone just shoots at you out of the blue, or you're firing at enemy soldiers, you get to shoot as many times as you want.

How many cultures have there been that actually expected people to show lots of restraint when attacking a group of known murderers to get them to stop murdering people? How many would consider ambushing the murderers "dishonorable"?

I'm no anthropologist, but I'm guessing relatively few.


Anyway, one of the best ways, in my opinion, to get around the lawful/chaotic problem is to think about the alignments on the ethical axis as personality traits.
I would strongly recommend against adopting the whole "Lawful = OCD, Chaotic = ADD" thingy, which seems to be the typical approach to making the ethical axis non-ethical. For starters, those things really have nothing to do with RAW alignment. You can be Chaotic and organized, or Lawful and disorganized. F'real.

Fortinbras
2009-03-31, 07:02 PM
"Contrary to popular belief, ninjas do have a code of honor. It just happens to be totally different from everyone else's code of honor."

Here's the thing: The Law/Chaos axis doesn't really work like the Good/Evil axis does. Basically, Good is helping others and Evil is harming others; so if you hurt one group to help another, your actions have both Good and Evil aspects that mitigate each other and bring the overall alignment of your actions closer to Neutral than if just one of those aspects were present. But while Law is basically following rules -- traditions, conventions, duties, orders, and, well, laws -- Chaos isn't defined as breaking rules. So if you break another group's rules in order to follow your group's rules, there's actually not a Chaotic element to that that mitigates the Lawfulness of your actions. RAW Chaos is more about not following anyone's rules.

So there's not a single code of honor that defines Law; rather, a Lawful character can follow any of several different codes of honor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/honor.htm#sampleCodesOfHonor). What qualifies a code as Lawful? Basically, that it's not just your code, but also somebody else's. Your character isn't Lawful just because you can state his personality in imperative form. (If your character doesn't have a personality, that's not an alignment, that's just bad roleplaying.) Completely rejecting society's values in favor of your own personal moral code (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ubermensch) should be considered strongly Chaotic.

One could make a case that the Lawfulness of a given whatchamahoozit is just a matter of how many people follow it, either in absolute or percentage terms. Legitimate authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political_science)), for example, is just authority that a populace accepts. (Which doesn't indicate that they like it in an absolute sense, but does indicate that they like it better than any available alternative.)

So a lot of ideological conflicts actually tend to be not Law vs. Chaos, but Law vs. Law: battles for whose ideology gets implemented. You can even have a violent conflict between two or more Lawful and non-Good groups each primarily motivated by the value "My group should control everything (or at least one particular nearby valuable thing)". Acheron is all over that like syrup on a tasty breakfast waffle. Occasionally an oppressive regime may be opposed by a coalition of anarcholibertarian freedom fighters, but that's a fairly rare exception to the general rule. You're far more likely to see a conflict over how citizens should be restricted than over whether there should be any top-down restrictions (or indeed "citizenship") at all.


That's odd. It struck me as a fairly serious point. Mainly: Isn't that "honorable combat" stuff for consensual or non-lethal fights, anyway?

Like, if a bully starts a fight with you because he wants your girlfriend, people may look down on you if you resort to "unfair" tactics to win the fight. Provided that this happens in a (sub)culture where unprovoked (but pre-announced!) assault is, for reasons I'll probably never understand, not itself considered unfair.

And if you and your rival agree to a duel where you both walk twelve paces, turn, and fire exactly once, then violating the terms of the duel by firing twice is very dishonorable.

But if someone just shoots at you out of the blue, or you're firing at enemy soldiers, you get to shoot as many times as you want.

How many cultures have there been that actually expected people to show lots of restraint when attacking a group of known murderers to get them to stop murdering people? How many would consider ambushing the murderers "dishonorable"?

I'm no anthropologist, but I'm guessing relatively few.


I would strongly recommend against adopting the whole "Lawful = OCD, Chaotic = ADD" thingy, which seems to be the typical approach to making the ethical axis non-ethical. For starters, those things really have nothing to do with RAW alignment. You can be Chaotic and organized, or Lawful and disorganized. F'real.

This is all really good except that I have a hard time with the organized chaos.

Agrippa
2009-03-31, 07:28 PM
This is all really good except that I have a hard time with the organized chaos.

By organized I assume he means personal organization.

Hat-Trick
2009-03-31, 07:55 PM
The "you go left, I go right, fire on three, then the others charge, cool?" kind of organized, or the "Pencils one, two, and three go in right pocket, pencils four, five, and six goes in shirt pocket and the illegal switchblade goes in left pocket" kind of organized. Not the "I am the judge, executioner, jury, and, if needed, executioner, got it?" kind of organized.

Superglucose
2009-03-31, 08:05 PM
I state-sanctioned assassin who serves his nation without question would generally be considered to be Lawful and would be built using the rogue.
Morag Tong?

Anyways, I think the problem in all this comes from Sneak Attack being poorly named. It gives a connotation of dirty fighting, when "aiming for his weak spot" isn't dirty fighting at all. Opportunistic strike is a misnomer as well, I think Sneak Attack should be renamed to something like "Precise Strike" because it speaks to what the attack really is: a surgical attack made against a weak spot in the oponnent's armor or whatever.

Jayabalard
2009-03-31, 09:26 PM
Not so.Since your argument is more of an opinion than a statement of fact and since it depends quite a bit on the DM interpretation, you'd probably be better off saying "Not Necessarily" instead of "Not so". Like you said yourself, it's pretty easy to make the argument that dirty fighting isn't lawful because it's not "honorable"

Which isn't to say that you can't have a lawful character who isn't particularly honorable... just that dirty fighting would be a "handicap" as far as his lawfulness goes.


It also lists Indiana Jones as LG, which is weird. I'd never think of Indy as Lawful. He'll work for the government and stuff, but never really struck me as the Lawful type. Unless the whole "Everything must be in a museum" thing makes him Lawful.Yeah, I don't see that either; he's got way to many strong chaotic tendencies to be strictly LG...

Thurbane
2009-03-31, 09:38 PM
I've recently been wondering: Rogue's have no restrictions to alignments in 3.5, but how can a rogue be lawful?:smallconfused:

Just a random thought.
As others have pointed out Rogue <> Thief. A Rogue can be a spy, scout, or sentinel...he doesn't have to be a backstabbing, lawbreaking cutpurse. Even so, there's no reason that members of an organised Thieve's Guild couldn't be Lawful Evil.

Thespianus
2009-04-01, 01:21 AM
Quoth SirSigfreid:Precisely who I was going to mention: He's got tons of skills (almost all of them rogue class skills), he doesn't do anything supernatural, and when he fights, it's always with a sneaky advantage (for instance, when he "introduced" himself to an amateur boxer by KOing the guy). I would argue that the break-in at the blackmailer's house was a chaotic act, but his great propensity for law otherwise more than makes up for that.
But he doesn't always hand over criminals to the law. He sometimes give criminals the chance to leave the country if he feels that the punishment that the law would wreak on the criminal is too harsh for the deed.

He also frequently ignores crimes that he deem unworthy or small.

I would rank Sherlock as Neutral Good. He's in it 100% for the puzzles, and only sometimes for the law.

Riffington
2009-04-01, 07:35 AM
Holmes was probably not quite Lawful. That said, plenty of police officers or detectives are, and an "ideal" officer or detective could have the Rogue class. Lots of the skills would be the same, and studying human anatomy to quickly disable an opponent isn't inherently chaotic.

Chronos
2009-04-01, 07:58 PM
But he doesn't always hand over criminals to the law. He sometimes give criminals the chance to leave the country if he feels that the punishment that the law would wreak on the criminal is too harsh for the deed.Yes, he occasionally circumvents the law, when he feels that the greater good would be served that way: He's definitely more good than lawful. But the circumventions are much rarer than him working through channels, and a character can take a few actions contrary to their alignment occasionally.

Devils_Advocate
2009-04-02, 09:13 PM
I think that the point that several people have been trying to make is that "dirty fighting" is a term that is both relative and subjective.

Part of the problem is that it's difficult to imagine just what, if any specific technique, the Rogue's Sneak Attack is supposed to represent. It doesn't help that dancing around in combat but not being able to see one's attacker, not yet having time to really react to one's attacker, just casually walking along unaware, or even standing motionless are all represented by the same game-mechanical penalty (loss of Dex bonus to AC), although clearly some of those would realistically give the attacker a bigger advantage than the others.


This is all really good except that I have a hard time with the organized chaos.
(A) There's no need to quote the entirety of something that long when it appears above on the same page and you're just giving a one-sentence response to the wall-o'-text as a whole. (Breaking it up into smaller chunks so as to make it clear when you're addressing which point is fine.)

(B) "Chaos", as used in the alignment system, is an egregious misnomer. Deal with it. "Chaotic" alignment is about being dishonorable, independent, individualistic, freethinking, innovative, rebellious... I don't mean all of those at once, or even any of them necessarily. I mean that it's about what all those things have in common: "defiance", I guess, if I had to pick a single English word for it. (Lawful alignment, then, would be "compliant".)

A Chaotic character certainly can be random and unpredictable. But it's Lawfulness that limits those qualities (because a Lawful character reliably follows some sort of standard), not Chaos that requires them. That's not what Chaos is about. It's entirely possible for a Chaotic character to be quite fastidious in an utterly eccentric way.

To clarify: A Lawful character is one who adheres to some externally determined standard. Some Chaotic characters quite adamantly insist on upholding their own personal standards that are different from everyone else's*, but others reject such self-imposed restraints as needlessly limiting. The first is probably what "Chaotic characters follow their consciences" is supposed to mean (Man, that's phrased poorly!), and the latter is why "Chaos" implies "adaptability and flexibility". I leave it to the reader to decide whether willful devotion to one's individual ideals or openness to personal change is "true Chaos". (My own opinion on the matter is that Chaos doesn't come in true and false varieties. :smallamused:)

*Wu Jen are big on this.


The "you go left, I go right, fire on three, then the others charge, cool?" kind of organized, or the "Pencils one, two, and three go in right pocket, pencils four, five, and six goes in shirt pocket and the illegal switchblade goes in left pocket" kind of organized.
Yes.


Not the "I am the judge, executioner, jury, and, if needed, executioner, got it?" kind of organized.
I wouldn't even call that "organized". I wouldn't even call it Lawful: following is Lawful, not leading. A demon lord can be utterly tyrannical. Or rather, he can try, but since his most of his potential subjects are demons and violently resent being controlled, he has his work cut out for him. That's why the demons don't win the Blood War, despite superior numbers: Leading an army of demons is rather like herding cats.

The devils keep from winning because, well, they're prone to infighting too; they just do it on more of a group level than an individual basis. Like I said, ideological conflicts tend to be Law on Law. And a bunch of Lawful Evil factions can agree that they blatantly should put aside their relatively minor differences to unite against a common threat... and then immediately set about fighting each other over just how those differences get put aside, and who gets to lead.

After all, from a devil's perspective, the universe should have his favored leader (quite possibly him) in charge, with those who most closely share her views and competencies in the second tier of command, all the way down to people who completely disagree with everything he stands for, who of course properly ought to be writhing in eternal agony. And he's certainly not going to let the threat of all creation being devoured by horrible beings of chaos dissuade him from taking a top-down approach to establishing a hierarchy. At least not unless/until it becomes a fairly immediate threat.

Telonius
2009-04-02, 11:08 PM
So, for LG Rogues, we have the iconic characters of ...
Sherlock Holmes (and other similar detective types)

Any others? Bilbo Baggins might qualify. So might Willow (before he took a level in Wizard).

Drascin
2009-04-03, 12:41 AM
yeah but fighting dirty goes against lawful beleif.

Um, dude, Samuel Vimes? I would think Vimes likely has a more than a couple Rogue levels among those Paladin levels, what with the stealth and the trapmaking/trap disabling abilities, and the big sneak attack bonuses. And you can't tell me Vimes of all people ain't lawful.

huttj509
2009-04-03, 02:05 AM
Fighting dirty:

The alleged rogues are lawful good, not lawful stupid. They might be all for fair play, giving the other guy a chance to surrender, etc., but when it comes down to it, and lives are on the line, they will use whatever means they have to win, whether it be a kidney punch, eye-gouge, or sliced achilles tendon.

HOWEVER, what they would not do necessarily is just open up with that. If someone backtalks in a bar when you're questioning him, you might slap him around, you might make it hurt, but you don't necessarily sneak attack, which I view as attempting to put the opponent down as fast as you possibly can, end it now before it gets ugly sort of thing.

Comparison to just, you know, fighting...a fighter might smack someone really hard to make it hurt, more apt at facing off and soaking the attacks while beating the other guy down. Sure, he tries to go for shots that'll hurt (hence no called shot general system), but he's more focused on connecting where he can. A rogue, however, is well practiced in placing his strikes and just smacks him right in the kidney when the guy's distracted or otherwise can't quite react to prevent the rogue from reaching whatever target he has.

Note that an attack from a rogue does not HAVE to be a sneak attack, even if it can be. That would represent the rogue having the chance to strike what some might consider a cheap shot, but forgoing the opportunity. Rogues do not always fight dirty, they just have the knowledge and experience to be able to easily when it's called for.

Think I rambeled a little, but it seems readable.

Stephen_E
2009-04-03, 05:59 AM
One of the sub-alignment fallacies I often see is the condusion of Chivalry with Law or Good. The reality was neither and even the fantasy is only at most a variant of "good".

Another is the confusing of Chivalry with Honour. Chivalry has a definition of honour built into it, but that definition is specific to those who accept the Chivalric code and is not a general definition.

Also it should be remembered that any and all alignments may have a personal sense of honour. Lawful alignments are more likely to have an externally applied code of honour. Externally apllied/enforced codes of honour are often used as a tool of tyranny/oppression because they're loaded to benefit the ruling classes and generally setup so that only the wealthy have the time/money to take advantages of many of their features.

Stephen E

Jayabalard
2009-04-03, 07:55 AM
Um, dude, Samuel Vimes? I would think Vimes likely has a more than a couple Rogue levels among those Paladin levels, what with the stealth and the trapmaking/trap disabling abilities, and the big sneak attack bonuses. And you can't tell me Vimes of all people ain't lawful.Someone can be lawful and still have some strong chaotic tendencies.

chiasaur11
2009-04-03, 10:12 AM
Um, dude, Samuel Vimes? I would think Vimes likely has a more than a couple Rogue levels among those Paladin levels, what with the stealth and the trapmaking/trap disabling abilities, and the big sneak attack bonuses. And you can't tell me Vimes of all people ain't lawful.

Paladin levels?

Vimes?

I mean, he's a swell guy, but, you know, he's not too fond of the gods, is one of the best dirty fighters in Ankh Morpokh, is speciesist against everybody, including humans...

Man. If you can do that as a 3.5 Paladin, that class just jumped a couple notches in my estimation.

Starbuck_II
2009-04-03, 10:18 AM
So, for LG Rogues, we have the iconic characters of ...
Sherlock Holmes (and other similar detective types)

Any others? Bilbo Baggins might qualify. So might Willow (before he took a level in Wizard).

Whoa, Willow the little guy is CG... unless you mean from the Willow Buffy the Vampire slayer she would be LG at start of series.

Paramour Pink
2009-04-03, 10:40 AM
Paladin levels?

Vimes?

I mean, he's a swell guy, but, you know, he's not too fond of the gods, is one of the best dirty fighters in Ankh Morpokh, is speciesist against everybody, including humans...

Man. If you can do that as a 3.5 Paladin, that class just jumped a couple notches in my estimation.

Although I don't know who Vimes is, if you think about it, it's actually possible to make the paladin you're suggesting. It wouldn't even take much except one variant rule.

You need the variant rules that allow the paladins of tyranny and slaughter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantcharacterclasses.htm). I would suggest choosing the Tyranny variant, specifically, because of the Lawful Evil alignment.

Lawful Evil is known to judge others based on religion and race (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) (among other things). So, that's the xenophobic and racist aspect covered. Next you need to remember that paladins *don't* need to worship a god.

It actually says in the Player's Handbook on page 43 that "Paladins need not devote themselves to a single deity—devotion to righteousness is enough." They can actually get their power from the sheer force of their alignment.

So far, then, we have a paladin that scorns the gods, but shows devotion to righteousness, and hates people based on race. But that misses out on the dirty fighting aspect. For that, you can easily fall back into going for the Blackguard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/blackguard.htm) prestige class. Make that Sneak Attack count as dirty fighting! As already discussed, it doesn't have to be that way, but you can still write it in such a fashion.

I don't think it's written anywhere that Evil people have to be jerks. And if you're a paladin, you should have a good charisma score. So, turn that into being a swell guy, and ta-da!! You now have your Vimes. :smallsmile:

chiasaur11
2009-04-03, 10:50 AM
Although I don't know who Vimes is, if you think about it, it's actually possible to make the paladin you're suggesting. It wouldn't even take much except one variant rule.

You need the variant rules that allow the paladins of tyranny and slaughter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantcharacterclasses.htm). I would suggest choosing the Tyranny variant, specifically, because of the Lawful Evil alignment.

Lawful Evil is known to judge others based on religion and race (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) (among other things). So, that's the xenophobic and racist aspect covered. Next you need to remember that paladins *don't* need to worship a god.

It actually says in the Player's Handbook on page 43 that "Paladins need not devote themselves to a single deity—devotion to righteousness is enough." They can actually get their power from the sheer force of their alignment.

So far, then, we have a paladin that scorns the gods, but shows devotion to righteousness, and hates people based on race. But that misses out on the dirty fighting aspect. For that, you can easily fall back into going for the Blackguard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/blackguard.htm) prestige class. Make that Sneak Attack count as dirty fighting! As already discussed, it doesn't have to be that way, but you can still write it in such a fashion.

I don't think it's written anywhere that Evil people have to be jerks. And if you're a paladin, you should have a good charisma score. So, turn that into being a swell guy, and ta-da!! You now have your Vimes. :smallsmile:

But Vimes is as Lawful Good as you're likely to find in Ankh Morpok. (Carrot Ironfoundson notwithstanding)
So, Blackguard is right out. Also, does a Paladin of Tyranny get the great will saves? I can't recall, and Blackboard Monitor Vimes definitely has amazing will.

Berserk Monk
2009-04-03, 10:56 AM
Rogue can be lawful: their law is kill anything that moves. Wait, no that's a barbarian's law, and even then it's more of a guideline since they can't be lawful. The rogue law is STEAL from anything that moves.

Wizard/Sorcerer law: fireball anything that moves (or animate undead anything that doesn't move)
Cleric law: heal anything that moves (or, like wizard/sorcerer, animate undead anything that doesn't move)
Druid law: wildshape into anything that moves
Bard law: entertain and/or seduce anything that moves (and I mean anything!!:smallwink:)

woodenbandman
2009-04-03, 11:35 AM
I don't understand why Barbarians can't be Lawful Good. How many laid back people (N or CN) have you seen get mad when you tell them that you disagree with them? Now how many devoutly religious people ("LG") have gotten mad when you disagree with THEM?

Telonius
2009-04-03, 11:53 AM
Whoa, Willow the little guy is CG... unless you mean from the Willow Buffy the Vampire slayer she would be LG at start of series.

Willow the little guy. You really think he's CG? Throughout the movie, his motivation is just to keep peace in village - he even tells his kids to leave the baby, on fairly Lawful (rather than good) grounds - then to return home to his family. He defers to the authority of his village elder, and follows the elder's pronouncement to the best of his abilities. Really the only chaotic things he does are the disappearing pig trick (when his back was really against the wall), and releasing Madmartigan (after it becomes clear that absolutely nobody else is going to take care of the baby).

Thane of Fife
2009-04-03, 11:55 AM
I don't understand why Barbarians can't be Lawful Good. How many laid back people (N or CN) have you seen get mad when you tell them that you disagree with them? Now how many devoutly religious people ("LG") have gotten mad when you disagree with THEM?

Eh, we're not talking about that kind of mad - barbarian rage is more like Hulk Mad rage. People like Tarzan, Enkidu, and Conan are usually depicted as being physically superior to civilized men simply because they grew up in wilder lands. Rage is supposed to be kind of like that. Once they become civilized, they don't stop being physically superior, but they don't continue to get more so.

Paramour Pink
2009-04-03, 11:57 AM
But Vimes is as Lawful Good as you're likely to find in Ankh Morpok. (Carrot Ironfoundson notwithstanding)
So, Blackguard is right out. Also, does a Paladin of Tyranny get the great will saves? I can't recall, and Blackboard Monitor Vimes definitely has amazing will.

A Lawful Good that's specisist? :smallconfused:

He sounds like that, by comparison, he's a saint, but not enough to be Lawful Good if he actively hates people based purely on race. Anyway, even if I think that's a stretch, I don't know the character outside of what you've said, so let's assume he actually is Lawful Good anyway. What I said above will work, minus even needing the variant then. :smallbiggrin:

Blackguards get Charisma to saves, and so do regular Paladins. So a high will save is nothing impossible to have. Not the least of which when you throw feats into it (Force of Personalty, Iron Will, Cumberous Will). You can easily get that. Multiclass a paladin with rogue for sneak attack, couple that with the Devoted Inquisitor feat, and you get the same result, only Lawful Good instead of Evil. Easy. :smallsmile:

chiasaur11
2009-04-03, 12:04 PM
A Lawful Good that's specisist? :smallconfused:

He sounds like that, by comparison, he's a saint, but not enough to be Lawful Good if he actively hates people based purely on race. Anyway, even if I think that's a stretch, I don't know the character outside of what you've said, so let's assume he actually is Lawful Good anyway. What I said above will work, minus even needing the variant then. :smallbiggrin:

Blackguards get Charisma to saves, and so do regular Paladins. So a high will save is nothing impossible to have. Not the least of which when you throw feats into it (Force of Personalty, Iron Will, Cumberous Will). You can easily get that. Multiclass a paladin with rogue for sneak attack, couple that with the Devoted Inquisitor feat, and you get the same result, only Lawful Good instead of Evil. Easy. :smallsmile:

Well, didn't you notice I said he's racist against all species equally, including his own?

His biases even out. Except the one against vampires. Man does not like vampires.

Doug Lampert
2009-04-03, 12:14 PM
Paladin levels?

Vimes?

I mean, he's a swell guy, but, you know, he's not too fond of the gods, is one of the best dirty fighters in Ankh Morpokh, is speciesist against everybody, including humans...

Man. If you can do that as a 3.5 Paladin, that class just jumped a couple notches in my estimation.

Vimes is prejudiced against every group AS A GROUP. And he's fair to every actual individual he ever interacts with regardless of group.

Name an actual act of Vimes that would cause a LG Paladin to fall in any edition of D&D. Seriously. Vimes as a character ALWAYS acts correctly. When introduced at the beginning of Guards Guards he's probably a fallen Paladin (lying drunk in the gutter would tend to indicate this) but faced by a crisis he gets back up and for the rest of the series acts as you'd expect a slightly cynical but fairly smart Paladin/Rogue to act.

LG Paladin/Rogue is the ideal and obvious way to build the character. Probably more Rogue levels than Paladin except the young vimes in Night Watch who hasn't yet taken any Rogue levels.

DougL

Doug Lampert
2009-04-03, 12:17 PM
Well, didn't you notice I said he's racist against all species equally, including his own?

His biases even out. Except the one against vampires. Man does not like vampires.

Even for vampires they even out. Have you read The Fifth Elephant and Thud.

DougL

Starbuck_II
2009-04-03, 12:17 PM
Willow the little guy. You really think he's CG?

Yes I do.


Throughout the movie, his motivation is just to keep peace in village - he even tells his kids to leave the baby

Neutral. If it isn't his family/friends: then he doesn't want to mess with anything. Text book Neutral action.


. He defers to the authority of his village elder, and follows the elder's pronouncement to the best of his abilities.

So do neutrals.


Really the only chaotic things he does are the disappearing pig trick (when his back was really against the wall), and releasing Madmartigan (after it becomes clear that absolutely nobody else is going to take care of the baby).

Exactly, if all you do is neutral and then some chaotic and you are CG or NG and not possible to be LG.

Since, I think he fits CG more than NG: I see him as CG.

Every act he does is neutral or C: there is nothing that counts more lawful than it counts neutral.

Really read this:


Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.


He has a normal respect for the Elders. Before he has no reason to disobey them so he doesn't.

chiasaur11
2009-04-03, 12:20 PM
Even for vampires they even out. Have you read The Fifth Elephant and Thud.

DougL

Yeah, I was referring to early Vimes. Man, if I play a Paladin in 3.5...

I know how I'm doing it.

hamishspence
2009-04-03, 12:42 PM
Willow gets an alternate name "Thorn" in the George Lucas sequel novels- the Elora Danan trilogy.

(and stronger Chaotic leanings, I think)

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-03, 01:00 PM
Vimes is so Lawful Good it's not even funny. (Well, okay, it is. In a good way.)

"Who watches the Watchmen?"
"I do."

And he means it.

Morty
2009-04-03, 01:21 PM
As far as I'm concerned, Vimes has always felt like someone who is neither Lawful nor Good at heart, but is trying very hard to be Lawful Good nonetheless.

Tengu_temp
2009-04-03, 01:34 PM
As far as I'm concerned, Vimes has always felt like someone who is neither Lawful nor Good at heart, but is trying very hard to be Lawful Good nonetheless.

For me, it's the opposite - he's lawful good who fools himself into thinking he's lawful neutral or just neutral.

hamishspence
2009-04-03, 01:35 PM
which should get extra credit- constantly behaving in an LG manner when you're not naturally inclined to it seems more LG, to me, than simply being law-abiding and benevolent because you've never considered any other way to behave.

Granny Weatherwax is similar in many ways.

Morty
2009-04-03, 01:42 PM
For me, it's the opposite - he's lawful good who fools himself into thinking he's lawful neutral or just neutral.

I should have phrased it differently - I think that Vimes is, in fact, LG, he's just doing so against his instinct. He'd really want to be a vigilante of Dirty Harry type at times, but he's fighting against it.

Telonius
2009-04-03, 02:21 PM
He has a normal respect for the Elders. Before he has no reason to disobey them so he doesn't.

I wouldn't say that it's a normal respect for Elders. Isn't he the only one who stays by the baby, when all the others from the village have given up and gone back? He could have just left the kid and gone back home. Even more than that, he could have tried to hide the fact that he'd taken in the kid, or escape the punishment in some other way. I think there's quite a lot of people who would have.

Even in his chaotic actions, they're only his second choices. When he was fighting Bavmorda, his first option was the more lawful one: frontal assault with the magic acorns. It's only when that failed that he used guile. Same way with freeing Madmartigan. His first option was the lawful one: he tried to give the kid to a passing authority figure, who refused. When that failed, he extracted a promise from Madmartigan. Taken together, that suggests to me that he has a general attitude of respect for law, authority, and personal promises. (See also this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) :smallbiggrin:)

Contrast that with somebody like the village Elder, who's about as clearly Chaotic Good as you can get. He blatantly uses his "scrying" abilities to say whatever it is he wants to say - though all with the village's good at heart.


"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should. ...
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

That sounds quite a bit like Willow to me.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-03, 04:04 PM
But Vimes is as Lawful Good as you're likely to find in Ankh Morpok. (Carrot Ironfoundson notwithstanding)
So, Blackguard is right out. Also, does a Paladin of Tyranny get the great will saves? I can't recall, and Blackboard Monitor Vimes definitely has amazing will.Hell, Carrot is Neutral Exalted. Vimes, though, personal code+obedience to legitimate authority(though everyone obeys Vetinari) means lawful, and the fact that he is the richest man in the city and he still works 12 hour days in order to help keep the city safe means he's probably good.

Stephen_E
2009-04-03, 04:39 PM
I don't understand why Barbarians can't be Lawful Good. How many laid back people (N or CN) have you seen get mad when you tell them that you disagree with them? Now how many devoutly religious people ("LG") have gotten mad when you disagree with THEM?

Barbs can't be lawful because the PHB says they can't.
That's the only reason. As for why the restriction was created. I suspect 2 main reasons.
1) Early DnD was in to alignment restrictions. These have loosened but remenats still hang on.
2) Misunderstanding by designers re: what "barbarian" societies were about (they tended to be what DnD calls lawful more than modern societies) and putting to much weight on Robert Howards stories.

Stephen E