Can a thief be lawful?

[Doctor Despair]

In a build I was considering recently for a thief, a class seems very beneficial, but requires a template that requires a non-evil status and a prestige class that requires the character to be lawful. Now the class isn't from Complete Arcane or Complete Warrior, so there technically isn't an impetus for the character to remain lawful after taking the first level, but I try to avoid losing prerequisites for builds if I can. Obviously a character with a very strict code of conduct like a paladin would be unable to daylight as a thief, but what about a generic lawful good or lawful neutral character? Can a thief be lawful?


Law Vs. Chaos

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"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.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

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.

Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful-chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

Lawful Good, "Crusader"
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.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

Lawful Neutral, "Judge"
A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

To my eye, it seems like Lawful Good might preclude being a thief, given stealing could be seen to be evil (or at least definitely not good), but a Lawful Neutral character could steal if the theft was according to a personal code they adhered to. What do you think?

[Feldar]

I don't think it's that much of an obstacle personally.

In D&D parlance, lawful can also mean strict adherence to a code.

Perhap the thief only steals from the corrupt and gives the proceeds to good causes. Perhaps the thief is willing to use his skills to gather intelligence that assists with the prosecution of crimes. Perhaps the thief is a member of an order that answers to a higher calling than a corrupt legal system.

[Maat Mons]

Maybe you could steal from "primitive" societies, and sell the lucre to museums in your homeland? Then you'd definitely be a respected, law-abiding citizen.

[zlefin]

Just to be clear: you're talking about a thief, and not just the rogue class, correct?
If so, it seems like it'd depend what exactly they're stealing and why.

I'd say it's possible in principle, even for lawful good. As long as you have a justification.

[Zanos]

Sure. A Lawful thief is usually called a government though, and when it steals it's called taxation.

More seriously, stealing is certainly associated with Chaos, since property laws are pretty universal in most Lawful societies. It usually helps to think of Lawful as Order, and theft is almost always non-orderly. Theft is also associated with Evil although not always, Evil characters usually need a reason not to steal. Are all thieves Chaotic Evil though? Well no, of course not. It depends on your reasons. Wanton theft without thought to your targets will certainly push you to chaotic evil. But an organized crime family that smuggles and extorts protection money is criminal and certainly would be defined by some people as theft, but is most likely Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil. A character that goes out of their way to steal magical components from an evil church that uses them to cast spells that hurt people is probably Chaotic Good.

I don't buy the "personal code" stuff, usually. You could then play a character whose "personal code" is to sow disorder wherever they go, which is obviously not Lawful. A personal code can push you to a Lawful alignment, but only if the ethos of that code is also Lawful. Clerics of Chaotic deities aren't Lawful because they have to follow their deities dogma.

More to the specific point here, I find it pretty unlikely that a Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral character would be frequently breaking in to commit heists or pick-pocketing people on the street. Lawful characters work within the system, and thieves specifically are working against it.

[hamishspence]

When "the system" is already fundamentally corrupt and Chaotic, it makes sense for Lawful characters to defy it.

For example, if a "raiding band" has robbed a village and fled, with stuff, and returned to their home, and there's no chance whatsoever of negotiation getting the stuff back from the home country of the raiders, I could see a band of LG adventurers sneaking into "Raider Town" under invisibility spells, to get the stuff back.

[liquidformat]

More seriously, stealing is certainly associated with Chaos, since property laws are pretty universal in most Lawful societies. It usually helps to think of Lawful as Order, and theft is almost always non-orderly. Theft is also associated with Evil although not always, Evil characters usually need a reason not to steal. Are all thieves Chaotic Evil though? Well no, of course not. It depends on your reasons. Wanton theft without thought to your targets will certainly push you to chaotic evil. But an organized crime family that smuggles and extorts protection money is criminal and certainly would be defined by some people as theft, but is most likely Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil. A character that goes out of their way to steal magical components from an evil church that uses them to cast spells that hurt people is probably Chaotic Good.

You were almost off to such a good start talking about government then Just went off on a tangent. There is plenty of easy proof that stealing and theft isn't and shouldn't be considered evil or good. Robin Hood after all is a very normal example of a good character that steals. So right off the bat good characters can steal just as evil characters can and therefore stealing isn't on the good evil axis.

We can also look at espionage which has existed as a governmental practice probably as long as there have been governments. So if all governments take part in espionage (stealing from other governments) stealing seems pretty clearly a lawful practice.

[Zanos]

You were almost off to such a good start talking about government then Just went off on a tangent. There is plenty of easy proof that stealing and theft isn't and shouldn't be considered evil or good. Robin Hood after all is a very normal example of a good character that steals. So right off the bat good characters can steal just as evil characters can and therefore stealing isn't on the good evil axis.
I said they're associated, but not 1:1. I even gave examples of how a character could be non-Evil and steal. But the books are pretty clear that there's a correlation between stealing and Chaotic/Evil.

In Robin Hood's case, he stole from a regime he believed to be illegitimate in order to give to the people. That's clearly Chaotic Good, and I already said someone who steals can be Chaotic Good, but would need certain factors in order to be so. Specifically, who he steals from and why.


We can also look at espionage which has existed as a governmental practice probably as long as there have been governments. So if all governments take part in espionage (stealing from other governments) stealing seems pretty clearly a lawful practice.
I would not expect a LG D&D government to have a vast network of undercover spies, assassins, and agent provocateurs. Real world governments are usually not good analogues to fantasy governments.

[Gnaeus]

LG is harder, but for LN thief…

An organized crime member. Mafia or yakuza maybe. Very strong code. Not necessarily a large commitment to evil, may even perform good acts to get community support/reduce law enforcement, may see themselves as protecting their people from those other gangs

One of those guys with a business testing security at banks or other high risk locations.

As mentioned, a spy may qualify. Those bothans who stole the Death Star plans may even have been good.

[Saintheart]

Mercenaries may count. "We're a rescue team, not assassins."

[Doctor Despair]

I don't think it's that much of an obstacle personally.

In D&D parlance, lawful can also mean strict adherence to a code.

Perhap the thief only steals from the corrupt and gives the proceeds to good causes. Perhaps the thief is willing to use his skills to gather intelligence that assists with the prosecution of crimes. Perhaps the thief is a member of an order that answers to a higher calling than a corrupt legal system.

That's what I was thinking. A thief adopts a code later in life, or joins an organization, and uses their skills to punish/disarm/weaken a specific group (whether it be evil creatures, or law-breaking creatures, or maybe some sort of economic philosophy with regard to the rich vs the poor...)


You might as well ask can any Lawful character take loot from a creature they've just defeated. Unless the law of the land specifically entitles victors to the goods of beings they slay, technically you aren't obeying the law. There's a reason adventures are often known as Murder Hobos. :smallbiggrin:

Also, +1 that lawful in D&D terms can mean strict adherence to a code, rather than slavishly following the laws of the land. An LG Paladin, for instance, could reasonably be expected to ignore or even break unjust/evil laws.

That's fair. If we start from the fact that it's morally acceptable to kill creatures that would be hostile to you, and that looting them isn't unlawful afterward, then looting them beforehand or in lieu of killing them seems like it should be fine. Indeed, maybe a lawful good character would feel OBLIGATED to steal from those propping up an amoral system or opposed government/group.


Maybe you could steal from "primitive" societies, and sell the lucre to museums in your homeland? Then you'd definitely be a respected, law-abiding citizen.

https://64.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzuvhqgZ0x1qhvsq9o1_500.gifv

Memes aside, it's an interesting thought: to what extent is behavior that would be unlawful if conducted on your "in group" (whether it be your country, your town, your company, your family, etc) acceptable, lawful, or even respectable if conducted upon a member or members of the "out group" or "other."


Just to be clear: you're talking about a thief, and not just the rogue class, correct?
If so, it seems like it'd depend what exactly they're stealing and why.

I'd say it's possible in principle, even for lawful good. As long as you have a justification.

Yes, I'm referring specifically to a thief. It actually doesn't have classes in rogue. I think it's important that the justification is more durable than a shoe-string though; a character who says, for example, that their moral code is to always look out for #1 is almost certainly not lawful.


When "the system" is already fundamentally corrupt and Chaotic, it makes sense for Lawful characters to defy it.

For example, if a "raiding band" has robbed a village and fled, with stuff, and returned to their home, and there's no chance whatsoever of negotiation getting the stuff back from the home country of the raiders, I could see a band of LG adventurers sneaking into "Raider Town" under invisibility spells, to get the stuff back.

I think a lawful character certainly has carte blanche to steal stolen goods from thieves on behalf of the original owners. Does that extend to theft of all stolen goods period? What about theft of goods gained in morally repugnant ways (e.g. the rewards of extortion)?


LG is harder, but for LN thief…

An organized crime member. Mafia or yakuza maybe. Very strong code. Not necessarily a large commitment to evil, may even perform good acts to get community support/reduce law enforcement, may see themselves as protecting their people from those other gangs

One of those guys with a business testing security at banks or other high risk locations.

As mentioned, a spy may qualify. Those bothans who stole the Death Star plans may even have been good.

I could see the merit in a member of a crime syndicate or some sort of organized crime count as lawful neutral. It's certainly order -- just set up in direct opposition to the "de jure" government for the area. I think it's important that the organization isn't explicitly corrupt or evil for the character to remain lawful neutral and not lawful evil though, don't you think?


Sure. A Lawful thief is usually called a government though, and when it steals it's called taxation.

More seriously, stealing is certainly associated with Chaos, since property laws are pretty universal in most Lawful societies. It usually helps to think of Lawful as Order, and theft is almost always non-orderly. Theft is also associated with Evil although not always, Evil characters usually need a reason not to steal. Are all thieves Chaotic Evil though? Well no, of course not. It depends on your reasons. Wanton theft without thought to your targets will certainly push you to chaotic evil. But an organized crime family that smuggles and extorts protection money is criminal and certainly would be defined by some people as theft, but is most likely Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil. A character that goes out of their way to steal magical components from an evil church that uses them to cast spells that hurt people is probably Chaotic Good.

I don't buy the "personal code" stuff, usually. You could then play a character whose "personal code" is to sow disorder wherever they go, which is obviously not Lawful. A personal code can push you to a Lawful alignment, but only if the ethos of that code is also Lawful. Clerics of Chaotic deities aren't Lawful because they have to follow their deities dogma.

More to the specific point here, I find it pretty unlikely that a Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral character would be frequently breaking in to commit heists or pick-pocketing people on the street. Lawful characters work within the system, and thieves specifically are working against it.


You were almost off to such a good start talking about government then Just went off on a tangent. There is plenty of easy proof that stealing and theft isn't and shouldn't be considered evil or good. Robin Hood after all is a very normal example of a good character that steals. So right off the bat good characters can steal just as evil characters can and therefore stealing isn't on the good evil axis.

We can also look at espionage which has existed as a governmental practice probably as long as there have been governments. So if all governments take part in espionage (stealing from other governments) stealing seems pretty clearly a lawful practice.


I said they're associated, but not 1:1. I even gave examples of how a character could be non-Evil and steal. But the books are pretty clear that there's a correlation between stealing and Chaotic/Evil.

In Robin Hood's case, he stole from a regime he believed to be illegitimate in order to give to the people. That's clearly Chaotic Good, and I already said someone who steals can be Chaotic Good, but would need certain factors in order to be so. Specifically, who he steals from and why.


I would not expect a LG D&D government to have a vast network of undercover spies, assassins, and agent provocateurs. Real world governments are usually not good analogues to fantasy governments.

So Zanos, you'd argue that theft is inimical to the interests of a lawful society? So an official government for an area that legally establishes that theft is permissible would be inherently chaotic? I'm reminded of Terry Pratchett's Ankh-Morpork where the patrician helped in the establishment of an official Thieves' Guild. The guildmaster was as respected as any other guild master; they sold theft insurance, thieves had to be licensed, taxes had to be paid on all thefts, and unlicensed thieves faced... hard punishments. You don't think that a lawful neutral thief could exist in such an organization?

[Zanos]

So Zanos, you'd argue that theft is inimical to the interests of a lawful society? So an official government for an area that legally establishes that theft is permissible would be inherently chaotic? I'm reminded of Terry Pratchett's Ankh-Morpork where the patrician helped in the establishment of an official Thieves' Guild. The guildmaster was as respected as any other guild master; they sold theft insurance, thieves had to be licensed, taxes had to be paid on all thefts, and unlicensed thieves faced... hard punishments. You don't think that a lawful neutral thief could exist in such an organization?
Sounds like organized crime to me, which is usually Lawful Evil or Netural Evil. Typically, one does not need insurance against intentional actions taken by others when those actions are Neutral or Good.

But yes, you could be a LN thief in such a society, but only if you behaved in such a way where you weren't stealing from people who it actually hurt. Using existing systems to harm other people for your own benefit is the domain of LE, not LN. And of course, if your nations thieving guild only approves thefts that the victims could afford, and the government is getting some of that money, you aren't that different from a tax collector.

[Doctor Despair]

Sounds like organized crime to me, which is usually Lawful Evil or Netural Evil. Typically, one does not need insurance against intentional actions taken by others when those actions are Neutral or Good.

But yes, you could be a LN thief in such a society, but only if you behaved in such a way where you weren't stealing from people who it actually hurt. Using existing systems to harm other people for your own benefit is the domain of LE, not LN. And of course, if your nations thieving guild only approves thefts that the victims could afford, and the government is getting some of that money, you aren't that different from a tax collector.

It seems like, based on the criteria you seem to be establishing, we'd see this scale:


Organized crime? Lawful or neutral.

Individual brigand/pickpocket? Chaotic or neutral.


You seem to be arguing that being lawful is a function of how strictly you adhere to the rules of a group or society in which you are a member, not how strictly you adhere to your own code.


Stealing from those who can't "afford" the loss? Evil.

Stealing from those who can "afford" the loss? Neutral.


Would that accurately describe your position?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Slaves are considered property, and setting them free is considered theft...

[Gurgeh]

Some context for Discworld:



One of the Patrician’s greatest contributions to the reliable operation of Ankh-Morpork had been, very early in his administration, the legalising of the ancient Guild of Thieves. Crime was always with us, he reasoned, and therefore, if you were going to have crime, it at least should be organised crime.

And so the Guild had been encouraged to come out of the shadows and build a big Guildhouse, take their place at civic banquets, and set up their training college with day-release courses and City and Guilds certificates and everything. In exchange for the winding down of the Watch, they agreed, while trying to keep their faces straight, to keep crime levels to a level to be determined annually. That way, everyone could plan ahead, said Lord Vetinari, and part of the uncertainty had been removed from the chaos that is life.

And then, a little while later, the Patrician summoned the leading thieves again and said, oh, by the way, there was something else. What was it, now? Oh, yes…

I know who you are, he said. I know where you live. I know what kind of horse you ride. I know where your wife has her hair done. I know where your lovely children, how old are they now, my, doesn’t time fly, I know where they play. So you won’t forget about what we agreed, will you? And he smiled.

So did they, after a fashion.

[Zanos]

It seems like, based on the criteria you seem to be establishing, we'd see this scale:


Organized crime? Lawful or neutral.

Individual brigand/pickpocket? Chaotic or neutral.


Most likely, yes. You can have chaotic groups, a loosely organized bandit gang is most likely Chaotic, for example. Lawful characters value tradition, ceremony, honor, reputation, order, hierarchy, etc. Organized crime loses Lawful points for being 'crime', but usually these organizations are so big on the other aspects that make up the Lawful alignment, they can still be Lawful even though they defy the behavior that wider society expects from them. When those aspects fall away from organized crime, or are carried out in name only, it ceases to be LE and slips into NE.



You seem to be arguing that being lawful is a function of how strictly you adhere to the rules of a group or society in which you are a member, not how strictly you adhere to your own code.
You can have Lawful personal codes and Chaotic group codes. It depends on what the codes actually are. A chaotic evil god of hedonism that tells you to indulge your vices at every whim does have divine tenants he expects his worshipers to follow, but just because there's a group of people all following the same set of rules does not a Lawful society make. And a LG fighter who belongs to no specific legal orders but has a strong personal code to never lie or cheat and always act with honor is still Lawful, even though his beliefs are not anchored by an external organization.



Stealing from those who can't "afford" the loss? Evil.

Stealing from those who can "afford" the loss? Neutral.


That's fine.


Slaves are considered property, and setting them free is considered theft...
Now what if those slaves are Demons that a wizard has bound into fighting off an invasion of other Demons?

Context matters, and I've always provided caveats that exceptions exist in extreme scenarios. Freeing the slaves of a LE society that works anyone that gets on it bad side to death in labor camps? Almost certainly some flavor of Good.

Letting a bunch of demons off their magical chains when the fate of the world hangs in the balance? Probably Evil, and definitely stupid.


Some context for Discworld:
Is this not Lord Vetinari, who is very, very, very Lawful Evil?

[AnonJr]

Rather than get bogged down in how to justify certain things in certain alignments, might I suggest a different tack?

Pen testers are also thieves, and less ambiguously legal ones at that. They need the same skills, attitude, and mindset. And you'll have the same issues working them in a party as any other LG character.

My sister did this for a short campaign a few years ago. When not adventuring she was hired to break in and give the owner a report of how it worked and how to fix it. Think the movie Sneakers. (that might be too '90s a reference... I feel old)

[Particle_Man]

This made me think of privateers, who worked for country A and had the legal right to rob ships from country B (although country B saw things differently). So that could be a lawful neutral thief. Maybe even a lawful good one, depending on how evil country B was, and what the thief, and country A, did with the loot.

[Gurgeh]

Is this not Lord Vetinari, who is very, very, very Lawful Evil?
Vetinari's depiction changed over the course of the series; the quote is from the first book to give him any meaningful characterisation. You could probably squash him into the Lawful Evil hole as well as any other in Guards! Guards!, though the best fit for him from Jingo onwards is likely Neutral given his greatest defining trait is pragmatism.

Ultimately, the D&D alignment system is not a good fit for him (or most characters in fiction, really), so you're left with the usual problem of trying to put your square peg into a round hole.

[rel]

you can absolutely have a LG thief.

Just like the LG paladin happily smites heathens all day long without trouble, your thief (who no doubt values life more than property) fights the evil doers by taking their stuff, reserving something as serious and final as actually killing them for rare and momentous occasions.

[danielxcutter]

Slight tangent, but there's absolutely nothing stopping you from being a Lawful rogue; thief is only one of the many roles a rogue can do. Assassin, con-man, scout, spy, and many more roles are quite easily doable with even a simple single-class Rogue build, often more than one role in fact considering how many skill points they can get.

[redking]

Assuming we are talking about the Rogue class, and not a simple thief that brings the misery of criminal activity to his community, then yes, the Rogue classed character can be good or even Lawful Good.

Take Robin Hood, for example. I'll admit that Robin Hood is more a Neutral Good archetype, but you could have a Lawful Good Robin Hood type character that tries to set things right against a Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil sherrif of Nottingham type. Such a character would have more difficulty against a Lawful Evil adversary because the Lawful Good character may feel obligated to work within the system to change the system. Such an obligation would not be felt if the regime was Neutral or Chaotic.

[Zanos]

Vetinari's depiction changed over the course of the series; the quote is from the first book to give him any meaningful characterisation. You could probably squash him into the Lawful Evil hole as well as any other in Guards! Guards!, though the best fit for him from Jingo onwards is likely Neutral given his greatest defining trait is pragmatism.
Ruthless pragmatism is generally going to push someone into Neutral Evil, because if sometimes "Save the Orphans" is pragmatic, and sometimes "Kill all the Orphans" is pragmatic, you don't really get to say they cancel out.

[SpyOne]

I offer the character Parker from the movie of the same name, and these quotes from the trailer:
"Everybody steals"
"A man's got to have rules"
"I don't steal from anyone who can't afford it."
"I don't hurt anyone who doesn’t deserve it."

As many have pointed out, Lawful is easy, Good is the more difficult of the two. But Good can be easy depending on who you steal from and why, including what you do with what you take. Just ask Robin Hood and Zorro. Or the Scarlet Pimpernell.

[Arkhios]

Yeah. 'Lawful' is a bit poor term, in terms of language. But it does serve its purpose.

Better term would probably be 'disciplined' or the like.

A thief can be disciplined, even though they don't always follow the law to the letter (or rather, interpret the written law is it "should" be interpreted) :smallbiggrin:

[Fizban]

Haven't read that in ages, let's strike out the words that aren't actually defining:


Law Vs. Chaos

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority (?), honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Didn't actually cull as much as expected. Ironically, because chaos is simply the antithesis of law, it's much easier to describe than the "lawfulness" that people raised in modern lawful-leaning cultures just expect. "Respect authority" is still a bit questionable, since "respect" can mean a lot of things, but presumably by respect they mean "defer to."


"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.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

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. . .
Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen.
And. . . yeah that's all fine to.

People always complaining about this alignment system, don't get it.


seem to be arguing that being lawful is a function of how strictly you adhere to the rules of a group or society in which you are a member, not how strictly you adhere to your own code.
Well actually a huge part of it is this: the "personal code." A personal code isn't lawful, you made it up. A personal code isn't chaotic, it's a code you follow rather than evaluating things. A "personal code" does not indicate alignment. A lawful person remains lawful even if they need to reluctantly bend the law (do what they know they're not supposed to do) for a while, but if you bend your "personal code," you both made it up and choose when it can be ignored, so it means less than nothing.

Further, a "personal code" usually isn't personal- this person was still raised by people, in a greater or lesser proximity to society, and any "code" they develop is still made based on expectations from those people, whether agreeing or deliberately contrasting. The "personal code" is usually either trying to excuse a disrespect for local laws (which is not something you need to excuse), or to pretend a chaotic person is actually lawful for mechanical purposes.



Yes, you can have a lawful thief. The thief's alignment is determined by what they do to who and why, as always.

[hamishspence]

A personal code isn't lawful, you made it up. A personal code isn't chaotic, it's a code you follow rather than evaluating things. A "personal code" does not indicate alignment. A lawful person remains lawful even if they need to reluctantly bend the law (do what they know they're not supposed to do) for a while, but if you bend your "personal code," you both made it up and choose when it can be ignored, so it means less than nothing.

Further, a "personal code" usually isn't personal- this person was still raised by people, in a greater or lesser proximity to society, and any "code" they develop is still made based on expectations from those people, whether agreeing or deliberately contrasting.

The association between "personal code" and "Lawful" is present in the Lawful Neutral description:


Lawful Neutral, "Judge"
A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.


"Code of conduct" also comes up for LE:


Lawful Evil, "Dominator"
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion.

And The Giant provides a good explanation of what "code of conduct" Lawful characters need to do, to stay Lawful.




In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

[Rynjin]

Assuming we are talking about the Rogue class, and not a simple thief that brings the misery of criminal activity to his community, then yes, the Rogue classed character can be good or even Lawful Good.

Take Robin Hood, for example. I'll admit that Robin Hood is more a Neutral Good archetype, but you could have a Lawful Good Robin Hood type character that tries to set things right against a Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil sherrif of Nottingham type. Such a character would have more difficulty against a Lawful Evil adversary because the Lawful Good character may feel obligated to work within the system to change the system. Such an obligation would not be felt if the regime was Neutral or Chaotic.

One could very easily argue that while Robin Hood is generally held up as the Chaotic Good archetype...Lawful Good just as easily fits.

Robin Hood was (in many tellings) a landed knight or some other kind of noble and staunchly loyal to the true, legal ruler of his country. Fighting back against a corrupt and unlawful regime is not in itself a Chaotic act. It could very well be argued that what Robin Hood does in the tales is not only morally upright, but legally correct (even demanded), the same as putting down a coup, as he was essentially fighting against a usurper.

Robin Hood is very easy to spin as someone doing their duty, as well as what they believe to be morally right.

[Gnaeus]

I could see the merit in a member of a crime syndicate or some sort of organized crime count as lawful neutral. It's certainly order -- just set up in direct opposition to the "de jure" government for the area. I think it's important that the organization isn't explicitly corrupt or evil for the character to remain lawful neutral and not lawful evil though, don't you think?

Your alignment doesn’t always match the alignment of your organization. An organized crime assassin or leg breaker is almost certainly LE. A bank robber or nefarious accountant could be neutral.

[Saint-Just]

One could very easily argue that while Robin Hood is generally held up as the Chaotic Good archetype...Lawful Good just as easily fits.

Robin Hood was (in many tellings) a landed knight or some other kind of noble and staunchly loyal to the true, legal ruler of his country. Fighting back against a corrupt and unlawful regime is not in itself a Chaotic act. It could very well be argued that what Robin Hood does in the tales is not only morally upright, but legally correct (even demanded), the same as putting down a coup, as he was essentially fighting against a usurper.

Robin Hood is very easy to spin as someone doing their duty, as well as what they believe to be morally right.

That gets a resounding "nah" for me. You don't get to spin everything that damages unlawful regime as "doing your duty". Randomly starting fires in the cities is likely to damage an unlawful regime if continued for enough time, but unless we see the character explicitly and convincingly analyzing it as such the normal explanation is that the character is a pyromaniac. Motivations for Robin Hood's action are usually around survival, having fun, and humanitarianism (giving to the poor). Robbing the rich is allowable means to a good end not an end into itself, especially when he is a nobleman. Same goes for funding some sort of rebellion - the end (rebellion) may be lawful (depending on who you ask) but the means definitely aren't.

[liquidformat]

In Robin Hood's case, he stole from a regime he believed to be illegitimate in order to give to the people. That's clearly Chaotic Good, and I already said someone who steals can be Chaotic Good, but would need certain factors in order to be so. Specifically, who he steals from and why.

That gets a resounding "nah" for me. You don't get to spin everything that damages unlawful regime as "doing your duty". Randomly starting fires in the cities is likely to damage an unlawful regime if continued for enough time, but unless we see the character explicitly and convincingly analyzing it as such the normal explanation is that the character is a pyromaniac. Motivations for Robin Hood's action are usually around survival, having fun, and humanitarianism (giving to the poor). Robbing the rich is allowable means to a good end not an end into itself, especially when he is a nobleman. Same goes for funding some sort of rebellion - the end (rebellion) may be lawful (depending on who you ask) but the means definitely aren't.

I am not sure about that as Rynjin pointed out Robin Hood is often depicted as a landed knight who had his land stolen by a usurper to the thrown. In that case he is simply a loyal and Lawful citizen fighting back against a corrupt and illegitimate government trying to buy time for the real government to make its way back, that sounds pretty lawful good to me.

Why does having fun and enjoying yourself have anything to do with your alignment?


I would not expect a LG D&D government to have a vast network of undercover spies, assassins, and agent provocateurs. Real world governments are usually not good analogues to fantasy governments.

Unless you enforce and expect lawful stupid I see no reason an LG D&D government wouldn't have a network of spies and agent provocateurs to make sure they aren't going to be invaded or what not. Especially if you have neighboring evil leaning governments.



So an official government for an area that legally establishes that theft is permissible would be inherently chaotic? I'm reminded of Terry Pratchett's Ankh-Morpork where the patrician helped in the establishment of an official Thieves' Guild. The guildmaster was as respected as any other guild master; they sold theft insurance, thieves had to be licensed, taxes had to be paid on all thefts, and unlicensed thieves faced... hard punishments. You don't think that a lawful neutral thief could exist in such an organization?

I mean this is exactly what privateering was in the swashbuckling pirate days. Government A hires you to acquire merchandise from the ships of other governments...

[Gnaeus]

Unless you enforce and expect lawful stupid I see no reason an LG D&D government wouldn't have a network of spies and agent provocateurs to make sure they aren't going to be invaded or what not. Especially if you have neighboring evil leaning governments..

The Silver Flame is a LG government, and the Silver Torch is (among other things) their intelligence service. Pretty certainly there are non LG members of both organizations, but also LG ones.

[mashlagoo1982]

I could see a character like a pirate or privateer being played as a thief whom is lawful good or lawful neutral.

Historically many followed a code of conduct and were even sanctioned by a government.
Many crew elected their captains as a basic type of democracy.

So, it should be possible to get it to work with DM approval.
Maybe only act on your thieving impulses on government approved targets?

Edit: ninjaed

[Zanos]

Unless you enforce and expect lawful stupid I see no reason an LG D&D government wouldn't have a network of spies and agent provocateurs to make sure they aren't going to be invaded or what not. Especially if you have neighboring evil leaning governments.
I do expect empires who are strongly aligned to not routinely do things that are against their alignment. So yeah, if a LG empire is running false flag operations to stir up trouble among it's neighbors, it's probably not Lawful Good. That's the thing about alignments that aren't Neutral Evil, sometimes you act in ways that aren't purely pragmatic, because you actually believe in ethics other than "do whatever is most effective."

A LG government might have informants and spies, but would probably be more focused on counter-espionage than espionage. So they can have espionage, sure, but they aren't going to employee operatives that intentionally make things worse for common folk or carry out off the books murder operations. The Good assassin class was literally written as an April Fools joke, to the point that the art is literally just the Assassin art mirrored and painted white.

[Gnaeus]

I do expect empires who are strongly aligned to not routinely do things that are against their alignment. So yeah, if a LG empire is running false flag operations to stir up trouble among it's neighbors, it's probably not Lawful Good. That's the thing about alignments that aren't Neutral Evil, sometimes you act in ways that aren't purely pragmatic, because you actually believe in ethics other than "do whatever is most effective."

A LG government might have informants and spies, but would probably be more focused on counter-espionage than espionage. So they can have espionage, sure, but they aren't going to employee operatives that intentionally make things worse for common folk or carry out off the books murder operations. The Good assassin class was literally written as an April Fools joke, to the point that the art is literally just the Assassin art mirrored and painted white.

Why are we talking about assassins now? The question was about LG/N thieves, and one example given was spies. Yeah, I agree that a good empire may not have hit teams. Or they may. Adjacent evil empire has a Necromancer researching new undead or golems or black magic spells and we need you to stop him and destroy his work by whatever means necessary seems like a squarely Paladin mission. But from a thief perspective, go steal their military plans or break the political prisoners out of the dungeon or steal the weapons from this fort and distribute them to the underground could be done by a LG character. I mean I’d call that guy a commando or a special forces operative but he’s doing thief stuff. Sneak in somewhere and take something that isn’t yours and get out. Since we can’t refer to real world examples of that, we can resort to…. Could a LG member of the rebel alliance, say a military officer from Alderaan, steal weapons or information from the Empire and still be LG? I think pretty clearly yea.

[liquidformat]

I do expect empires who are strongly aligned to not routinely do things that are against their alignment. So yeah, if a LG empire is running false flag operations to stir up trouble among it's neighbors, it's probably not Lawful Good. That's the thing about alignments that aren't Neutral Evil, sometimes you act in ways that aren't purely pragmatic, because you actually believe in ethics other than "do whatever is most effective."

A LG government might have informants and spies, but would probably be more focused on counter-espionage than espionage. So they can have espionage, sure, but they aren't going to employee operatives that intentionally make things worse for common folk or carry out off the books murder operations. The Good assassin class was literally written as an April Fools joke, to the point that the art is literally just the Assassin art mirrored and painted white.

I really think this depends on who the neighbors/ vaguely close countries are and there are situations where LG country would probably have agent provocateurs and hit squads. Sure if its a LG country surrounded by good and neutral countries at most they might have a group of 'spies' making sure they don't get caught with their pants down. However, if there is an evil country close by I see no reason they wouldn't have agent provocateurs to mess with specifically egregious operations of said country like slave trade and a group of 'assassins' to take out key powerful evil figures in said evil government. Again the only reason I can see for not doing these things is lawful stupid.

Heck even if they are surrounded by neutral countries they might still have hit squads to take down evil people in other countries or agent provocateurs to try and cause issues with a neutral country's thriving slave trade. I really think the argument that the country is LG so don't take part in espionage and so forth is a bit silly and not thinking about things fully.

[Rynjin]

While not LG specifically, the NG nation Andoran in the Golarion setting routinely carries out counter-slavery ops in other countries, including aiding a clandestine organization (the Bellflower Network) who disrupt the Halfling slave trade in the nation of Cheliax, and funding privateers who have the mission of raiding, boarding, and confiscating slaver vessels in international waters and freeing their cargo.

[Bohandas]

A thief can definiteky be lawful in game terms. The game's original creators mistakenly said "law" when they meant "order". The game is full of mistakes like this.

[MR_Anderson]

In Robin Hood's case, he stole from a regime he believed to be illegitimate in order to give to the people. That's clearly Chaotic Good, and I already said someone who steals can be Chaotic Good, but would need certain factors in order to be so. Specifically, who he steals from and why.

An illegitimate authority trying to rule is not a Lawful action, therefore standing against such an action would be a Lawful act would it not?


Take Robin Hood, for example. I'll admit that Robin Hood is more a Neutral Good archetype, but you could have a Lawful Good Robin Hood type character that tries to set things right against a Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil sherrif of Nottingham type. Such a character would have more difficulty against a Lawful Evil adversary because the Lawful Good character may feel obligated to work within the system to change the system. Such an obligation would not be felt if the regime was Neutral or Chaotic.

I agree with your conclusion of LG and LE working together. Some people don’t like that I allow such close interaction in civil matters of these alignments in game, but they do work like that.

I would argue Robin Hood is LG for many reasons, one being because his predisposition to stand for King Richard against unlawful actions to usurp the Kings authority and that of the standing for English Common Law which most readers don’t even realize would have been an understanding to everyone of the day.


One could very easily argue that while Robin Hood is generally held up as the Chaotic Good archetype...Lawful Good just as easily fits.

Robin Hood was (in many tellings) a landed knight or some other kind of noble and staunchly loyal to the true, legal ruler of his country. Fighting back against a corrupt and unlawful regime is not in itself a Chaotic act. It could very well be argued that what Robin Hood does in the tales is not only morally upright, but legally correct (even demanded), the same as putting down a coup, as he was essentially fighting against a usurper.

Robin Hood is very easy to spin as someone doing their duty, as well as what they believe to be morally right.

Very well pointed out, but I think you didn’t push hard enough.

{scrubbed}

Robin Hood is a Lawful Good Fighter/Thief, and he is one of my favorite literary characters.


That gets a resounding "nah" for me. You don't get to spin everything that damages unlawful regime as "doing your duty". Randomly starting fires in the cities is likely to damage an unlawful regime if continued for enough time, but unless we see the character explicitly and convincingly analyzing it as such the normal explanation is that the character is a pyromaniac. Motivations for Robin Hood's action are usually around survival, having fun, and humanitarianism (giving to the poor). Robbing the rich is allowable means to a good end not an end into itself, especially when he is a nobleman. Same goes for funding some sort of rebellion - the end (rebellion) may be lawful (depending on who you ask) but the means definitely aren't.

Robin Hood didn’t steal from the rich, he actually took back what was being unlawfully taken.

Robin Hood didn’t start a rebellion, he defeated one.

FINAL WORD
I actually can understand if someone disagrees with me on a LG Robin Hood. In any other opinion’s fairness, the story of Robin Hood has been retold and changed so many times over the years. Most people retelling it take the liberty to tell the story as they want and align it to their own beliefs, or don’t even realize it’s allegorical.

One of my favorite retellings is “Robin Hood Men in Tights“ and that character is easily CG to CN.

So while I harken back to the origins of Robin Hood in literature to make my point of a Lawful Good Fighter Thief, we should be understanding of those who may not be as well read on the subject.

For this very reason I enjoy playing LG Thief styled characters, and they certainly are viable. They excel at using their abilities against other characters that are unlawful.

I hope this was helpful.

[zlefin]

To me it seems that one of the key question is do they primarily make their living through their 'thieving', or is it something they only resort to an as-needed basis, and try to avoid it when possible.

I could easily imagine an LG thief who does so to help run an orphanage. They only steal from those who can afford to lose it, and preferably from those whose gains are ill-gotten. And they only steal when donations/other funding sources are insufficient to feeds the kids.

Another possibility is someone who has kleptomania; as mental illness shouldn't preclude an alignment in general.