What alignment would you associate with each class

[BarbarianConan]

Hey

I know you can mostly be any alignment.
If your going based solely on the class descriptions of the class including subclasses like Monster Ranger, Abjuration wizard, Assassin, etc what alignment would you give them?

[Unoriginal]

Hey

I know you can mostly be any alignment.
If your going based solely on the class descriptions of the class including subclasses like Monster Ranger, Abjuration wizard, Assassin, etc what alignment would you give them?


Classes don't have alignments. People have alignments, and some people have classes.

At best you can say that Paladin orders attract lawful people, because it is hard to keep an oath between you and the universe without having the behavior indicating a lawful alignment. The Oaths of Devotion and Redemption tends to attract good people, and the Oath of Conquest evil ones, for the same reasons: hard to follow the tennets without having the behavior indicating the alignment in question.

Oathbreaker Paladins are going to be near universally evil because you can't be this subclass unless you've broken your Oath (not inherently evil by itself), reached the bottom of the morality barrel, and then kept digging while refusing any chance of not being horrible. And even if an Oathbreaker wasn't evil, all Oathbreakers become Death Knights once they die, so deliberately refusing any chance to not end up a powerful undead who torments the living is pretty skeevy in itself.

[kingcheesepants]

Obviously yes the question is a bit silly due to the fact that there isn't really any strong connection between class and alignment. But as for the archetypal versions of each class, sure let's break em down one by one.
Artificer- Lawful Neutral
Barbarian- Chaotic Neutral
Bard- Chaotic Good
Cleric- Lawful Good
Druid- Neutral Good
Fighter- True Neutral
Monk- Lawful Neutral
Paladin- Lawful Good
Ranger- Neutral Good
Rogue- Chaotic Evil
Sorcerer- Chaotic Neutral
Warlock- Lawful Evil
Wizard- True Neutral
So to my mind classes that are more discipline and rigid social structure based like monk and paladin are more lawful and those that are more free form do what you want are more chaotic. Those with themes of helping others are good while those with themes of harming others are evil and the ones that don't fit into either are neutral.

[Arkhios]

Going just by a feeling (or in some cases, past "excuses" from the RAW)

Artificer: (Chaotic) Neutral
Barbarian: Chaotic Neutral/Evil
Bard: Chaotic Good/Neutral
Cleric: Any (same as their deity)
Druid: Any Neutral
Fighter: Lawful Neutral
Monk: Any Lawful
Paladin: Lawful Good
Ranger: Chaotic/Neutral Good
Rogue: (Chaotic) Neutral or Chaotic/Neutral Evil
Sorcerer: Chaotic Neutral
Warlock: Lawful Evil
Wizard: True Neutral

[kingcheesepants]

Going just by a feeling (or in some cases, past "excuses" from the RAW)

Artificer: (Chaotic) Neutral
Barbarian: Chaotic Neutral/Evil
Bard: Chaotic Good/Neutral
Cleric: Any (same as their deity)
Druid: Any Neutral
Fighter: Lawful Neutral
Monk: Any Lawful
Paladin: Lawful Good
Ranger: Chaotic/Neutral Good
Rogue: (Chaotic) Neutral or Chaotic/Neutral Evil
Sorcerer: Chaotic Neutral
Warlock: Lawful Evil
Wizard: True Neutral

Looks like we're pretty much in agreement except for artificer, I guess you're thinking more of the mad scientist type artificer and I'm thinking more of the extremely precise and orderly scientist type of artificer. I've seen both in games and fiction but perhaps the former is a bit more common.

[Mastikator]

Artificer

Alchemist - neutral
Armorer - lawful neutral
Artillerist - lawful neutral
Battlesmith - lawful neutral


Barbarian

Ancestral Guardian - neutral good
Battlerager - chaotic neutral
Beast - chaotic evil
Berserker - chaotic evil
Storm Herald - neutral
Totem Warrior - neutral good
Wild magic - chaotic neutral
Zealot - chaotic good or chaotic evil


Bard

Creation - Lawful neutral
Eloquence - chaotic neutral
Glamor - chaotic neutral
Lore - lawful neutral
Spirits - neutral
Swords - neutral
Valor - chaotic good
Whispers - chaotic neutral


Cleric

Arcana - lawful neutral
Death - chaotic evil
Forge - lawful neutral
Grave - lawful good
Knowledge - lawful neutral
Life - neutral good
Nature - neutral good
Order - lawful neutral
Peace - chaotic good
Tempest - chaotic evil
Trickery - chaotic evil
Twilight - lawful good
War - lawful evil


Druid

Dreams - neutral
Land - neutral good
Moon - chaotic evil
Shepard - chaotic good
Spores - lawful evil
Stars - neutral
Wildfire - chaotic neutral


Fighter

Arcane Archer - lawful neutral
Banneret - lol
Battlemaster - lawful neutral
Cavalier - lawful good
Champion - lawful good
Echo Knight - lawful evil
Eldritch Knight - lawful neutral
Psi Warrior - lawful neutral
Rune Knight - neutral
Samurai - lawful good


Monk
Mercy - chaotic good
Ascendant Dragon - lawful good
Astral Self - lawful neutral
Drunken Master - chaotic neutral
Four Elements - lol
Kensei - lawful neutral
Long Death - lawful evil
Open Hand - lawful neutral
Shadow - lawful evil
Sun Soul - lawful good


Paladin

Ancients - lawful good
Conquest - lawful evil
Crown - lawful neutral
Devotion - lawful good
Glory - lawful neutral
Redemption - neutral good
Vengeance - chaotic evil
Watchers - lawful good
Oathbreaker - chaotic evil


Ranger

Beast Master - neutral
Drakewarden - neutral
Fey Wanderer - chaotic neutral
Gloom Stalker - neutral evil
Horizon Walker - neutral good
Hunter - neutral
Monster Slayer - neutral
Swarmkeeper - beees!


Rogue

Arcane Trickster - chaotic neutral
Assassin - neutral evil
Inquisitive - lawful neutral
Mastermind - lawful neutral
Phantom - lawful evil
Scout - chaotic good
Soulknife - neutral
Swashbuckler - chaotic good
Thief - chaotic neutral


Sorcerer

Aberrant Mind - chaotic evil
Clockwork Soul - lawful neutral
Draconic Bloodline - any non neutral
Divine Soul - chaotic good
Lunar Sorcery - neutral good
Shadow Magic - neutral evil
Storm Sorcery - chaotic neutral
Wild Magic - chaotic neutral


Warlock

Archfey - chaotic neutral
Celestial - lawful good
Fathomless - unfathomable
Fiend - any evil
The genie - neutral
Great Old One - chaotic evil
Hexblade - lawful evil
Undead - lawful evil
Undying - neutral


Wizard

Abjuration - lawful neutral
Bladesinging - chaotic neutral
Chronoturgy - lawful neutral
Conjuration - lawful neutral
Divination - lawful neutral
Enchantment - chaotic evil
Evocation - chaotic neutral
Graviturgy - lawful neutral
Illusion - chaotic neutral
Necromancy - lawful evil
Scribes - lawful neutral
Transmutation - lawful neutral
War Magic - lawful neutral

[Millstone85]

Way back, I made a group picture of the class symbols. And I actually chose the positions based on the Great Wheel and which classes I thought the Outer Planes would favor. So, as usual, Law to the left, Chaos to the right, Good up and Evil down.

https://i.imgur.com/e8u3bTnl.png

The artificer wasn't there yet. I might put it in the middle together with the wizard and the druid, or have it replace the monk as the poster child of Mechanus.

https://dreionsden.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/artificer-updated.png?w=300

[Corran]

How I'd most likely be inclined to play them at this moment.

Artificer: Chaotic good. Their annoying gismos used to ruin a BBEG's day or to play annoying pranks on their fellow adventures.

Barbarian: True neutral, tending very slightly to the non permitted lawful. I'd definitely aim at some loyalty debt towards at least one ally pc to keep the barbarian in the party, but otherwise they would follow some moral code that is the product of their remote clan's strange (to outsiders) tradition and customes. Nothing too extreme, but certainly not familiar to "outsides", hence something like true neutral.

Bard: Neutral evil (assuming I could play one seriously). Uncovering secrets, dealing in blackmail, spreading flase rumors, all that shady stuff. Plus a little mind control whenever possible. All while performing for crowds with a smile and promoting himself as a kind and caring person.

Cleric: Lawful good or lawful evil. I am either playing the enlighened person who tries to make the world a better place, or I am playing the lowly scum who was recruited by some evil faith and is now looking to climb the ranks because having power feels good.

Druid: Chaotic good. A power for good when heroes are needed. An unintentional source of trouble during peace time when being among "civilized" people with all their rules and boundaries.

Fighter: Lawful good or lawful neutral. In all honestly, I'd play them similarly to some paladins. With a strict code. With the difference that I'd try to put some points in INT for adding a flavor of "militairy genius" if possible. So, a little paladin-like with smarter decisions on occasion.

Monk: Lawful neutral or lawful evil. And sneaky in more than on way to get some fun out of it.

Paladin: Any lawful. If lawful good, then emphasis on good. If lawful neutral, then I want to be a fanatic in some existing conflict that takes place in the game world. And if lawful evil, emphasis on being honorable (especially if part of an evil party). I'd try to play out a very strong personality (emphasis on high persuasion) in the neutral and evil cases. In the lawful good case, the character would just aim to serve as an example by their actions. The aim in all three cases being at building up the reputation of the character, with the distinct difference than if lawful good, then that aim would only be an OoC one.

Ranger: Any neutral. Sword for hire. Cunning and edgy.

Rogue: Any. Only rule being, whatever you do, you do it with style!

Sorcerer: Any evil. Young, immature, hot headed, probably greedy, most likely with a superiority complex as well.

Warlock: Either crazy (chaotic) evil, or with slight hints of creepy (neutral) evil. Essentially fiend or GOO. Hey, it's not my fault that pact magic allows me to use high level spells for killing commoners at reduced cost.

Wizard: Lawful evil. Power hungry, but being smart about it. Or any neutral, and focus on showcasing th character as a genius and an artist (of their craft), most likely if going with an illusionist.

[KorvinStarmast]

Classes don't have alignments. This is the correct answer. I find the question to be a jarring mis read of what alignment represents, and what classes represent.

[BarbarianConan]

This is the correct answer. I find the question to be a jarring mis read of what alignment represents, and what classes represent.
I mean if you look at dnd 3.5 the classes literally have an alignment section talking about how for example barbarians are never lawful. So it's not that jarring. I know 5e you can do whatever I was just wondering what 1st came to mind for a monster slayer

[KorvinStarmast]

I mean if you look at dnd 3.5 But this is the D&D 5e sub forum. :smallwink: There are substantial differences.

I was just wondering what 1st came to mind for a monster slayer Honestly? Nothing came to mind for that Ranger Sub class. Could be anything.

[BarbarianConan]

But this is the D&D 5e sub forum. :smallwink: There are substantial differences. Honestly? Nothing came to mind for that Ranger Sub class. Could be anything.

I know,I put I know 5e you can be whatever in the same post in a 5e sub. It was just an example

And nothing coming to mind is still an acceptable answer. So thank you for answering.

[BarbarianConan]

Artificer

Alchemist - neutral
Armorer - lawful neutral
Artillerist - lawful neutral
Battlesmith - lawful neutral


Barbarian

Ancestral Guardian - neutral good
Battlerager - chaotic neutral
Beast - chaotic evil
Berserker - chaotic evil
Storm Herald - neutral
Totem Warrior - neutral good
Wild magic - chaotic neutral
Zealot - chaotic good or chaotic evil


Bard

Creation - Lawful neutral
Eloquence - chaotic neutral
Glamor - chaotic neutral
Lore - lawful neutral
Spirits - neutral
Swords - neutral
Valor - chaotic good
Whispers - chaotic neutral


Cleric

Arcana - lawful neutral
Death - chaotic evil
Forge - lawful neutral
Grave - lawful good
Knowledge - lawful neutral
Life - neutral good
Nature - neutral good
Order - lawful neutral
Peace - chaotic good
Tempest - chaotic evil
Trickery - chaotic evil
Twilight - lawful good
War - lawful evil


Druid

Dreams - neutral
Land - neutral good
Moon - chaotic evil
Shepard - chaotic good
Spores - lawful evil
Stars - neutral
Wildfire - chaotic neutral


Fighter

Arcane Archer - lawful neutral
Banneret - lol
Battlemaster - lawful neutral
Cavalier - lawful good
Champion - lawful good
Echo Knight - lawful evil
Eldritch Knight - lawful neutral
Psi Warrior - lawful neutral
Rune Knight - neutral
Samurai - lawful good


Monk
Mercy - chaotic good
Ascendant Dragon - lawful good
Astral Self - lawful neutral
Drunken Master - chaotic neutral
Four Elements - lol
Kensei - lawful neutral
Long Death - lawful evil
Open Hand - lawful neutral
Shadow - lawful evil
Sun Soul - lawful good


Paladin

Ancients - lawful good
Conquest - lawful evil
Crown - lawful neutral
Devotion - lawful good
Glory - lawful neutral
Redemption - neutral good
Vengeance - chaotic evil
Watchers - lawful good
Oathbreaker - chaotic evil


Ranger

Beast Master - neutral
Drakewarden - neutral
Fey Wanderer - chaotic neutral
Gloom Stalker - neutral evil
Horizon Walker - neutral good
Hunter - neutral
Monster Slayer - neutral
Swarmkeeper - beees!


Rogue

Arcane Trickster - chaotic neutral
Assassin - neutral evil
Inquisitive - lawful neutral
Mastermind - lawful neutral
Phantom - lawful evil
Scout - chaotic good
Soulknife - neutral
Swashbuckler - chaotic good
Thief - chaotic neutral


Sorcerer

Aberrant Mind - chaotic evil
Clockwork Soul - lawful neutral
Draconic Bloodline - any non neutral
Divine Soul - chaotic good
Lunar Sorcery - neutral good
Shadow Magic - neutral evil
Storm Sorcery - chaotic neutral
Wild Magic - chaotic neutral


Warlock

Archfey - chaotic neutral
Celestial - lawful good
Fathomless - unfathomable
Fiend - any evil
The genie - neutral
Great Old One - chaotic evil
Hexblade - lawful evil
Undead - lawful evil
Undying - neutral


Wizard

Abjuration - lawful neutral
Bladesinging - chaotic neutral
Chronoturgy - lawful neutral
Conjuration - lawful neutral
Divination - lawful neutral
Enchantment - chaotic evil
Evocation - chaotic neutral
Graviturgy - lawful neutral
Illusion - chaotic neutral
Necromancy - lawful evil
Scribes - lawful neutral
Transmutation - lawful neutral
War Magic - lawful neutral


Very nice list
I appreciate it.

[Millstone85]

Paladin

Ancients - lawful good
Conquest - lawful evil
Crown - lawful neutral
Devotion - lawful good
Glory - lawful neutral
Redemption - neutral good
Vengeance - chaotic evil
Watchers - lawful good
Oathbreaker - chaotic evil
So, what makes you disagree with the PHB's claim that the oath of the Ancients "emphasizes the principles of good above any concerns of law or chaos" and that paladins of Vengeance "are often neutral or lawful neutral in alignment"?

Actually, I am not surprised you would deny something called vengeance any shade of good or lawfulness. But I am curious about the ancient paladin.

[Trask]

I think the three PHB Paladin oaths map nicely to the three good alignments. Devotion - Lawful Good, Ancients - Neutral Good, Vengeance - Chaotic Good. It felt like a nice compromise between strictly pigeonholing the Paladin into Lawful Good, but still keeping Paladins = Good as important fluff. Conquest paladin (or the "I do whatever the *** I want Paladin, as I call it to my friends) is when they went off the rails for me.

[KorvinStarmast]

And nothing coming to mind is still an acceptable answer. So thank you for answering.
TBH, my gut feeling is that all of the Paladin classes probably ought to be played as Lawful something or Something Lawful, but as I read through the Ancients Paladin Oath the first few times, I got the feeling that it didn't have to be Lawful to work.

EDIT:
Oh ... and what Trask said. Missed seeing that before I answered.

[Theodoxus]

I think the three PHB Paladin oaths map nicely to the three good alignments. Devotion - Lawful Good, Ancients - Neutral Good, Vengeance - Chaotic Good. It felt like a nice compromise between strictly pigeonholing the Paladin into Lawful Good, but still keeping Paladins = Good as important fluff. Conquest paladin (or the "I do whatever the *** I want Paladin, as I call it to my friends) is when they went off the rails for me.


TBH, my gut feeling is that all of the Paladin classes probably ought to be played as Lawful something or Something Lawful, but as I read through the Ancients Paladin Oath the first few times, I got the feeling that it didn't have to be Lawful to work.

EDIT:
Oh ... and what Trask said. Missed seeing that before I answered.

Vengeance always had a chaotic neutral flare to me. So, maybe Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies? (to really call back ideas that are NOT at all present in 5E).

@OP, Monster Slayer feels Neutral as a baseline, and then depending on what they concentrate on, add an ordinal. So, anti-Undead or Fiend is probably NG. Anti-monstrosity is probably TN or LN. Anti-metallic dragon, NE; anti-chromatic dragon, NG; anti-abomination, NG all the way to LG depending.

[Goobahfish]

This is a difficult one because alignment is such a dumb concept to begin with. I literally makes no sense upon any inspection... but...

Artificer: Hmmm... this is a tricky one. There is mad inventor (chaotic) and then meticulous inventor (lawful). Good is definitely a stretch, but then so is evil. I'm stuck with True Neutral.
Barbarian: So, clearly chaotic (doesn't follow 'social norms'). This is probably the classic example of where D&D breaks down though. Even the word barbarian is inherently offensive with that offense drawing itself from the presupposition of cultural superiority. But that is where we are, so probably Chaotic Neutral.
Bard: Skews chaotic. Evil bards just don't... make sense in the D&D milieu, so probably Chaotic Good
Cleric: This one is literally meaningless. It is very deity dependent. That said, in the D&D world, the number of evil cultists does seem disproportionately high compared to the 'single good priest quest-hook', so maybe Neutral Evil?
Druid: True neutral. This is the easiest one on the list. The traditional druid is completely 'amoral' because their standards follow the whim of nature which is neither good, nor evil, nor lawful, nor chaotic. Putting it in those terms is silly.
Fighter: Another cleric. That said... most people are good-ish. Most players are fighers. Neutral Good. I made this up to fill up the chart below... obviously.
Monk: Lawful. Too disciplined to be anything else and that was a 3/3.5 requirement. Again, because of cultural influences, I'm going with Lawful Neutral. What is, is, how do I know what is good and bad?
Paladin: Finally. An easy one. Lawful Good. It is the whole point.
Ranger: Ooh... Chaotic obviously because of the 'nature-loner-edgelord' vibe. I'm guessing it falls into Chaotic Good
Rogue: Evil. Easily, evil. Actually, probably the easiest. Chaotic Evil. I mean... thief, assassin. These are evil lawbreaking professions.
Sorcerer: Chaotic (wizard counterpoint). I feel like we're going neutral here too. There isn't enough colour to the sorcerer to get the good/bad divide. Chaotic Neutral
Warlock: Evil. But we have a patron. Lawful Evil it is.
Wizard: Lawful (sorcerer counterpoint). Lawful Neutral it is.

Did we cover all bases:

Lawful Good: Paladin
Lawful Neutral: Monk, Wizard
Lawful Evil: Warlock
Neutral Good: Fighter
True Neutral: Artificer, Druid
Neutral Evil: Cleric
Chaotic Good: Bard, Ranger
Chaotic Neutral: Barbarian, Sorcerer
Chaotic Evil: Rogue

With a bit of contrivance...

[stoutstien]

Most are chaotic lootutral where their alignment is determined on which will give them the most stuff.

[Trask]

Vengeance always had a chaotic neutral flare to me. So, maybe Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies? (to really call back ideas that are NOT at all present in 5E).

@OP, Monster Slayer feels Neutral as a baseline, and then depending on what they concentrate on, add an ordinal. So, anti-Undead or Fiend is probably NG. Anti-monstrosity is probably TN or LN. Anti-metallic dragon, NE; anti-chromatic dragon, NG; anti-abomination, NG all the way to LG depending.

I still like Chaotic Good for Vengeance because they are still righteous, CN doesn't describe a righteous character IMO. IMO chaotic alignments tend towards "Might Makes Right" on the evil end and "The Ends Justify the Means" on the good end.

[Theodoxus]

I can see that, though vengeance, no matter how it's couched, has a patina of selfishness that neutrality on the good/evil axis exhibits well. People don't tend to go on an avenging tirade because the guy down the street they've never spoken to was killed by rampaging orcs. It's always* something personal that sets them off.

*I'm happy to modify that to 'almost always' if there are any examples in life or literature where a vengeance streak is started because some random stranger had some misfortune that just set the protagonist off.

[Trask]

I can see that, though vengeance, no matter how it's couched, has a patina of selfishness that neutrality on the good/evil axis exhibits well. People don't tend to go on an avenging tirade because the guy down the street they've never spoken to was killed by rampaging orcs. It's always* something personal that sets them off.

*I'm happy to modify that to 'almost always' if there are any examples in life or literature where a vengeance streak is started because some random stranger had some misfortune that just set the protagonist off.

Yeah I'd agree with that assessment, the further one goes from Law the more selfish, or at least individualistic, the behavior. The difference between a CG and a CN Avenger to me would be that the CN only cares about getting revenge for their hurts or cathartically soothe their pain, whereas a CG wants to get revenge, and make sure it never happens to anyone else.

Both are selfish enough to see themselves somewhat as the center of the world in varying degrees.

[JellyPooga]

Several commentors have put Rogue into the Evil category and I think that's a gross misrepresentation of what the Class actually is or can do. Likewise with some of the other categorizations, but Rogue in particular rubs me the wrong way because for me the Rogue (since 3e at least) has been the "generic adventurer" Class. Are they a Magic User? No, but they can dabble in it if they want to. Are they a Warrior? No, but they can hold their own in a fight (especially if they can use their smarts to manipulate the situation to their advantage). Are they the best at anything in particular? Well...not really, but they're pretty much above the average across the board. It's why they're often disparaged in TO circles because that particular echo chamber focuses heavily on specialisation over generalisation (and rightfully so, IMO).

Where this relates to alignment in particular, is that the Rogue, being a Class that is fairly generic in its implementation, if not moreso than other classes (the only Class more generic than Rogue IMO is the Fighter and that because it inherently has a "war-footing" that draws it away from Good alignments to my mind, where the Rogue is merely a skilled individual in one way or another) adheres to the principle of Class and Aligment having little to no relation that other posters have correctly brought up.

The notion that the Rogue is, must be or should be assumed to be a thief or criminal (regardless of subclass, including Assassin; a name is just a name and frequently has little bearing on what the owner of that subclass does wirh it) was barely a thing in 2ed and was entirely discarded (to my mind) by the time 3e came about, let alone the more recent editions.

Oh and @Mastikator: Moon Druids = Chaotic Evil? Really? I'm intrigued by your reasoning on that one! I get zero CE vibes from Moon Druid bar the very thin connection to lycanthropy and even they (lycans) are on shaky ground as regards to required or neccessary alingment.

[Xihirli]

If you believe there should be agriculture, cities and roads you are lawful.
Every class except barbarians and druids is lawful.

[Mastikator]

If you believe there should be agriculture, cities and roads you are lawful.
Every class except barbarians and druids is lawful.

Rangers.

Also scout rogues.

...ancients paladin.

[Goobahfish]

Several commentors have put Rogue into the Evil category and I think that's a gross misrepresentation of what the Class actually is or can do.

Rogues have two abilities which explicitly mention thievery (proficiency and thieves cant). It is difficult to reconcile that proficiency with anything except breaking the law, and as much as people try to separate breaking the law from good and evil (i.e. the law/chaos spectrum), theft is at some level an evil action. Now you can use it for good ends, but we're already in murky territory.

Their primary ability however is sneak attack. This ability, is as the name suggests, something whose greatest utility is when attacking someone unawares. This is definitely dishonourable according to any basic definition of honour (at least the common ones) and is at its core an 'assassin-like' ability. Another word with very evil overtones.

---

If we compare it to fighter. Well, who are fighters? It is very easy to be a soldier, or a guard or some other security-based (and defensively-based) martial character. While war is a complex topic, in general, it is easy to reconcile being a soldier, guard or similar profession without leaning into the cut-throat mercenary type. So fighter are at least more neutral and generally skew 'good-ish'.

Now, I don't agree with what I am saying to be honest. Guarding treasure for a rich person is its own form of theft. War is just murder with fancy words around it etc. But this is where this reading comes from.

[Xihirli]

Rangers.

Also scout rogues.

...ancients paladin.

Rangers and Scout Rogues are frontierspeople, on the edge if civilization and wilderness. They are either making the wilderness safe to become civilization or keeping both safe from the other. Range from lawful to neutral.

[JellyPooga]

Rogues have two abilities which explicitly mention thievery (proficiency and thieves cant). It is difficult to reconcile that proficiency with anything except breaking the law, and as much as people try to separate breaking the law from good and evil (i.e. the law/chaos spectrum), theft is at some level an evil action. Now you can use it for good ends, but we're already in murky territory.If only to play the devil's advocate, Thieves Cant is just a name for a secret language. Change the name, change the feature. Call it Doublespeak, Ranger Tongue, Drow Sign Language, Insinuation or any other hidden or subtle language and nothing in the function of the ability changes except who is using it. If you want to call this a houserule, you'd be within your rights to do so, but I've yet to encounter a GM that didn't alow it at their table.

"Thieves Tools" are also misnamed IMO. There are any number of legitimate professions that have need of tools for picking locks or disarming traps. Law enforcement, entertainers (specifically escape artists) and anyone involved in home defence (e.g. locksmiths), let alone those who learn it out of interest or as a hobby, might have use for such equipment. Just because a thief might use a hammer to break a lock does not mean that every carpenter or blacksmith should be tarred with the same brush.


Their primary ability however is sneak attack. This ability, is as the name suggests, something whose greatest utility is when attacking someone unawares. This is definitely dishonourable according to any basic definition of honour (at least the common ones) and is at its core an 'assassin-like' ability. Another word with very evil overtones.Again, what makes this any less "honourable" than e.g. Precision Strike, another clearly valid interpetation of what Sneak Attack actually is, as opposed to the overtone of what it's called in the book? The actual function of the feature is to give its user additional damage whenever they have an advantage in combat. Yes, "sneaking" is one way to do this and that carries certain negative connotations, but is far from the only one. You might also call it Master Stroke, Combat Flourish or any number of non-criminal or non-murderous names and be equally applicable.


If we compare it to fighter. Well, who are fighters? It is very easy to be a soldier, or a guard or some other security-based (and defensively-based) martial character. While war is a complex topic, in general, it is easy to reconcile being a soldier, guard or similar profession without leaning into the cut-throat mercenary type. So fighter are at least more neutral and generally skew 'good-ish'.If we apply the same standard to the Fighter as you have the Rogue, then even Extra Attack has overtly aggressive overtones. How about the Barbarian and their Rage? Yet both of those classes have been universally pegged in the Neutral category, let alone the Paladin and their Smites (both feature and spell). Compare this to other features of the Rogue such as Uncanny Dodge or Evasion, which are explicitly defensive in nature. In many respects, the Rogue can be seen as a defensive, less aggressive Class that has a single feature that allows it to exploit weakness in combat. For the vast majority of the Rogues features and their actual function, they are a survivor, not an aggressor.

Ask what the Rogue is good at; running away (Cunning Action), evading damage (Uncanny Dodge, Evasion) or control (Slippery Mind) and being good at their selected fields (Expertise, Reliable Talent). Are any of those features explicitly "evil" or even have a negative connotation? The fact that Sneak Attack is prominent on the Class table goes a long way towards misinforming the reader as to what the Rogue is or is capable of; the reality is that Sneak Attack is, perhaps, the least of the Rogues (non-ribbon) class features, serving only to keep pace in the DPR game compared to those better suited to it.

In short, Rogues have a bad rep because their PR isn't very good...or perhaps because they like it that way :smallwink:

[Goobahfish]

If only to play the devil's advocate, <snip> For the vast majority of the Rogues features and their actual function, they are a survivor, not an aggressor.

Ask what the Rogue is good at; running away (Cunning Action), evading damage (Uncanny Dodge, Evasion) or control (Slippery Mind) and being good at their selected fields (Expertise, Reliable Talent). Are any of those features explicitly "evil" or even have a negative connotation? The fact that Sneak Attack is prominent on the Class table goes a long way towards misinforming the reader as to what the Rogue is or is capable of; the reality is that Sneak Attack is, perhaps, the least of the Rogues (non-ribbon) class features, serving only to keep pace in the DPR game compared to those better suited to it.

So, one of the things that is interesting about this topic more broadly is that where the natural place for some classes to end up does seem to say a lot about preconceived notions about good/evil, law/chaos etc. For example, most people throw bard into chaos. Why? Because they are stereotypically gregarious? They are 'emotional' types which 'lawful' types clash with. Barbarians have a bit of a 'noble' savage vibe going on which ameliorates the 'evil' connotation but again 'rage' = chaos is a secondary meme (i.e., we've chosen to make this connection and then glued them together rather than it being obviously an illegal attitude).

For rogue, I think you are right in the sense that they are artificially maligned. The Expert sidekick class is actually closer to what I would hope the rogue was both in flavour and mechanics. Here we have cunning action, a neat help action and coordinated strike (basically sneak attack with different requirements and a nicer name). Even the word 'Rogue' is pejorative. The sneak attack aesthetic is the main thing that drives me off playing rogues because of the incentives it places on character actions. The swashbuckler is better carried by the battle-master with parry and riposte than the rogue (except for all the add-ons like uncanny dodge and cunning action). Now a rogue with superiority dice instead of sneak-attack would be an interesting mod-build.



In short, Rogues have a bad rep because their PR isn't very good...or perhaps because they like it that way :smallwink:

They are slowly working on it. After all sneak attack was originally 'back-stab'...

[Joe the Rat]

To borrow an old rodent allusion, "Rangers are just Rogues with good PR."

But for me:

On the Side of Order: Artificer, Paladin, Wizard
On the Side of Chaos: Barbarian, Sorcerer, Warlock
On the Side of Balance: Druid, Monk, Ranger
On the Side of Not Giving A Damn About Cosmology: Bard, Fighter, Rogue

...With Clerics beholden to their deity's alignment.

(This really makes me want to set up some sort of Warrior, Caster, Expert x Order, Balance, Chaos system.)

[Arkhios]

They are slowly working on it. After all sneak attack was originally 'back-stab'...

And Rogue was originally Thief. Not very good for PR either, I'd say. :P

[KorvinStarmast]

To borrow an old rodent allusion, "Rangers are just Rogues with good PR."

But for me:

On the Side of Order: Artificer, Paladin, Wizard
On the Side of Chaos: Barbarian, Sorcerer, Warlock
On the Side of Balance: Druid, Monk, Ranger
On the Side of Not Giving A Damn About Cosmology: Bard, Fighter, Rogue

...With Clerics beholden to their deity's alignment.

(This really makes me want to set up some sort of Warrior, Caster, Expert x Order, Balance, Chaos system.) *applause*

And Rogue was originally Thief. Not very good for PR either, I'd say. :P The Thief of Baghdad was a movie. The Thief was a good guy / protagnoist.
AD&D2e bowdlerized the thief (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/96625/22566)(who previously had to be any non good alignment, by rule) into Rogue ... I'll get off of my soapbox now.

[Arkhios]

*applause*
The Thief of Baghdad was a movie. The Thief was a good guy / protagnoist.
AD&D2e bowdlerized the thief (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/96625/22566)(who previously had to be any non good alignment, by rule) into Rogue ... I'll get off of my soapbox now.

Sure, but the stigma of "a thief" in general is still quite vivid.

[Goobahfish]

I mean... the word thief and 'taking things which are not yours' kind of go together.

Now, I don't know what plane you come from, but in the Material Plane, taking things that don't belong to you is entirely normal behaviour.