Query about Nale

[Kobold-Bard]

I haven`t looked throught al the threads here so if this already exists or is in the wrong section sorry.

As far as I am aware Nale is a multiclass Rogue/Fighter/Sorcerer.
I am also under the impression that he is Lawful Evil in alignment.
My question is how can both of these statements be true. If he has always been Lawful Evil how could he have taken levels in rogue, which requires that a character be neutral or evil.?

Any replies would be appreciated.

[Chronos]

None of Nale's classes has any alignment restrictions. You can have a Lawful Good rogue if you want.

In fact, that's part of the joke. Bards aren't allowed to be lawful, so Nale, being lawful, had to use that terrible mishmash of classes to get the same effect.

[Mando Knight]

What edition are you thinking of? Nale was first thought up in 3.5e terms, in which Fighter, Rogue, and Sorcerer have no alignment restrictions--as ironic as it may sound, you can have a Lawful Rogue. If it's another edition or a specific setting that you're thinking of, that could be the reason. (3.5 is the only D&D edition that I know the class-alignment restrictions... I believe that 4e removes them all, and < 3rd editions have more restrictions than 3.x...)

[Kobold-Bard]

My mistake.
I could have sworn that the players handbook said rogues had to be non-lawful. Thanks for the fast replies.

mumbles to self...(What the hell kind of rogue would choose lawful? That makes about as much sense as a paladin kicking a child. Hehe a paladin kicking a child)

[David Argall]

Lawful rogues are generally called bureaucrats

[Nostri]

Well not all rogues are thieves or bloodthirsty bandits. There are a lot of countries who would kill to get a high level rogue as a state sponsored spy (or assassin) and some if not most of the people working those kinds of jobs would probably have at least a lawful bent to them otherwise they wouldn't be working for an authority like a king or emperor, they'd be in business for themselves.

[Revanmal]

The rogues don't necessarily have to be employed by the government or follow regional law (in fact that's often-times the point of a rogue) to be Lawful. They just have to adhere to their own code of conduct and be consistent.

A "gentleman thief" for instance, might not rob the helpless or poor, or only take from those of a certain group I.E. Robin Hood. An honorable mercenary captain could have his own code, and refuse jobs that go against it.

[Corwin Weber]

4th edition may have removed all race/alignment restrictions.... but if I remember right, 2nd edition rogues had to be either neutral or chaotic.

[Kish]

4th edition may have removed all race/alignment restrictions.... but if I remember right, 2nd edition rogues had to be either neutral or chaotic.
No. Second edition rogues could be any alignment but Lawful Good, including Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good.

Also, "requires that a character be neutral or evil"--this isn't 0D&D. "Chaotic" is no longer synonymous with "evil." And, for that matter, "rogue" was never synonymous with "thief," though Haley may not realize this. PC rogues, like player characters of every other class, are adventurers; and NPC rogues can do any job which uses their skills (law enforcement, for example)

[RebelRogue]

My mistake.
I could have sworn that the players handbook said rogues had to be non-lawful. Thanks for the fast replies.

mumbles to self...(What the hell kind of rogue would choose lawful? That makes about as much sense as a paladin kicking a child. Hehe a paladin kicking a child)
Lawful rogues can make perfect sense, as has been demonstrated in earlier posts. And make that a paladin kicking an orc child and you've got that covered too :smallwink:

[Ceaon]

A "gentleman thief" for instance, might not rob the helpless or poor, or only take from those of a certain group I.E. Robin Hood. An honorable mercenary captain could have his own code, and refuse jobs that go against it.

Yet Robin Hood is the example of a Chaotic Good character.
Batman would come closer to a LG rogue type, I guess.

[Tingel]

And, for that matter, "rogue" was never synonymous with "thief"
Before the class was renamed "Rogue" in 3rd edition, it was actually called Thief. So the equation Rogue = Thief is not that farfetched, even though it does not necessarily apply to the game's modern incarnations anymore.

[Ramien]

And various incarnations of organized crime could quite easily fall into lawful evil or lawful neutral.

[Kish]

Before the class was renamed "Rogue" in 3rd edition, it was actually called Thief.

And the 0D&D Player's Handbook introduction adventure had a cleric explain, IC, that the "thief" class meant an adventurer specialized in certain areas, not "someone who steals." Always. 2ed had example dwarven members of the "thief" class who worked in law enforcement.

[FrankNorman]

A point I'd like to make about Nale: the character is supposed to be "Lawful Evil", right?
Does bad things, but within a framework of law and order.

Problem is, Nale's behavior is NOT Lawful. Lawful people don't denounce civilization as arbitrary, as Nale did in one of the earlier eps.
Lawful people don't behead a chief policeman in public, right in front of a group of other policemen. That's way over in "BwaHaHaHa, I SPIT on your silly notions of Law and Order! Try and catch me coppers, I dare you!" territory.

Now if Nale were leading an army, killing the agents of the government he was making war on would be part of the convention of war. But what Nale did to that police chief is the sort of thing Belkar would have loved to do, if he could figure out how to get away with it.

[Chronos]

No. Second edition rogues could be any alignment but Lawful Good, including Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good.Y'know, it's funny... All these decades later, this is the first I've ever noticed that sentence in the 2nd edition PHB. I thought that was just a restriction added in computer games by folks who didn't remember the rules correctly (though I think the computer games also tended to disallow LN thieves).

[CasESenSITItiVE]

A point I'd like to make about Nale: the character is supposed to be "Lawful Evil", right?
Does bad things, but within a framework of law and order.

Problem is, Nale's behavior is NOT Lawful. Lawful people don't denounce civilization as arbitrary, as Nale did in one of the earlier eps.
Lawful people don't behead a chief policeman in public, right in front of a group of other policemen. That's way over in "BwaHaHaHa, I SPIT on your silly notions of Law and Order! Try and catch me coppers, I dare you!" territory.

Now if Nale were leading an army, killing the agents of the government he was making war on would be part of the convention of war. But what Nale did to that police chief is the sort of thing Belkar would have loved to do, if he could figure out how to get away with it.

except that the lawful alignment doesn't actually have anything to do with the law of the land, and thus lawful characters are not arbitrarily unable to attack law enforcers

[Hoplite]

I always play Lawful rogues. It makes things interesting.

[DanteLord]

Hehe... a paladin kicking a child... whoda thunk it?

[Underground]

The last D&D Edition where Rogue had any Alignment resistrictions was AD&D.

And back then, they couldnt be Lawful good. However, Lawful neutral and Lawful evil where both perfectly possible.

[paladinofshojo]

Hehe... a paladin kicking a child... whoda thunk it?


:miko: Foul demon I shall destroy you no matter which form you take!!:smallfurious:

[kpenguin]

I never thought of it until now, but perhaps the sole reason that Nale isn't a bard is because he's lawful. I mean, he covers it up by saying that bards are underpowered, but his similarity to the bardic class through byzantine multiclassing can't simply be coincidental.

Perhaps Nale wanted to be bard, found out his Lawful nature prevented him from doing so, decided that the bard class sucked, and decided to try to become a better bard than an actual bard through multiclassing (he failed, btw)

[Greg]

Havelock Vetinari (Discworld) is almost certainly a LN rogue.

[Ramien]

Havelock Vetinari (Discworld) is almost certainly a LN rogue.

I'd really call him lawful evil... He really does enjoy playing with people too much, and has described himself as evil at least once.

[chiasaur11]

I'd really call him lawful evil... He really does enjoy playing with people too much, and has described himself as evil at least once.

I wouldn't. He puts way too much effort into making life tolerable for everyone in the city to get "evil" as the listing. Quick, think of one thing he's done that didn't, in the long run, help Ankh Morpok as a whole. I can't, offhand. He's an evil overlord type, but with a good deal less evil then he gives himself credit for. He even gave Vimes the old watch house just as a favor. No strings. For an assassin, he's not that bad.

[AceOfFools]

Ya'know, I'm not sure Nale should really count as Lawful evil.

Some PHB quotes on lawful evil:

"He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serves. He condemns others not according to their actions but to their race religion, homeland, or social rank."

"...takes what he wants within the limits of his ode of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity or life."

The only traditions he adheres to are the stereotypes of villiany (disproportionate revenge for quasi-imagined slights, kidnapping essentially helpless female relatives to motivate people, goatee on the evil twin).

When has he ever shown any sort of code of conduct? Or willingness to serve?

He does, I admit, care about loyalty as far as it works with others being loyal to him, and I suppose to an extent in how he didn't try to cheat on Sabine (if you want to stretch it.

Although the general rule (not in the PHB) is don't tell a player their alignment's changed from what they say it is unless they grossly deviate from it's principals.

[Ramien]

I wouldn't. He puts way too much effort into making life tolerable for everyone in the city to get "evil" as the listing. Quick, think of one thing he's done that didn't, in the long run, help Ankh Morpok as a whole. I can't, offhand. He's an evil overlord type, but with a good deal less evil then he gives himself credit for. He even gave Vimes the old watch house just as a favor. No strings. For an assassin, he's not that bad.

He definitely does 'evil for a(mostly)good cause', but he also gave Vimes the watch house because he knew a discontented Vimes, with Carrot to back him up, could be trouble, as evidenced from his reaction to Vimes' speech shortly before. It's certainly something that could go either way, but the way he enjoys toying with people (including setting most of the groups dedicated to his overthrow to keep his enemies occupied where he can see them), and the fact that he is willing to pretty much sacrifice anyone he feels gets in the way of the smooth running of the city, does tend to lean him towards evil.

[paladinofshojo]

He's an evil overlord type, but with a good deal less evil then he gives himself credit for. He even gave Vimes the old watch house just as a favor. No strings. For an assassin, he's not that bad.

I've always thought of him as a "wannabe evil overlord type", since clearly he doesn't have the resources nor the power to be one himself, seriously if he had spent more time on one class he would be parred with a being like Xykon rather then the proportionately hindered twin of the weakest member of the party..............Seriously, I don't even know how he can afford to be so flamboyant, I mean comeone, he's not an idle threat by himself.........And as an assassin why doesn't he just shoot 'em instead of springing for the long complicated plot? In other words he's a failure at both an "evil overlord" and an "assassin"

[Chronos]

chiasaur was referring to Vetinari as an evil overlord type, not Nale. Vetinari definitely does have power.

While we're at it, the rogue class also does remarkably well for statting out Sherlock Holmes, and he's Lawful Good.

[chiasaur11]

He definitely does 'evil for a(mostly)good cause', but he also gave Vimes the watch house because he knew a discontented Vimes, with Carrot to back him up, could be trouble, as evidenced from his reaction to Vimes' speech shortly before. It's certainly something that could go either way, but the way he enjoys toying with people (including setting most of the groups dedicated to his overthrow to keep his enemies occupied where he can see them), and the fact that he is willing to pretty much sacrifice anyone he feels gets in the way of the smooth running of the city, does tend to lean him towards evil.

I was thinking the old watch house in the end of "Night Watch", rather than the other one. Also, he tends not to kill those who obstruct the city unless necessary, and even if he does, he frequently doesn't (see: Von Lipwig, Reacher Gulch, Leonardo de Quirm). He even lets things go forward that, judging by previous incidents, may be a risk in the long run, just to not interfere. He's not all good or anything, but he isn't in it for himself, except to the extent that he's entertaining himself with the city running biz.

[VForVaarsuvius]

None of Nale's classes has any alignment restrictions. You can have a Lawful Good rogue if you want.

In fact, that's part of the joke. Bards aren't allowed to be lawful, so Nale, being lawful, had to use that terrible mishmash of classes to get the same effect.

That doesn't make sense though... Rogues are criminals, their like the original chaotic...

[Sir_Elderberry]

That doesn't make sense though... Rogues are criminals, their like the original chaotic...

Lawful does not mean "follows the laws the government has passed." It means "acting according to codes, duties, honor, etc". Batman, for example, does a lot of things that would, in real life, be illegal. However, he follows strict moral codes and is lawful. (And a good example of a noncriminal rogue. It's worth remembering that "rogue" is an archetype, it doesn't necessarily imply "criminal". Sneaky people can be good guys.)

EDIT: Batman was declared Lawful Good in the Complete Scoundrel.

[Ramien]

I was thinking the old watch house in the end of "Night Watch", rather than the other one. Also, he tends not to kill those who obstruct the city unless necessary, and even if he does, he frequently doesn't (see: Von Lipwig, Reacher Gulch, Leonardo de Quirm). He even lets things go forward that, judging by previous incidents, may be a risk in the long run, just to not interfere. He's not all good or anything, but he isn't in it for himself, except to the extent that he's entertaining himself with the city running biz.

That's the same Watch House I'm thinking about, after Vimes exploded at the thought of a monument to the fallen watchmen. Moist Von Lipwig, Reacher, and Leonard were pretty much given an option of working for the city or dying (although Leonard's options were probably never spelled out), because Vetiniari thought he could make use of them.

Since you bring up Moist, though, the scene in the jail cell speaks a lot to Vetinari's more sadistic side, although it's likely he only lets it run towards the more dangerous aspects of society, such as mimes.

[chiasaur11]

That's the same Watch House I'm thinking about, after Vimes exploded at the thought of a monument to the fallen watchmen. Moist Von Lipwig, Reacher, and Leonard were pretty much given an option of working for the city or dying (although Leonard's options were probably never spelled out), because Vetiniari thought he could make use of them.

Since you bring up Moist, though, the scene in the jail cell speaks a lot to Vetinari's more sadistic side, although it's likely he only lets it run towards the more dangerous aspects of society, such as mimes.

I don't think Vimes was likely to do too much about that one. I mean, Vetinari has the sense to let it drop, and Vimes doesn't like Vetinari that much either way.

And Von Lipwig had been killing the city by inches. Considering how Vetinari feels about Ankh Morpok, that's a killing offense. His giving him a second chance while knowing he'd try to escape at every opportunity was fairly decent of him.

And no person in his right mind would blame Havelock for the mime thing. In fact, that's an argument for "good". Ending the mime menace is his most noble acheivement.

[Chronos]

I am not touching the question of Batman's alignment, nor of Robin Hood's. Suffice to say that both of them have been very highly debated, with folks strongly disagreeing.

But why would anyone say that rogues are all criminals? Bilbo Baggins, for instance, was one of the major inspirations for the rogue or thief class in D&D, and nothing he did was in the slightest degree illegal. He helped the dwarves recover a treasure that was legally theirs, and which was being held illegally by an usurper. And many others have mentioned Lord Vetinari, whose moral alignment might be debatable, but is indisputably lawful (and in fact, he is the law).

A rogue is just someone who has a particular aptitude for making himself unnoticed, opening locks, and disarming traps, and the like. He has the same freedom in how he chooses to use those abilities as anyone else. Some use such aptitude for good purposes, some for evil. Some use their abilities lawfully, some chaotically.

[AceOfFools]

<snip>

And in 3(.5) edition you didn't even need to spend you skills on traditional thievery stealth skills. I tend to make high level law enforcement with a couple of rogue levels for Gather Information, Knowledge(local), and Diplomacy, and sneak attack for hitting the streets, to see what's going on, knowing who's who, interacting with the upper crust, and taking down troublemakers fast. None of which fighters or warriors get.

I even did it with the leader of an orc barbarian warband once (granted he was as lawful as Belkar).

The point being rogues don't even remotely thief like if you don't spend you're skills that way.