D&D General A friend of mine has joined A 5E Dnd Group, has decided to play A Robin Hood Style character and wants to know what people think of his character

[Charlaquin]

It says a code of "tradition, loyalty, or order". It is neither traditional nor legal to rob the rich, and Robin is not acting under orders from someone else.

Under orders, no, but he is motivated by loyalty to king Richard.

I don’t actually think Robin Hood should be read as LE, to be clear. I just found it amusing that, based on the very brief description in the 5e PHB, one could reasonably come to such a conclusion.

 

[Charlaquin]

I know my mate well enough to be certain what the matter is without asking him

The matter is that he believes that Lawful Evil fits how he envisions A Dnd version of Robin Hood but at the same time he has very little confidence in himself and he's hoping that the comments from the people on this site will give him the confidence he needs to try and play A Character that's both based on and inspired by Robin Hood

Well, “your mate” clearly isn’t going to find the validation he’s looking for here, because even under his logic that Robin Hood is motivated by a belief that Prince John is a traitor to the throne and his power is illegitimate, that would make him Lawful Good, or perhaps Neutral Good. And even that logic is in dispute.

 

[Clint_L]

This kind of argument is exactly why I don't bother with alignment. If your friend has a coherent idea about his character's beliefs and motivations, then it doesn't matter what label he puts on it. The character is who he is. We get along perfectly well in life without fretting over what alignment we are.

 

[JMISBEST]

Well, “your mate” clearly isn’t going to find the validation he’s looking for here, because even under his logic that Robin Hood is motivated by a belief that Prince John is a traitor to the throne and his power is illegitimate, that would make him Lawful Good, or perhaps Neutral Good. And even that logic is in dispute.

I've send my mate a text telling him what you've said and I know him well enough to know almost word for word, maybe even word for word, what his reply will be, so I'll ask before he sends me a reply

Does the fact that Prince John power was once legitimate and that his power only became illegitimate once he became a traitor make a difference?

I knew it he send me a text asking me to ask the question I knew he'd eventually ask whilst I was pre-emptively writing it

Hs question is word for word identical to how I guessed it would be. So does the fact that Prince John power was once legitimate and that his power only became illegitimate once he became a traitor make a difference?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Does the fact that Prince John power was once legitimate and that his power only became illegitimate once he became a traitor make a difference?

Neither John nor Richard where legitimate, given that they traced their decent from William the Illegitimate, and Stephen the Decidedly Dodgy.

 

[Reef]

I've send my mate a text telling him what you've said and I know him well enough to know almost word for word, maybe even word for word, what his reply will be, so I'll ask before he sends me a reply

Does the fact that Prince John power was once legitimate and that his power only became illegitimate once he became a traitor make a difference?

I knew it he send me a text asking me to ask the question I knew he'd eventually ask whilst I was pre-emptively writing it

Hs question is word for word identical to how I guessed it would be. So does the fact that Prince John power was once legitimate and that his power only became illegitimate once he became a traitor make a difference?

Why would it? The fact that someone was once a good guy, doesn’t change the fact he is currently a villain. No one gets a pass based on who they used to be. They’re judged on their current acts.

 

[Clint_L]

Just drop alignment and focus on the original description: "Robin Hood-style character." That's a great starting place. What makes him a Robin Hood style character? Elaborate on that a bit. Then give him a core motivation, a want, that the DM can play with so the player can eventually discover/create the character's need. Add a significant fault. At no point does alignment remotely matter when it comes to character creation. All it does is confuse the issue and make it hard to create believable characters.

Not one book on writing has ever suggested that the writer consider character "alignment." It's a weird concept that only got into the game because it was a handy way to divide wargaming armies into teams.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I know my mate well enough to be certain what the matter is without asking him

The matter is that he believes that Lawful Evil fits how he envisions A Dnd version of Robin Hood but at the same time he has very little confidence in himself and he's hoping that the comments from the people on this site will give him the confidence he needs to try and play A Character that's both based on and inspired by Robin Hood

This reasoning leads to the conclusion that the character’s alignment depends entirely on whether the leader is illegitimate, not whether they are a good ruler or not.

If the King Richard analogue dies overseas, and Prince John legitimately becomes King John (which is what happened historically), does Robin Hood just throw up his hands and say “well, it was fun while it lasted, but I guess I have to stop robbing the rich now”

I mean, you could make a character like that, but I don’t think anyone on these boards would characterize him as a “Robin Hood analogue”.

 

[JMISBEST]

This reasoning leads to the conclusion that the character’s alignment depends entirely on whether the leader is illegitimate, not whether they are a good ruler or not.

If the King Richard analogue dies overseas, and Prince John legitimately becomes King John (which is what happened historically), does Robin Hood just throw up his hands and say “well, it was fun while it lasted, but I guess I have to stop robbing the rich now”

I mean, you could make a character like that, but I don’t think anyone on these boards would characterize him as a “Robin Hood analogue”.

My mate has told me enough about his GM for me to know that if his GM sets the campaign in A Dnd Version of the days of Robin Hood that theirs a very good chance that his GM will give King Richard leaves a daughter and despite being illegitimate enough people would rather be ruled by King Richards Illegitimate daughter then Prince John for King Richards Illegitimate daughter to take the throne

I've also heard enough about my mates GM to know that for definite tat if he goes this route then the reason that enough people would rather be ruled by King Richards Illegitimate daughter then Prince John for King Richards Illegitimate daughter to take the throne is because the people know that Prince John will be a bad regent and will be a even worse king but its possible that King Richards illegitimate daughter would be a good queen

 

[Charlaquin]

I've send my mate a text telling him what you've said and I know him well enough to know almost word for word, maybe even word for word, what his reply will be, so I'll ask before he sends me a reply

Does the fact that Prince John power was once legitimate and that his power only became illegitimate once he became a traitor make a difference?

I knew it he send me a text asking me to ask the question I knew he'd eventually ask whilst I was pre-emptively writing it

Hs question is word for word identical to how I guessed it would be. So does the fact that Prince John power was once legitimate and that his power only became illegitimate once he became a traitor make a difference?

Whether or not Prince John’s power is legitimate really has nothing to do with whether or not Robin Hood is evil. Those are questions of Lawful vs. Chaotic. You could argue that Robin Hood is Lawful, because he respects legitimate authority, and his rebellion is not out of a desire to dismantle power structures, but to restore what he believes to be the rightful order. You could also argue that he’s Neutral with regards to Law and Chaos because he obeys laws he believes to be just and violates laws he believes to be unjust. He is probably not Chaotic because though he is an outlaw, he doesn’t demonstrate that he is opposed to law in principle. He believes that a just order is possible, and desirable, and acts to try to restore that just order, so Chaotic is probably not a good fit.

With regards to Good vs. Evil, he is almost unquestionably Good. He acts altruistically, doing what he believes is right, for his nation and for its people. You could potentially argue that the fact that he sometimes does morally questionable things like stealing, and in that one episode of whatever show you were talking about earlier, killing, and therefore he should be considered Neutral, rather than Good. But, that argument could probably be applied to any D&D PC.

And, of course, none of this really matters that much. You your friend clearly have a specific idea in mind of how you want to play this character, so why does it matter what alignment you write on their character sheet? If this is a 5e character, chances are their alignment will never matter anyway. Just play the character as you envision them and don’t worry about what arbitrary label is on it.