Rule of Three: 20/3/12

[Klaus]

I would put a somewhat different interpretation on the matter. If Robin's leadership proved poor, they would turn on him in a moment. Why? Because they're Chaotic and have no loyalty beyond what has been earned.

Where does this idea come from that chaotics will gladly accept leadership as long as a sufficient sum of gold is placed in front of them first? I don't find 'mercenary' in any of my books as synonymous with chaotic, any more than I can find 'introvert' or 'unthinking'. Sure, a lawful individual's *perception* of chaotics might be misanthropes who keep putting themselves ahead of the greater purpose we could achieve with proper societal structure and leadership. But as the much-lamented SRD reminds, chaotics of all stripes think freedom best enables people to reach their potentials. One need not agree with this precept -- and I have many friends from both "sides of the aisle" who don't -- to see that it is neither irrational nor mercenary.

Yeah, Robin definitely had to prove himself before the Merry Men followed him. Usually, this was accomplished by defeating Little John, whom everyone looks up to.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Just because he mentioned alignment in the article, why does this have to be an alignment thread? Aren't those already done to death four editions ago?

 

[Incenjucar]

Just because he mentioned alignment in the article, why does this have to be an alignment thread? Aren't those already done to death four editions ago?

Alignment will always be contentious any time any rules are associated with it. With an unknown number of rules associated with it, that POTENTIAL issue is enough to ignite the old conflicts.

 

[Incenjucar]

Yeah, Robin definitely had to prove himself before the Merry Men followed him. Usually, this was accomplished by defeating Little John, whom everyone looks up to.

Sounds like orcs.

 

[Kynn]

Just because he mentioned alignment in the article, why does this have to be an alignment thread? Aren't those already done to death four editions ago?

But 5e is the edition that will unite all the alignment arguments of the last four editions!

 

[Andor]

Just because he mentioned alignment in the article, why does this have to be an alignment thread? Aren't those already done to death four editions ago?

Tradition? Alignment arguments are a sacred cow after all.

Meh, they follow Robin because they have no choice. Follow Robin or be hanged. Most of them were outlaws. If Robin failed, they would turn on him in a moment. Why? Because they're Chaotic and have no loyalty beyond what can be bought. They no more have Robin's back than a bunch of sharks.

I'm pretty sure that would be Chaotic Neutral or CE. CG would not turn on a good man in a second, becuase that wouldn't be good. 2 axis system, not one.

Sure, they work well as skirmishers and ambushers. But, in an open fight, the Merry Men get slaughtered by the well disciplined knights. Again, no choice in the matter.

Are these the same sort of well disciplined heavy knights that managed to lose the battle of Crecy because they disobeyed the orders of their king, attacked their own mercenary crossbowman and then charged in a massively disorganized fashion up a muddy field covered with the corpses of their own mercenaries until they were cut down by unarmoured peasant archers on an open field? Those Knights?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Are these the same sort of well disciplined heavy knights that managed to lose the battle of Crecy because they disobeyed the orders of their king, attacked their own mercenary crossbowman and then charged in a massively disorganized fashion up a muddy field covered with the corpses of their own mercenaries until they were cut down by unarmoured peasant archers on an open field? Those Knights?

Lightly armored yeoman archers that had trained in that ability from their teens, and at that particular battle were the pick of the bunch, from a rather hard-bitten and experienced pool. Let's not overstate things, when the point stands well enough on the facts.

 

[Andor]

Lightly armored yeoman archers that had trained in that ability from their teens, and at that particular battle were the pick of the bunch, from a rather hard-bitten and experienced pool. Let's not overstate things, when the point stands well enough on the facts.

Admittedly comparing an English yeoman to a French peasant is a bit like comparing an english mastiff to a pomeranian, however the point remains that a Knights dominance of the open field lies in his horse and heavy arms and not in discipline.

There are a lot of superlatives I could lay on the medieval knight, but disciplined is not one of the first to come to mind. If you want discipline look at Swiss pikemen or any of the good mass formation armies really.

 

[Hussar]

I would put a somewhat different interpretation on the matter. If Robin's leadership proved poor, they would turn on him in a moment. Why? Because they're Chaotic and have no loyalty beyond what has been earned.

Where does this idea come from that chaotics will gladly accept leadership as long as a sufficient sum of gold is placed in front of them first? I don't find 'mercenary' in any of my books as synonymous with chaotic, any more than I can find 'introvert' or 'unthinking'. Sure, a lawful individual's *perception* of chaotics might be misanthropes who keep putting themselves ahead of the greater purpose we could achieve with proper societal structure and leadership. But as the much-lamented SRD reminds, chaotics of all stripes think freedom best enables people to reach their potentials. One need not agree with this precept -- and I have many friends from both "sides of the aisle" who don't -- to see that it is neither irrational nor mercenary.

Ahh, oops, I used the word "bought" in there. I didn't mean literally bought with cash, although that's certainly one possibility. However, I was thinking more bought as in, "I'll follow this guy because he's winning and by following him, I'll win too... Oh, he's not winning anymore. ... I'm out of here."

In other words, any concept of following is based on selfishness and self-interest. As soon as that self-interest is no longer being served, the chaotic will turn on his leader. Robin never had a problem because he never failed.

 

[Dausuul]

In other words, any concept of following is based on selfishness and self-interest. As soon as that self-interest is no longer being served, the chaotic will turn on his leader. Robin never had a problem because he never failed.

How you weigh your own interests relative to other people's is pretty much at the core of the Good/Evil axis. Good = you make sacrifices to help others, Evil = you hurt others for your own benefit, Neutral = you do neither. If you abandon or turn on your leader as soon as you're no longer personally benefiting from that leadership, that's either Neutral (abandon) or Evil (turn on).

Chaotic is... well, meaningless, as this thread should make perfectly clear. Nobody can agree on what it means because the given definitions are contradictory and incoherent.

Also, Robin Hood's loyal men rescuing him from prison is a common theme in the legends.