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

[JMISBEST]

Refusing to accept Legitimate Authority is generally Chaotic.

You clearly missed the point that in my mates opinion Robin Hood would count Prince Johns actions as seizing the throne, which means that in Robins opinion Prince John and everyone that follows him, for example the sheriff, are traitors that do not have legitimate authority and will never regain the legitimate authority they once had

 

[Immeril]

I guessed someone would say this eventually so to ensure that I was prepared for when someone did say this I asked my mate well in advance, as in almost 6 hours in advance. Below is what he said. Your thoughts

My mate's answer is that in his opinion Robin Hood has decided that Prince Johns action count as seizing the throne, which is treason, and laws passed by a traitor that has seized the throne, even if prior to his treason he was running the country on behalf of the rightful king, aren't legal, and anyone that tries to enforce them, which includes The Sheriff, is a criminal, which means that he/Robin, isn't a criminal, the law enforcement people are

While I understand your mate's reasoning, political legitimacy is of course a topic that's been subjected to extensive debate by philosophers.

Your mate is convinced that a government can only be legitimate if the transfer of power from the previous government has been done in a legitimate way. By this line of reasoning the February Revolution and other actions that started communist states were illegitimate.
The previous theory clashed with John Locke, who said that government is not legitimate unless it is carried on with the consent of the governed. If officials that were assigned by the previous government acknowledge John's legitimacy, and the general population continues to adhere to those officials, one would have an effectively functioning government.

Another ancient theory holds that a ruler derives its legitimacy from heaven/a deity. This means that a ruler needs support from the clergy.

One could also posit that a government derives legitimacy from being acknowledged by and having diplomatic relations with foreign powers (for example: to this day, Turkey is the only nation in the world that officially recognises Northern Cyprus as a sovereign state).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You clearly missed the point that in my mates opinion Robin Hood would count Prince Johns actions as seizing the throne, which means that in Robins opinion Prince John and everyone that follows him, for example the sheriff, are traitors that do not have legitimate authority and will never regain the legitimate authority they once had

That might justify Robin being lawful, but it isn't remotely evil.

 

[JMISBEST]

While I understand your mate's reasoning, political legitimacy is of course a topic that's been subjected to extensive debate by philosophers.

Your mate is convinced that a government can only be legitimate if the transfer of power from the previous government has been done in a legitimate way. By this line of reasoning the February Revolution and other actions that started communist states were illegitimate.
The previous theory clashed with John Locke, who said that government is not legitimate unless it is carried on with the consent of the governed. If officials that were assigned by the previous government acknowledge John's legitimacy, and the general population continues to adhere to those officials, one would have an effectively functioning government.

Another ancient theory holds that a ruler derives its legitimacy from heaven/a deity. This means that a ruler needs support from the clergy.

One could also posit that a government derives legitimacy from being acknowledged by and having diplomatic relations with foreign powers (for example: to this day, Turkey is the only nation in the world that officially recognises Northern Cyprus as a sovereign state).

I know my mate well enough to guess that his thinking is that Prince John's actions count as seizing the throne, which makes him a traitor and unlike in modern times in the time period when the stories of Robin Hood are set a traitor can never be the legitimate head of a legitimate country

 

[Delazar]

Writing "evil" on your character sheet and still helping the poor makes alignment just semantics, I guess? Not sure if having the word "evil" written on your friend's sheet will ever come into play, but if it does, he may find himself with some weird situations.

"Here is the Sword of Justice, forged by the gods to fight tyrants!"
"I'll take it!"
"erm, no sorry, here it says good-aligned characters only..."
"but... fighting tyrants is what I do!?"
"your sheet clearly mentions evil, no can do, sorry"

 

[JMISBEST]

That might justify Robin being lawful, but it isn't remotely evil.

My mate thinks it resembles Lawful Evil enough to justify his character being of Lawful Evil alignment and its his character

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I know my mate well enough to guess that his thinking is that Prince John's actions count as seizing the throne, which makes him a traitor and unlike in modern times in the time period when the stories of Robin Hood are set a traitor can never be the legitimate head of a legitimate country

Sure they can, there are plenty of instances of rebel leaders (AKA traitors) becoming head of state, in both modern an ancient times.

 

[Laurefindel]

I know my mate well enough to guess that his thinking is that Prince John's actions count as seizing the throne, which makes him a traitor and unlike in modern times in the time period when the stories of Robin Hood are set a traitor can never be the legitimate head of a legitimate country

What? There was so many political takeovers that it’s really hard to tell who was in legitimate control of what European country (or which country was a legitimate state). Most of the wars were fought on that premise. The 100-year war between the English and French is a prime example, but hardly the only one.

Ultimately, as long as you and your mates agree on an interpretation of the alignment, you’ll get along just fine but if your mate is asking the En World community what they think of his character, I think it’s pretty clear that they think lawful evil doesn’t match the inspirational character/archetype.

 

[JMISBEST]

What? There was so many political takeovers that it’s really hard to tell who was in legitimate control of what European country (or which country was a legitimate state). Most of the wars were fought on that premise. The 100-year war between the English and French is a prime example, but hardly the only one.

Ultimately, as long as you and your mates agree on an interpretation of the alignment, you’ll get along just fine but if your mate is asking the En World community what they think of his character, I think it’s pretty clear that they think lawful evil doesn’t match the inspirational character/archetype.

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

 

[Inukai]

So, since Lawful Evil Robin Hood is opposed to the Sheriff of Nottingham and the machinations of Prince John, would that make the Prince and Sheriff Good aligned?

 

[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.