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?