A LG, LN, or NG Rogue?

[Ashtal]

Another example occured to me:

Generally, in our day and age, wandering around with a katana and hacking people up, regardless of your reasons, lands you in a heap of trouble. It is considered neither lawful nor good.

But in a fantasy game, with a lot of frontier justice and the need to defend towns, villages and places, doing so against the forces of evil is considered both very lawful and very good. If the same evil-crushing knight decides to take out the local peasentry, however, descripters such as lawful and good cease applying.

It's the focus of those activities, who gets hit, and who doesn't, that demonstrates alignment. And just as the sword-whacking definition of good or evil or chaos or law is dependent on what's on the recieving end, it's the same for pickpocketing, or any of the 'thievish' arts. The act itself remains neutral until put into a context based on who the act is being applied to.

Because of that, I don't see a problem with a LG or LN scout doing what she must as a spy to defend the kingdom, or a NG thief playing robin hood to feed starving orphans.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Absolutism is a property of the alignment system as a whole.

I disagree. The alignment system is an absolute AND relativistic way to represent an absolute AND relativistic fantasy world.

Originally posted by pennywiz

You must have a different D&D 3E PHB than I have because mine doesn't have any of that in it. In fact, there is a quote from the PHB that says, "A lawful good character may have a greedy streak, occaisionally tempting him to take something or hoard something he has even if that is not the lawful good thing to do."

To the LG character "Greed" is an absolute evil, and the character knows this and is still greedy. Does this make the character CE in my campaign? No. Why? Because the overall outlook and actions of the LG greedy character are, in general, LG. Now if the LG character was a greedy, malicious, vengeful, hateful, anarchic, random axe-murderer would that be a different story? Yes.

"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straightjacket for restricting your character."

True. But this statement means that a character does not have to be a "pure" alignment and that character can have different personality quirks that are in opposition to each other. However, the character is not blind to the fact that these quirks are in opposition.

A Solar from Mount Celestia is a "pure" LG character. That is what I am basing this on. I think, heck, would that Solar think that greed is evil in all situations? Yes. Is this not a balanced or realistic view? Yes. But it is an extreme. Why should a CE fiend be extremely chaotic and extremely evil and a Solar not be extremely lawful and extremely good?
.
.
.
Umbran---
I agree that a lawful character can have an extremely complex rules system with which to base their world view on, but the acme of the Lawful alignment is DnD is this: always tell the truth, always keep your word, always repect authority, always honor tradition, always have honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.

On the plane of Mechanus, a modron does not have contingency plans for when a superior breaks down. They respect authority to the extent that they only act in commanded by an authority to do so. If the chain breaks down, they all break down.

Your example of modern law only shows that both law and chaos are inherent within that system. Hence it's flexibility.
.
.
.
As per skills, yes, Pick Pockets can be used for sleight of hand and planting an object on someone. Neither of these are lawful behavior in my book. Why?

Sleight of hand is lying with physical gestures.

Planting an object on someone is falsifying the infomation that a person owns an object. A lie. I would also contend that it is not honorable nor trustworthy.
.
.
.
Ashtal--
I disagree with your "sword" analysis because you have just described the difference between good and evil, not law and chaos.

Picking Pockets is an untrustworthy, subterfuge illusionary act in any way shape or form. Is it sometimes good to pick pockets? Yes. Is it sometimes evil? Yes. Is it ever lawful? No.

Legality does not equal a lawful alignment in DnD. Is Sleight of Hand legal? Yes. Is it lawful? No.

As per the LG spy...

Just as long as she always attempts to not lie and always attempts to keep her word, I'd be fine with it. As long as she is honorable many more times than she is not, I'd allow it into my campaign.
.
.
.
I just think that everyone here is chaotic and openminded. We need more closeminded people to play DnD. Then we'd have some examples of lawful behavior...

 

[hong]

I disagree. The alignment system is an absolute AND relativistic way to represent an absolute AND relativistic fantasy world.

What a fascinating sentence. It's like something out of nuclear physics. Actually, this could make for some interesting takes on high-level play.

I can just see it now. Characters who advance past 20th level increase their mass enormously due to relativistic effects, as covered by the Epic-level rules. They eventually reach orbit and gain an atmosphere capable of sustaining life. As they advance past 40th level, the nuclear furnaces in their core start fusing hydrogen into helium, turning the nascent quasi-stellar object into a true star. As this occurs the other objects in the star's solar system become planets, giving rise to their own forms of life. Perhaps it's really all an allegory for worship and divinity.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

LOL, Thank you, hong. As always, your sarcasm is greatly appreciated.

I will expand that statement later when I have more time. I realize it was more cryptic than helpful. Give me a break. We are talking about: (*drum roll*) a moral system for the entire universe!!!

 

[Humanophile]

...As per skills, yes, Pick Pockets can be used for sleight of hand and planting an object on someone. Neither of these are lawful behavior in my book. Why?

Sleight of hand is lying with physical gestures.

Planting an object on someone is falsifying the infomation that a person owns an object. A lie. I would also contend that it is not honorable nor trustworthy.

I could see both being used for LG purposes. Granted, these are more things I'd see an Expert doing than a Rogue, but I'm just being nitpicky.

First, sleight of hand is only nonlawful and/or nongood when done with the intent to defraud. And while I'll grant that your average stage magician is more likely chaotic than lawful, I don't see how chaotic alignment is required. A modern day debunker would probably be lawful, maybe even lawful good, but still know how to sneak so that they could prove their "talents" before showing everyone how it was done. And while I don't see a Solar having either the training or inclination to, if one had both I don't see it having the slightest problem doing sleight of hand, pulling rabbits out of hats and coins from behind ears to entertain children. Silly image, yes, but if entertaining children were what duty or the greater good demanded of it, entirely possible.

Second one, I can only think of the example of planting a bug on a bad guy so you know where he's going and what he's doing. Again, it's not your typical paladin in shining plate activity, but I fail to see how keeping track of a troublesome element (provided said troublesome element has proven themselves to be nonlawful/nongood and you're not just profiling) is either chaotic or evil.

 

[pennywiz]

-snip-

The problem I see with your pursuit is in trying to overly define a set of guidelines. You seem to be finding fault with a system designed to simplify the handling of morals in a fantasy world. In complicating it through your efforts, you attempt to rationalize your belief that the system is flawed.

The world always makes the assumption that the exposure of an error is identical with the discovery of truth -- that the error and truth are simply opposite. They are nothing of the sort. What the world turns to, when it is cured on one error, is usually simply another error, and maybe one worse than the first one. - H. L. Mencken

 

[Rune]

What do you guys think of a rogue that is either LG, LN, or NG?

1) Does this kind of get in the way of most of your ideas of roleplaying a rogue?

I'm currently playing a neutral good rogue (who started out lawful good when I was conceptualizing him). The trick is to play honorably. Get inside the character and have a very good idea why it's a rogue in the first place.

2) What approach would those alignmented rogues take?
I can see a CG Rogue using his PickPockets, etc to fight against injustice, but how does NG etc feel anything but shame for his stealthy abilities and deceptive ways?

Allow me to point you in the direction of the Seas of Fire story hour. It is written from the point of view of my character, Roderick, the NG rogue mentioned above. This exemplifies my take on the alignment/class combination.

 

[Thadeus_Balderk]

NG = a nice guy, but a bit of a scamp.

LN = professional with a code of ethics, maybe even a soldier specialized in urban tactics or a non-woodsmen version of a military ranger.

LG: hmm, never seen one. Perhaps a security specialist for the government. He knows the secrets of thievery and theft, but doesn't feel any desire to partake.

Hope that helps,
Greg

I agree

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Humanophile---

I did not say that sleight of hand was necessarily an evil act. I said it was chaotic. Why?

An intent to defraud is an intent to deceive which is exactly what sleight of hand always does. It is a deception. An illusion. Showing something that is not there. Misrepresentation of the truth. Therefore, it is not lawful as per the guidelines in the PHB.

Note: nowhere did I say that a LG stage magician would suddenly turn to CG because they used Pick Pockets. Obviously this infraction is of a lesser degree than, say, lying to a god. As long as the stage magician had more lawful actions that out-weighed this minor infraction, the magician would stay LG. (Such as explaining to those children afterwards that the tricks are always a function of the multiverse and that everything follows observable and consistent laws. The magician would also explain how the tricks were done so that they could not be used against the same children again.)

Hence the "Alignment is not a straightjacket" (for PCs...)

I would argue that Alignment is a straightjacket for a lot of NPCs. Namely any creature with an "always blah" in it's MM alignment entry.

Like a Solar...

As per a LG Solar? The ends never justify the means to a LG Solar. Doing a chaotic act for a good cause is not within the capabilities of a LG Solar any more than a LE devil could do a chaotic act for an evil cause. To do so is to allow extreme outsiders the ability to be as morally adaptable as mortals. Which is the whole point of having "Iconic Alignment Outsiders".

The problem I see with your pursuit is in trying to overly define a set of guidelines. You seem to be finding fault with a system designed to simplify the handling of morals in a fantasy world. In complicating it through your efforts, you attempt to rationalize your belief that the system is flawed.

I could just as easily say that you are trying to over-generalize a set of definitions to the point that they mean nothing.

I do not find fault with the system. The system runs fine. I find fault with your reasoning of the system.

You say that the rules are just guidelines and that therefore alignment has no effect on what any of the PCs ever do because actions cannot be weighed against any yardstick. If this were supposed to be the case, then why have alignment? If it is as useless as you propose, then why have the alignment restrictions of the paladin, monk, barbarian, bard, druid, and, in addition, have the entire mutliverse dependent on belief?

Let's just chuck out alignment altogether. You can rule -0- it if you want, but I enjoy having a generally consistent alignment definition so a player can read the PHB and know that Good in DnD is "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of human beings." just as Law is "honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority and reliability."

I am not attempting to define anything more than the above. I do not have specific rules to adjudicate every circumstance in DnD. I do not believe the rules are broken. I believe the above words are general enough for my tastes and yet the DM can rule what is good, evil, lawful and chaotic.

To get back to the original point of the thread, I believe that a lawful rogue is going to have a certain outlook in the world. Just as a lawful monk or a lawful cleric would. I also attempted to show that a lawful rogue is going to look at skills completely differently than a chaotic rogue. The jump between chaotic and lawful is as big as the gap between good and evil. A lawful rogue should not just be a chaotic rogue with a code. That, afterall, is just a chaotic rogue with a code...

 

[pennywiz]

You say that the rules are just guidelines-

Yes, I said that.

-and that therefore alignment has no effect on what any of the PCs ever do because actions cannot be weighed against any yardstick.

No, never said that. I said that beyond what is in the books, I wait for the circumstances to ajudicate a situation.

Let's just chuck out alignment altogether. You can rule -0- it if you want-

Never said that. Please refer to above comment.

-but I enjoy having a generally consistent alignment definition so a player can read the PHB and know that Good in DnD is "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of human beings." just as Law is "honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority and reliability."

There you go again. I think the definitions are clear enough as written in the rules. You apparently feel they need to be clarified beyond what is written. I think that defining it beyond what it says in the books is not wise because it leads someone to shoehorn situations into predetermined concepts with a limited number of circumstances. My approach is to wait for the circumstances and then deal with each situation on its own merits. You apparently think otherwise. To each their own.