Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8006144" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Given that he has been outlawed, he doesn’t have much choice in the matter.I’d argue that he is very much gathering political allies, in the people of Nottingham. That’s kinda the point of the “give to the poor” bit, to earn the goodwill of the people. As for the church there’s Friar Tuck. But I do get what you mean here. He is engaging in revolutionary action, rallying the lower class against the upper class, which would generally be chaotic tactics. I would argue though that he is doing so with the aim not of dismantling the established order, but of restoring the proper order. There’s an argument to be made that using chaotic means to achieve lawful ends makes him Neutral Good, but I just can’t see a character who fights to reinstate a deposed monarch as Chaotic anything.Nobles who’s wealth was unjustly appropriated from the poor. Sure, he’s using means that are technically illegal, but the premise is that those laws were created by an illegitimate authority. He doesn’t oppose wealth inequality on the whole, he just opposes Prince John’s taxation policies. He wouldn’t be redistributing wealth if King Richard was the one appropriating it, because he’s the legitimate authority.That’s exactly my point. His goal is not one that aligns with the ideals of chaos.Well, his goal is certainly to oppose Prince John. But I see helping the needy as the means by which he opposes him, not a goal in its own right.Again, I think there’s a strong argument to be made that his means put him firmly in Neutral territory.Sure, but the heroic bandit was ultimately working in service to authority. To say he broke local law to do so, therefore he is chaotic is in my opinion a pretty shallow reading of the Chaotic alignments.</blockquote>

Verification