Lawful Rogues Anyone?

[ConcreteSequential]

I ran across a discussion in game and it raised the age old question of; "Can a rogue be of lawful alignment".

It's always been my opinion that rogue is a class represented by a skill set, not an alignment choice and I'm interested in what others think on the subject.

For example. Fred the dwarf, (not to be confused with Fred the player , is a trap finder and vermin slayer for his clan. He follows the dictates and laws of both his king and guild religiously, always attends the sermons held in the temple of Moradin, and other than occasionally cutting one loose in a closed express elevator with others present, is by all other appearances a pillar of dwarven society.

His job description is as follows:

Set/ remove traps while patrolling his clan hold.
Set traps in mines, shafts and vents to prevent infiltration by enemies and vermin.
Serve as a scout while on patrol.
Service and craft locks on doors, chests, etc for the safe keeping of valuables and clan security.
Use all available skills to infiltrate into enemy held territory and obtain any plans, maps, etc of value in protecting his clan and their well being.
Etc, etc, etc.

As all skills are used in accordance with lawful dictates given by his superiors and not used for personal gain, why isn't the character lawful?

There are other examples that I could post, but it'd be sort of redundant in that they all revolve around one concept. It's not a PC's class or skill set that makes them lawful or not, it's what the PC does with it.

I'm interested in hearing what others have to say on this so feel free to chime in. Thanks.

[EDM Neo]

Absolutely agreed. There's no reason the Rogue class should have lawlessness as a prerequisite.

While I'm at it, I've never thought that the alignment restrictions on Barbarian and Bard were necessary.

[soulfien]

I have a lawful good rogue actually.

She's lvl 3 wizard/3 rogue. I hardly play her, but when I do it's a lot of fun.

She knows she's not very strong and can't take many hits- she's weak physically. So she uses her mind. Wizard spells and rogue tricks. She sneaks, she works with traps, she unlocks locked things, and she hits where it hurts most- sneak attacks.

[Lokarn]

on topic: The rogue class has no alignment restriction.

Off topic, Barbarians represent a primitive culture based on might is right, they do what they want, it makes sense to me, bards doesn't make sense to me.

[minion]

lawful rogues, while likely far from the norm for the class, seem perfectly possible to me. skillsets and their likely uses are separate issues for other classes (good and evil clerics with nearly identical abilities, anyone?), why not for this one? think of the military... how many of those who've sworn to defend the constitution have trained extensively in stealth, infiltration, and "hitting where it hurts?" similar for virtually any law-enforcement professional.

the barbarian, being as much a lifestyle as a class, makes sense to be restricted to me, more or less.

this actually made me think about the bard... i think the reason the bard is restricted is to show the "passion" these individuals have, a passion that somehow inherently pushes against the mental barriers that result in, or bring about, "lawfulness." personally, i hate the class (not a dig on any bard players out there!), and i don't claim to be an expert on it, but this just kind of hit me. take it or leave it.

[Thrym]

Lawful rogues are quite possible as many other people posted.

I won't claim to understand why bards are required to be nonlawful. A bard singing praise for lords and lawful gods and generally being an upstanding citizen seems a completly valid concept to me.

Barbarians mostly stems from the class simply being missnamed in my opinion. Much like the rogue, when you get down to it, the barbarian, as pretty much all non-magic classes, is nothing but a skill set. It's just that they for some weird reason decided to label it a barbarian and attach fluff to it - yet other fluff is just as valid for the class' mechanics - for example, you could have a religious fanatic who flies into a frenzy facing the 'infidels'. Sounds like a case for barbarian levels to me, and could very well be lawful.

... or of course, even sticking with the flavour, you could have a honorable Barbarian who values the traditions and ways of his culture above everything else, always obeys his elders, et cetera.

Mind you, I think none of the alignment restrictions for classes that are not divine spellcasters make any sense. Why do monks have to be lawful? All explanations for that that I ever heard only made me wonder why the same doesn't apply to wizards, psions and all the other mentally disciplined spellcasters.

[The Supreme Watcher]

Jan 4, 2010 3:03:34 GMT -5 Thrym said:

Lawful rogues are quite possible as many other people posted.

I won't claim to understand why bards are required to be nonlawful.

Lawful rogue example: Sam Fisher (up until Splinter Cell: Conviction)

And bards can't be lawful because they're devoted to ROCK, and ROCK is inherently unbound.

[mythosfakir]

Monks are lawful strictly for the same reason that a barbarian is unlawful - this particular class is both a skillset *and* a lifestyle, since in the class description it is clearly defined that monks gain their "monky" (heh) abilities from rigorous training, meditation, and regulation of their minds and bodies. I personally believe this last one - the learning to regulate their thoughts (put aside worldly desires, focus on maintaining an internal "balance", etc) as well as their bodies is what truly requires a monk to be lawful. Basically, I think the monk class is WotC's way of letting you know that a non-lawful character could never endure the training and learning that a monk must go through.

Also, I think in many cases the alignment restrictions on classes come from the original stereotypes that the class is based on. The barbarian class, for instance is based on your typical nomadic "wildman"-like warrior who bears a disdain for "civilization" and favors superstition to factual knowledge. (not saying all barbarians should be this, just pointing out the stereotype that the class's abilities and description support as the idea that spawned it). For a monk, if you look at DnD monks through the ages they have always been portrayed very much like the real Buddhist monks that we have outside the game. Buddhist monks are - in my opinion - likely the very definition of lawful. They live lives of spirituality, obeying strictly the rules and laws of Buddhism even to the point of forsaking worldly desires and objects for the sake of spiritual enlightenment.

Also, don't forget that some of the alignment restrictions are there to prevent certain classes from mixing to a point. After all, a bardic monk would be pretty sick.

Anyway, just my two cents.

[austrogoth]

Yeah I don't see a problem in most cases, although it could be argued that the "sneak attack" is by definition a dishonorable way to fight. Though "lawful" and "honorable" don't necessarily coincide.

I don't like the non-lawful bard thing either (which I suspect is to prevent bard/paladins?)
I do understand where they're coming from, that bards are supposed to be living on their wits and moving from town to town charming people out of their coin-- a stereotypical bard is much more of a "rogue" (in the classic definition of the word) than most stereotypical rogues-- but still, there's a lot of ways you could come up with a lawful music-based character. Like, say, Pat Boone. Ah well.

[fred]

Jan 3, 2010 21:08:09 GMT -5 ConcreteSequential said:

For example. Fred the dwarf, (not to be confused with Fred the player , is a trap finder and vermin slayer for his clan. He follows the dictates and laws of both his king and guild religiously, always attends the sermons held in the temple of Moradin, and other than occasionally cutting one loose in a closed express elevator with others present, is by all other appearances a pillar of dwarven society.

His job description is as follows:

Set/ remove traps while patrolling his clan hold.
Set traps in mines, shafts and vents to prevent infiltration by enemies and vermin.
Serve as a scout while on patrol.
Service and craft locks on doors, chests, etc for the safe keeping of valuables and clan security.
Use all available skills to infiltrate into enemy held territory and obtain any plans, maps, etc of value in protecting his clan and their well being.
Etc, etc, etc.

Yes, that is my job description exactly! Setting traps in mines! That's why I've been so busy lately and unable to play. So many mines to trap.

[Charon's Claw]

In the case of the rogue it's how one uses the skill that makes it lawful or chaotic. Sometimes a lawful society needs someone to break into an enemy's unlawful barring or trap on their land. The rogue's skill set is perfect for this, and they follow the laws of the land to break into the unlawful place to serve justice. So I can see a lawful rogue.

As for barbarians, I dunno, the stereotypical barbarian to me, at least the ones I have read in novels seem to be more lawful than chaotic. They follow their traditions and things to the letter, anyone who breaks them is often cast out, so it's odd to me that they're Non-Lawful.

[Savoie Faire]

Lawful does not imply an adherance to every law, but to a code the character accepts and abides by. If the Lawful character is faced with two sets of laws, he remains true to his own. A paladin in Thay, for example, might still abhor the practice of slavery, which is a legal and socially acceptable practice in Thay.

Darth Vader was a lawful character.
Don Corleone was a lawful character.

Both adhered to a very strict code which tolerated no infractions of the code either from subordinates or themselves

Chaotic does not imply a disdain for every law, but for those laws the chaotic character does not like. The chaotic character places his own desires or opinions above any documented list of rules created by another. A meticulously neat and disciplined rogue, for example, may freely pilfer the pockets of others while looking with disdain upon those who engage in debauchery.

The Gray Mouser was a chaotic character.
Drizzt was a chaotic character.

While both were extremely disciplined, they placed their own codes ahead of that of their societies, and were willing to change the code when it suited them.

Lawful implies conformity, but not necessarily to every local law. A slaver in Cormyr can be a lawful character who lives under a set of laws which was never instituted in Cormyr.

Chaotic implies free-will, but not necessarily unpredictable or random behavior. A noble in Cormyr can be a chaotic character who places his own or his family's benefit ahead of that of his liege.

With this understanding of my opinion as a starting place, we can extrapolate. Rogues can run the gamut of alignments, from Don Corleone to Mouser. A Lawful Good rogue might be a military scout, a chaotic evil one a mugger in the nearby city.

As has been stated, the Barbarian is the epitome of chaotic. He may be entirely disciplined in his actions, working out and practicing his swordsmanship every day, but his motive for doing so is for his own personal wealth, power, and glory. (At best he's working towards the wealth, power, and glory of his tribe over any other folk.)

The Bard is another example of chaotic. How many of you are creative? I know a few. Does any of you who are creative perform the act of creation in collusion with others? Even a guitarist in a band plays many many hours alone before he begins to rehearse with his group. The act of creativity is a solo affair, and very often artists of any sort spend a great deal of time isolated, working out their own vision.

In essence, a Lawful character follows the code of his group, and tends to place the group's will and identity ahead of his own, while a Chaotic character follows his own muse wherever it leads him no matter what folks around him think.

A monk accepts the teachings of his order above his own observations and conclusions. If his teachings and observations conflict it's because he failed to properly observe or he failed to understand the lesson.

The Bard places his own observations and conclusions above any teachings. If his observbations and teachings conflict, it's because the teachings failed to include this exception to the rules.

[EDM Neo]

I'm inclined to say that while those are certainly sometimes the case, Savoie, I still don't see any reason why the classes -must- be limited to those alignments. The archetypes might be traditionally that way, but when you get down to it, as Thrym said, non-divine classes are essentially just skill sets.

Why can't a lawful person be tough and an experienced combatant who doesn't use heavy armor and who can temporarily, exhaustingly make themselves stronger and tougher while sacrificing defense?

Why can't a lawful person have an interest in music (they can already have inborn magical talent - see sorcerer class)?

Even if true creativity really -does- require a non-lawful mind, as you claimed, why couldn't they take ranks in a different Perform skill (examples listed in the SRD include acting, comedy, dancing, keyboard instruments, oratory, percussion instruments, string instruments, wind instruments, and singing)?

Why can't a non-lawful person learn to fight unarmed and to run fast?

Etc, etc.

The main reason, so far as I can tell, is simply tradition... there's no good reason I can think of otherwise that the classes can't be reflavored to suit the character as happens regularly with non-alignment restricted characters like fighter or rogue.

[Munroe]

Jan 5, 2010 14:07:14 GMT -5 EDM Neo said:

I'm inclined to say that while those are certainly sometimes the case, Savoie, I still don't see any reason why the classes -must- be limited to those alignments. The archetypes might be traditionally that way, but when you get down to it, as Thrym said, non-divine classes are essentially just skill sets.

Why can't a lawful person be tough and an experienced combatant who doesn't use heavy armor and who can temporarily, exhaustingly make themselves stronger and tougher while sacrificing defense?

Why can't a lawful person have an interest in music (they can already have inborn magical talent - see sorcerer class)?

Even if true creativity really -does- require a non-lawful mind, as you claimed, why couldn't they take ranks in a different Perform skill (examples listed in the SRD include acting, comedy, dancing, keyboard instruments, oratory, percussion instruments, string instruments, wind instruments, and singing)?

Why can't a non-lawful person learn to fight unarmed and to run fast?

Etc, etc.

The main reason, so far as I can tell, is simply tradition... there's no good reason I can think of otherwise that the classes can't be reflavored to suit the character as happens regularly with non-alignment restricted characters like fighter or rogue.

In 3.5e they opened up the Perform skill so it can be taken cross-class by all classes and is no longer a restricted class, so all classes should be able to take ranks in Perform as of 3.5e.

The barbarian's rage isn't just "exhaustingly making himself stronger and tougher while sacrificing defense," it's a red emotional rage that drives the barbarian to feats of strength and will he wouldn't be able to accomplish if he were thinking clearly. His AC is diminished because he's reckless. He suffers penalties after the rage ends because he's exhausted from the exertion of the rage.

You can say that kind of thing is something that's learned but it's not something that's studied, and it's certainly not a discipline, it's the barbarian letting go of his anger, letting it loose to fuel and guide him.

A non-lawful person can fight unarmed and run fast. That person just isn't a monk. Improved Unarmed Strike is a feat that anyone can take. As for running fast, anyone can sprint on occasion, and in fact as far as that goes, barbarians get barbarian fast movement as well.

[Charon's Claw]

^^^

A non lawful person can fight unarmed and run fast with the improved unarmed strike feat, ect ect.

A monk is lawful b/c of the strict rigid training he/she must undergo. If one deviates from these "laws" at all their balance goes out of whack and they lose their abilities. Examples being if they put on armor, ect. A monk is far more than just a fancy fist fighter, hehe.

Edit: Munroe beat me to it first, but I'll leave this here.

[Munroe]

Personally, I hate the "monk-as-martial artist" class. I prefer the Western European scholar-monks. That is my mental image of a monk. They don't fight so much as they know about things.

I think the Western European monk is best represented by the Archivist class presented in Heroes of Horror. (It's a 20-level divine spellcaster class that learns spells similarly to a wizard and has a few buffing abilities like a bard to simulate calling out the weaknesses of recognized monsters.)

I'd prefer if the eastern-flavored monk class were renamed something like "the martial disciple" or something, but I still think the lawful restriction fits the class.

[EDM Neo]

My point wasn't so much about how the classes are flavored now as it is about why the classes can't be reflavored.

Yes, barbarian rage is getting extremely angry and therefore boosting their strength and such at the cost of fighting recklessly... but is there any good reason someone couldn't roleplay the same effect in a different fashion?

For an example of what I'm talking about, see the Avenger, a prestige class WotC posted up on April Fool's day a few years back. It's basically the -exact same thing- mechanically as an Assassin is, only it's been reflavored to not be evil-only... they're basically the exact same prestige class. It raises the question of, if it can so easily be reflavored to have the same abilities but a different alignment restriction, why did the class have the alignment restriction to begin with?

[Thrym]

... lawful people can't get really, really angry?

I'm sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Quite the opposite, I'd say lawful people are actually more prone to get really mad at you. Just go badmouth something they believe in with all their lawfulness if you don't believe me.

The fanatic that furiously beats those opposing the system he supports into a pulp sure sounds like he's both lawful and raging to me.

On a side note, Barbazu's got rage, and they're lawful outsiders. They're right there in the very first Monster Manual, too, not in some obscure splatbook. So, if a lawful outsider can rage, why can't a lawful mortal?

On a sidenote, I wished the Archivist was in NWN. It'd be perfect for Brannon, much better then wizard/cleric.

[The Supreme Watcher]

Outsiders don't follow the same rules as mortals. They are a completely different subject altogether.

And, to say that someone is lawful when they lose their grip on reality and beat someone to a pulp is... well, shaky. Every time my characters have beaten someone to a pulp, I've gotten chaotic points, and I would make the same shift in my PnP campaigns.

Assassins have to be evil because assassination is an inherently evil act (whether or not they are assassinating someone for the greater good). Note that it was an April Fool's joke when they released the Avenger class (they even took the assassin picture and recolored it white).

Rogues can be lawful, and I love lawful rogues!

Bards are chaotic because they ROCK, and ROCK is inherently unbound.

[ancientempathy]

Jan 5, 2010 16:03:36 GMT -5 The Supreme Watcher said:

Bards are chaotic because they ROCK, and ROCK is inherently unbound.

This is probably the best redneck reasoning I've ever read on the forums, at trying to explain something

[Charon's Claw]

LOL.... It's good reasoning. ;D

[EDM Neo]

I have little choice but to concede to the POWER OF ROCK.

That said, though, I think that about "assassination is always evil" is a bit debatable. Certainly, killing people for money and no reason but that is evil, but unless we want to say "killing people in a D&D world is always evil," or in other words, "almost all PCs are evil," I don't see a reason why the assassin's skill set is in itself evil.

Skill at using poison and the ability to cause paralysis or instant death with a single blow doesn't mean you're going to go out of your way to cause unnecessary suffering each and every time you use them to kill someone, does it?

[Thrym]

If a core outsider with the lawful subtype can rage, then rage can't be inherently chaotic.

Also, lawful mortals can get the exact same rage ability as the barbarian in DnD anyways. On top of my head, I recall three examples, two of which are in the SRD (Avenger Druids, Half Orc Racial Paragon).

I must admitt I am somewhat confused as to why you'd give someone chaotic points for getting mad at people opposing the system he supports. Being lawful has nothing at all to do with being sane or having a firm grip on reality.

Think about it this way: Fanatism! I think we can agree that lawful characters are more prone to being ridiculously devoted to something, no? And I also think we can agree fanatics are prone to getting very, very mad at times.

I personally find the fanatic hurling himself into a raging battlefrenzy when confronted with those that dare oppose the object of his utter devotion a quite valid concept.

[EDM Entori]

Jan 5, 2010 16:34:42 GMT -5 Thrym said:

If a core outsider with the lawful subtype can rage, then rage can't be inherently chaotic.

Also, lawful mortals can get the exact same rage ability as the barbarian in DnD anyways. On top of my head, I recall three examples, two of which are in the SRD (Avenger Druids, Half Orc Racial Paragon).

I must admitt I am somewhat confused as to why you'd give someone chaotic points for getting mad at people opposing the system he supports. Being lawful has nothing at all to do with being sane or having a firm grip on reality.

Think about it this way: Fanatism! I think we can agree that lawful characters are more prone to being ridiculously devoted to something, no? And I also think we can agree fanatics are prone to getting very, very mad at times.

I personally find the fanatic hurling himself into a raging battlefrenzy when confronted with those that dare oppose the object of his utter devotion a quite valid concept.

hmm yup!

[Munroe]

I disagree with Thyrm and Neoseanster.

If you remove the flavor of the class, you're no longer talking about a barbarian that's lawful, you're talking about a different class that has a similar ability. The flavor of the class is value and has merit.

From a mechanics standpoint, yeah, you can combine anything. Command Undead with Smite Evil. Discuss!

[ancientempathy]

And I'm with Munroe on this one myself *jumps on him to hug*

[mastersenge]

Bards are chaotic because they ROCK, and ROCK is inherently unbound.



This is probably the best redneck reasoning I've ever read on the forums, at trying to explain something


LMAO Thats just awesome LOL. ROCK ON BARDS !..!

[Thrym]

Jan 5, 2010 19:50:06 GMT -5 Munroe said:

I disagree with Thyrm and Neoseanster.

If you remove the flavor of the class, you're no longer talking about a barbarian that's lawful, you're talking about a different class that has a similar ability. The flavor of the class is value and has merit.

From a mechanics standpoint, yeah, you can combine anything. Command Undead with Smite Evil. Discuss!

Command Undead with Smite Evil has nothing at all to do with singleclass barbarians. One is a minor reflavouring of a class whose only ability that has anything to do with being uncivilized at all is the fact that it gets Survival as a class skill. The other is randomly combining stuff, and wether it makes any sense or not has nothing to do with wether Barbarian alignment restrictions make sense.

Seriously, the barbarian class is a skillset, just like fighter, rogues and pretty much all other classes that don't have magic (and some that do) - the skill set in this case being 'tough warrior who ticks out and kills people'. It has not a single ability that is related to living in the wild and opposing civilization aside from a single class skill which is completely optional to take.

A martial class is first and foremost a metagame concept. To the characters, a fighter, a rogue and a barbarian are all 'guys who beat stuff up with a weapon one way or another'. Attaching any inherent flavour to a class whose abilities boil down to 'beat up stuff' is the mistake here.

If a player came up to you as a pen and paper DM with a character concept that would be perfectly represented by the barbarian class's mechanics, but he is not a Connan-wanna-be, would you tell him to pick another class? What if later, he comes back with his homebrewed 'Berserker' class whose only difference from the barbarian is that it has a different flavour text that boils down to 'warrior that flips out and kills people'?

Seriously, reflavoring a class is not a bad thing. Does someone here really want to tell me his immersion is ruined if another player uses the barbarian class to represent his warrior who gets really mad in battle?

[The Supreme Watcher]

Jan 5, 2010 16:34:42 GMT -5 Thrym said:

I must admitt I am somewhat confused as to why you'd give someone chaotic points for getting mad at people opposing the system he supports.

Being mad is one thing. Losing grip on reality and becoming an unstoppable force of anger is another. Do you not see the difference?

[Thrym]

Jan 6, 2010 2:40:48 GMT -5 The Supreme Watcher said:

Jan 5, 2010 16:34:42 GMT -5 Thrym said:

I must admitt I am somewhat confused as to why you'd give someone chaotic points for getting mad at people opposing the system he supports.

Being mad is one thing. Losing grip on reality and becoming an unstoppable force of anger is another. Do you not see the difference?

I think you might be confusing the Barbarian Class with the Frenzied Berserker Prestige Class. Barbarians are in full control of their actions during rage, they just can't focus on anything that takes patience or concentration while raging.