onlyme wrote:Vargr1105 wrote:... Robin Hood could be LG with a slant towards Goodness, or LN with Good tendencies. I do not think he can be classified as CG. Robin is not an anti-authoritarian individualist. He is of noble birth and is ultimately fighting very pro-actively for the return of King Richard Lionheart and the restoration of lawful authority on the land. The reason he breaks the laws of King John with impunity and sleeps like a baby is that he is an usurper that does not hold legitimate political authority, therefore there is nothing Lawful about obeying him....
I couldnt pull the trigger on LG. If he only stole from the "gov't" or hunted on the king's land, then ok. But, by taking from private citizens, he crosses that line with me, to neutral. Those laws would have been the same regardless of rightful king.
The "private citizens" he steals from are nobles and corrupt clergy who are part and parcel of the unlawful regime of King John, and merchants which are its supporters, or at least neutral towards it. Again, there nothing un-lawful about expropriating traitors, or those that fail to contribute to the return of the legitimate authority even while profiting and getting fat from the status quo set up by the usurper.
Furthermore, Robin of Loxley being a nobleman and true to his oaths to the rightful king is lawfully empowered to do all those things. And once King Richard returns there is going to be a very, very lawful "night of the long knives". Axe will be swung, heads will roll and hanging ropes will hang taut from trees, unless King Richard decides to declare a general amnesty.
Robin does not steal to buy bling or maintain a lifestyle, but to support his insurgency and gain popular support to the cause by redistribution of wealth among the populace. And none of his victims are reduced to penury or starvation due to the expropriations, so no innocent kids going to bed hungry because Robin's partisans need new longbows. Sure, the fat merchant's wife may have to do without that new pearl necklace, which he wouldn't have been able to afford in the first place if he didn't enjoy a mercantile monopoly now that all the competing merchants that were loyal to King Richard are either imprisoned, exiled or dead.
Robin Hood is a crash course in Lawful Insurgency 101. And he is very good at it.
Bhart wrote:That's a strong argument. Your reasoning for him not being Lawful Good brings up an interesting point on how we define "lawfulness". For many it includes obedience to the law of the land. The idea is if they break a law they cannot be lawful.
Actually, we are grasping at straws if we fail to define what "Law" is in the first place. The current definition of a Law is something like: an opinion with is backed up by force, or coercion trough the threat of use of force; and is perceived by a sizable majority as being legitimate either through consent, indoctrination, brainwashing or outright despairing acceptance due to oppression.
It gets even more complicated when we consider the vast array of different entities promulgating contradictory laws. And "whose" law are we talking about? Personal law? Natural law? God's law? Political law? What is illegal on this this side of the border is perfectly legal on the other...ok, which one is right and lawful?
When Robin and his men attack King John's guards they are breaking the laws of King John, but by fighting traitors they are obeying King Richard's Law. So they are being Lawful and Chaotic at the same time? This is a paradox. Certainly no definition of "Lawful" in AD&D can be so universal as to ignore personal interpretations, otherwise the whole system crumbles down.
Bhart wrote:I'd argue that they only follow the law of the land because they recognize the authority of its ruler.
Bingo. Government is the Monopoly on Violence which is perceived (for whatever reason) as legitimate. Robin Hood is fighting for the previous monopoly on violence which is legitimate in his eyes, while King John's henchmen are fighting for the new one which is legitimate in theirs.
Bhart wrote:Lawful people do not follow laws just because they are laws.
Not unless they are Lawful
Stupid, which is sadly what many nice folks and GM seem to assume they would be.
Bhart wrote:They follow them because they feel some duty, devotion, etc. to the authority that imposes them. So for me Lawful is relative.
Bingo again Bhart. At last someone that agrees with me on the non-universal nature of Lawfulness in AD&D terms.
Alethan wrote:Bhart wrote:So for me Lawful is relative.
Indeed, if Lawful was not relative, we wouldn't have such need for lawyers!
(Of course, I still think we don't have much need for lawyers...)
I would go further. I would say there is no place for any lawyers (and judges especially) or professional politicians whatsoever in a free civilized society. Once they become extinct, the Universe will be one step closer to achieving harmony, and all the more beautiful for their demise. I say bring in the ropes and hang'em high...all of them.
I believe Mr. Carl Klang sung it best:
Yippee Yi Yo Yippee Yi Yeah...tax hikes are on the way
And he said, tax’em tax’em tax’em
Though it breaks their back some
Tax’em where they run, where they hide
In winters freezing weather
If we can’t tax their sweater
We’ll try to tax the hair off their hide
Yippee Yi Yo Yippee Yi Yeah...vengeance is on the way
I say we hang'em hang'em hang'em
till their toes are dangling
Stretch those traitors necks hang'em high
Before they up and bust us
lets use old fashion justice
Go out and get a rope and hang'em high
Check 'em out
Size ‘em up
Look ‘em up
Find ‘em out
If they’re in
Vote ‘em out
If they’re out
Hunt’em down
Drag’em into the court
Every traitorous one
Use your vote
Like a rope
Hang'em high
Hang'em high, Yeah!