Rogue Class Preview

That part of my post was literally a response to someone doing exactly that.

They were suggesting combining 4 or less of 10 Knowledge skills.

I don't think you understand what the argument is here. If every skill in the game is now a mish-mash of 2 or more skills, then every single skill in the game is going to be subject to situational penalties and bonuses. The switch from Spot/Listen/Search to the consolidated Perception carried with it confusion when it came to visual or auditory based perception skills. And by confusion I don't mean confusion about of how the rules function, but confusion in practice (keeping track of what penalty/bonus applies when).

Now apply that to all skills.

That particular example is really specific and, IMO, not very generalizable. I mean, several other skills got combined in Pathfinder as well (Tumble and Balance, for example) without any such problems. So its hardly inevitable.

Really, the Search/Listen/Spot conversion problems were avoidable, too. Especially if you change some of the basic system assumptions (which is something PF2 is doing more than PF1 ever did).

There are two aspects to this. First, skill overlap between party members. With less skills there's going to be more overlap. Whether the new method of skill allotment ameliorates this has yet to be seen.

Well, since we have a rough guess on number of skills (ie: it's pretty much certainly more than 15) and we know non-Rogue skill progression (ie: how many skills you can raise after 1st) and we know there's a cap on high skills at 1st...we actually can figure out how this will work. And I outlined that above.

Second, skill homogeneity between characters in general. Namely a character with Occultism (assuming it's smushing Kn. Arcana and Kn. Planes together) is going to be just like any other character with Occultism. Whereas before a character could have no ranks at all in one and several in the other (or further, not even have one as a class skill).

I'm not sure how this is a problem, to be honest. 'Oh, no! The PCs are more broadly competent, whatever shall I do?'

I'm just...not quite getting the problem with this. Sure it's a slight decrease in mechanical differentiation, but it's pretty slight and in an area I've seldom seen people care about.

Also, evidence suggests Lore as freeform to some degree, so you can probably have Lore: Planes if you want to just know about those and not the rest of whatever Occultism covers. That'd be a suboptimal choice in some ways...or maybe not if you get it free from Background (and you do get a free lore from Background).

If that's going to be remedied by skill feats and proficiencies, then what was the point of rolling them together in the first place? Not to cause less confusion, because I'm fairly certain there will be at best no difference there.

Frankly, I disagree. Reducing the skill list reduces complexity/confusion for everyone forever, while changes only increase confusion for people who are used to the old system, and only temporarily. So, it helps new players and will help old players after they get used to it. It breaks even for old players in the short term, but it's a net good nonetheless.

1) Any way you slice it, you will end up lumping "unrelated" skill into the same skill.

Maybe your friend Jake was excellent at passing secret messages in class, but when the teacher confronted him about it he couldn't lie to save his life. Does that mean we should have a "Pass Secret Message" skill that's separate from the "Bluff" skill? No, that would be crazy.

2) If your character is good at "use A" of a skill but not "use B", you can always choose not to roll for "use B". If your character has nimble hands but has never picked a lock, you can still take proficiency in Thievery, and if you come across a locked chest, no one will force you to try and pick it - just don't roll for it. If you are an expert on Taldan customs but don't know a lot about Osirion, you can still take Society, and if there's a question about Osirion you don't have to roll for it.

3) Having similar levels of usefulness for each skill is good. Certain skills in PF1 were a joke (Appraise, Knowledge (nobility), Knowledge (geography), and Sleight of Hand probably being the worst offenders.) I'm not saying they were never used, but a skill rank invested in one of them was never going to be nearly as strong as if you had point that skill rank into Diplomacy or Perception. It would make sense to consolidate "niche" skills into bundles to put each category at a similar power level.

Consolidating skills and telling players to self regulate role play sounds like an oberoni solution for folks who like in-depth skill play.

The other solution is to split overpowered skills up into their parts. How do you feel about investing ranks in Make Request, Improve Attitude, Search and Notice?

For the record, since I was just watching a session of Jason Bulmahn running this and saw it used, Nimble Dodge is only vs. one attack, and must be declared when the attack is.

Still, if you have no other Reaction, it is basically a free +2 AC once a round, which isn't all that bad.

Consolidating skills and telling players to self regulate role play sounds like an oberoni solution for folks who like in-depth skill play.

Roleplay =/= house rules.

It sounds like a lot of people are saying "But I want my character to be good at Use A of this skill but not Use B." Well, the player is in control of what skill checks they attempt.

Planpanther wrote:

Consolidating skills and telling players to self regulate role play sounds like an oberoni solution for folks who like in-depth skill play.

Roleplay =/= house rules.

It sounds like a lot of people are saying "But I want my character to be good at Use A of this skill but not Use B." Well, the player is in control of what skill checks they attempt.

Uh...no. Refusing to use abilities your character actually possesses mechanically for no particular reason is not something that most players feel they can do if it harms the PC group, nor something most player groups will tolerate.

This is not a valid solution for most people who play the game.

Consolidating skills and telling players to self regulate role play sounds like an oberoni solution for folks who like in-depth skill play.

Give me your list of skills and I'll be able to split one into multiple unrelated skills.

RumpinRufus wrote:

Planpanther wrote:

Consolidating skills and telling players to self regulate role play sounds like an oberoni solution for folks who like in-depth skill play.

Roleplay =/= house rules.

It sounds like a lot of people are saying "But I want my character to be good at Use A of this skill but not Use B." Well, the player is in control of what skill checks they attempt.

Uh...no. Refusing to use abilities your character actually possesses mechanically for no particular reason is not something that most players feel they can do if it harms the PC group, nor something most player groups will tolerate.

This is not a valid solution for most people who play the game.

Is that really how your groups play?

"Mechanically, I could murder this wandering merchant and loot his wagon, and since it's the best move for the party, I'm really obligated to do it."

If you have an in-character reason not to do something, then it's your decision. Full stop.

Anyway, I'm probably not going to convince you to change the way you play the game, so I'm curious - do you have a proposed solution? Because if we included a skill for every different real-life skillset, there would be thousands and thousands of skills. A mathematician could say, "It's ridiculous that geometry and calculus are both Knowledge (math) - they're completely different skill sets! Are we to believe that any geometer can solve a differential equation? Preposterous!"

If Paizo wanted a list of 50 skills in the game, that's fine... so long as they give fighters 10 skill ranks, rogues 20 skill ranks, and give each and every skill a bunch of feats to make it awesome from low to high levels.

That's not going to happen.

So since they wouldn't hand out tons of skill points to be meaningfully competent with a ton of skills in a system with loads and loads of skills, and since they don't have the page count to print skills and skill feats taking up as much or more space as the combined combat, magic and spells chapters of PF1, they're going to consolidate.

My defensive fighters are long-jumpers. If I want to use Detect Magic properly, I have to be an expert on dragons and constructs. Being able to schmooze at a nobles’ ball means being able to hit the pavement in the slums to gather information. Knowledge about deities is intrinsically linked to knowing different types of undead.

It seems pretty reasonable to roll climbing and swimming in with long-jumping, picking locks in with picking pockets, and identifying spells by casting in with identifying spells by effects.

Is that really how your groups play?

"Mechanically, I could murder this wandering merchant and loot his wagon, and since it's the best move for the party, I'm really obligated to do it."

If you have an in-character reason not to do something, then it's your decision. Full stop.

Okay, we need to have a conversation about 'in character reason'. Because that has a couple of different definitions.

The definition I would usually use is 'A reason my character has, in his own head, for not doing something.' By that definition I pretty much always see people not doing things because their character would not. Or doing them because their character would. I'd pretty exclusively use it for choices my character is making.

But you're using it for 'A reason that I have that some of my character's listed capabilities don't exist.' That's something I've pretty much only seen you use, is a very different thing, and is very much not okay in many gaming groups. You the player are deciding that you know better than the rules what the character is capable of, and that's odd and often kind of a dick move to the other people you're playing with.

In short, you're using it for capabilities rather than choices and I consider that inappropriate in many games.

Anyway, I'm probably not going to convince you to change the way you play the game, so I'm curious - do you have a proposed solution? Because if we included a skill for every different real-life skillset, there would be thousands and thousands of skills. A mathematician could say, "It's ridiculous that geometry and calculus are both Knowledge (math) - they're completely different skill sets! Are we to believe that any geometer can solve a differential equation? Preposterous!"

Personally, I'm inclined to think characters are, like many fictional characters, broadly competent. This is not that hard to justify and fits the vast majority of character concepts.

Spiral_Ninja wrote:

OK, so there's also this from Unchained:

Consolidated Skills:
Finesse - Disable Device, Sleight of Hand

or

Grouped Skills:
Thieving - Disable Device, Disguise, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, Use Magic Device

Of the two, I prefer Finesse.

Well, name aside, we know it's not actually the second one because Stealth is still a separate skill.

I like the split skill concept with these names:

Legerdemain covering Sleight of Hand, Palm Item, Pick Pockets, Stage Magic, Juggling and Dosing Someone's Food or Drink with extra "Spices".

Finesse Device covering Pick Locks, Disable Traps, Set Traps, Escape Artist, Use Rope and "Grabbin' the gaol cell keys off the sleeping Sheriff's belt with a bent spoon on a string" sort of Shenanigans.

I dislike Thievery for its obvious moral implications. I can see very well how illusionists and those who make a honest living out of opening doors for people who forgot their keys might take exception with it. Doubly so if they become a Paladin later on. Let's just settle on something more morally neutral. It really should not be that hard I think ;-)

The big flaw of the PF1 Rogue IMO was that it was trying to be a versatile chassis with the potential to go one of 3 paths : devious combattant, stealthy infiltrator or seductive con artist.

But in the end PF1 options only allowed it to be at most second best at one of those and somewhat decent at the other two.

In a game that rewarded overspecialization.

The Rogue was doomed to fail

I hope PF2 Rogue will be able to stay competitive with the best in its chosen path, if a little below them, and with its specific style

Maybe the emphasis on skill ranks allows this. I really hope it does

I dislike Thievery for its obvious moral implications. I can see very well how illusionists and those who make a honest living out of opening doors for people who forgot their keys might take exception with it. Doubly so if they become a Paladin later on. Let's just settle on something more morally neutral. It really should not be that hard I think ;-)

I disagree that Thievery has a meaningful moral implication. I mean, Robin Hood exists and is widely referred to as a thief. He's genrally a good guy, and in some of the more 'loyal to the king' interpretations, could even be argued to be LG.

The Raven Black wrote:

I dislike Thievery for its obvious moral implications. I can see very well how illusionists and those who make a honest living out of opening doors for people who forgot their keys might take exception with it. Doubly so if they become a Paladin later on. Let's just settle on something more morally neutral. It really should not be that hard I think ;-)

I disagree that Thievery has a meaningful moral implication. I mean, Robin Hood exists and is widely referred to as a thief. He's genrally a good guy, and in some of the more 'loyal to the king' interpretations, could even be argued to be LG.

Thievery implies chaos in my book, not evil.

Thievery implies chaos in my book, not evil.

I can see that, but I'm still not sure I agree.

The Raven Black wrote:

I dislike Thievery for its obvious moral implications. I can see very well how illusionists and those who make a honest living out of opening doors for people who forgot their keys might take exception with it. Doubly so if they become a Paladin later on. Let's just settle on something more morally neutral. It really should not be that hard I think ;-)

I disagree that Thievery has a meaningful moral implication. I mean, Robin Hood exists and is widely referred to as a thief. He's genrally a good guy, and in some of the more 'loyal to the king' interpretations, could even be argued to be LG.

That last part is EXACTLY why I wish for some other word ;-)

Your choice of skills should have zero implication regarding your choice of alignment

That last part is EXACTLY why I wish for some other word ;-)

Your choice of skills should have zero implication regarding your choice of alignment

Huh? My whole point was that you can clearly have thieves of any alignment from LG to CE and thus the word Thievery has no moral implication.

IMO, Thievery is simple, direct, and gives a very good idea of the various uses of the skill. Finesse? That I'd have to explain. Same with pretty much all of the other suggestions. I prefer simplicity to the skill names.

The Raven Black wrote:

That last part is EXACTLY why I wish for some other word ;-)

Your choice of skills should have zero implication regarding your choice of alignment

Huh? My whole point was that you can clearly have thieves of any alignment from LG to CE and thus the word Thievery has no moral implication.

I was referring the fact that you would have to argue that someone with skill at Thievery could actually be LG ;-)

To me no implication means there is no need to argue

Maybe not being a native speaker hinders me here :-/

Deadmanwalking wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

That last part is EXACTLY why I wish for some other word ;-)

Your choice of skills should have zero implication regarding your choice of alignment

Huh? My whole point was that you can clearly have thieves of any alignment from LG to CE and thus the word Thievery has no moral implication.

I was referring the fact that you would have to argue that someone with skill at Thievery could actually be LG ;-)

To me no implication means there is no need to argue

Maybe not being a native speaker hinders me here :-/

I've NEVER had to argue about pickpockets, sleight of hand, lockpicking or any other skill as it pertains to alignment. So I'm not seeing the "you would have to argue that someone with skill at Thievery could actually be LG". There just isn't the implication from my perspective.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Huh? My whole point was that you can clearly have thieves of any alignment from LG to CE and thus the word Thievery has no moral implication.

I was referring the fact that you would have to argue that someone with skill at Thievery could actually be LG ;-)

To me no implication means there is no need to argue

The need to argue comes from the people loudly decrying the name of the skill and stating categorically that only bad/evil/lawless people would have it.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

That last part is EXACTLY why I wish for some other word ;-)

Your choice of skills should have zero implication regarding your choice of alignment

Huh? My whole point was that you can clearly have thieves of any alignment from LG to CE and thus the word Thievery has no moral implication.

I was referring the fact that you would have to argue that someone with skill at Thievery could actually be LG ;-)

To me no implication means there is no need to argue

Maybe not being a native speaker hinders me here :-/

Uh...the need to argue is not inherent in using the term thief, it's inherent in the fact that Robin Hood was my example, and he's literally been used as the CG example in more than one D&D book, so arguing him as LG instead is tricky.

Setting aside the alignment questions (which have been made on both sides of the issue), the name sets an expectation that does not help the players.

If you look at various media, you have all sorts of people that have skills that are being lumped into the Thievery skill. Almost every detective or rogue cop will have it. Everyone on Bomb Disposal and most Special Forces people will have it. Every locksmith will have it. I would expect it on anyone who is a competent security expert.

The thing is a lot of those people aren't using it to steal. Thievery suggests that the skill is used to steal. Being able to pick a lock (which allows trespass) or deactivate a trap (which may well be aiding lawful authorities) is different than stealing.

The name should not cause that sort of misconception.

How many want their detectives to be masters of Thievery?

------

Touching on a slightly different topic that has been talked about, I'm hoping that the new Rogue can finally be the master of something rather than second best at a variety of things. Sneak Attack is ability to do damage in combat. Every full BAB class is better at laying down the smack and many are better at an alpha-strike. Investigators rule at Disable Device and all knowledge skills. Bards rule at all social skills. Barbarians get the Uncanny Dodge sooner than Rogues. The new Alchemist is supposed to also be able to do the Disable Device.

I don't mind other classes being able to do this stuff -- it is good that they can. I would like there to be something that the rogue can do better than others. It looks like they will have about double the skill ability, but will they have an edge over other classes in anything?

RumpinRufus wrote:

Is that really how your groups play?

"Mechanically, I could murder this wandering merchant and loot his wagon, and since it's the best move for the party, I'm really obligated to do it."

If you have an in-character reason not to do something, then it's your decision. Full stop.

Okay, we need to have a conversation about 'in character reason'. Because that has a couple of different definitions.

The definition I would usually use is 'A reason my character has, in his own head, for not doing something.' By that definition I pretty much always see people not doing things because their character would not. Or doing them because their character would. I'd pretty exclusively use it for choices my character is making.

But you're using it for 'A reason that I have that some of my character's listed capabilities don't exist.' That's something I've pretty much only seen you use, is a very different thing, and is very much not okay in many gaming groups. You the player are deciding that you know better than the rules what the character is capable of, and that's odd and often kind of a dick move to the other people you're playing with.

In short, you're using it for capabilities rather than choices and I consider that inappropriate in many games.

RumpinRufus wrote:

Anyway, I'm probably not going to convince you to change the way you play the game, so I'm curious - do you have a proposed solution? Because if we included a skill for every different real-life skillset, there would be thousands and thousands of skills. A mathematician could say, "It's ridiculous that geometry and calculus are both Knowledge (math) - they're completely different skill sets! Are we to believe that any geometer can solve a differential equation? Preposterous!"

Personally, I'm inclined to think characters are, like many fictional characters, broadly competent. This is not that hard to justify and fits the vast majority of character concepts.

I think this really depends on the game in question. At a PFS game, this would get old really quick. At a home game? Go for it, as long as it's clear from the start of the character. If someone was constantly doing this on the fly, then yeah, it's a pain. If it's a clear part of their character, I don't see how it's a problem.

I think this really depends on the game in question. At a PFS game, this would get old really quick. At a home game? Go for it, as long as it's clear from the start of the character. If someone was constantly doing this on the fly, then yeah, it's a pain. If it's a clear part of their character, I don't see how it's a problem.

I dunno, even in a home game, if a Cleric has Channel Positive Energy on their sheet but the player refuses to ever use it, I think that's gonna lead to some bad feelings. That's an extreme example, but I think it applies to most useful abilities to a lesser degree.

So can Rogues use Dex for attack at 1st level like their Unchained counterpart?

So can Rogues use Dex for attack at 1st level like their Unchained counterpart?

I believe DEX to attack is a quality of certain weapons rather than being courtesy of a Feat you have to pick.

So can Rogues use Dex for attack at 1st level like their Unchained counterpart?

As of the demo games, first-level Rogue got Dex to damage on weapons that had Dex to attack. They mentioned some stuff had changed from the demo already, and the Rogue preview blog didn’t mention that, so I wouldn’t count on that feature.

Everyone getting Dex to attack with finesse weapons showed up as well.

Hm.. well maybe its tied to the weapon, which would be pretty cool. I hope they keep that element.

LuZeke wrote:

That part of my post was literally a response to someone doing exactly that.

They were suggesting combining 4 or less of 10 Knowledge skills.

LuZeke wrote:

I don't think you understand what the argument is here. If every skill in the game is now a mish-mash of 2 or more skills, then every single skill in the game is going to be subject to situational penalties and bonuses. The switch from Spot/Listen/Search to the consolidated Perception carried with it confusion when it came to visual or auditory based perception skills. And by confusion I don't mean confusion about of how the rules function, but confusion in practice (keeping track of what penalty/bonus applies when).

Now apply that to all skills.

That particular example is really specific and, IMO, not very generalizable. I mean, several other skills got combined in Pathfinder as well (Tumble and Balance, for example) without any such problems. So its hardly inevitable.

Really, the Search/Listen/Spot conversion problems were avoidable, too. Especially if you change some of the basic system assumptions (which is something PF2 is doing more than PF1 ever did).

LuZeke wrote:

There are two aspects to this. First, skill overlap between party members. With less skills there's going to be more overlap. Whether the new method of skill allotment ameliorates this has yet to be seen.

Well, since we have a rough guess on number of skills (ie: it's pretty much certainly more than 15) and we know non-Rogue skill progression (ie: how many skills you can raise after 1st) and we know there's a cap on high skills at 1st...we actually can figure out how this will work. And I outlined that above.

LuZeke wrote:

Second, skill homogeneity between characters in general. Namely a character with Occultism (assuming it's smushing Kn. Arcana and Kn. Planes together) is going to be just like any other character with Occultism. Whereas before a character could have no ranks at all in one and several

...

Count me as one of those thinking that reducing the granularity of skills is NOT a net good.

As of the demo games, first-level Rogue got Dex to damage on weapons that had Dex to attack. They mentioned some stuff had changed from the demo already, and the Rogue preview blog didn’t mention that, so I wouldn’t count on that feature.

It could easily be a Class Feat. They certainly didn't mention all of those. Or it could be something acquirable with non-Class resources, which would definitely not wind up in the Rogue Blog.

I wouldn't assume its absence from the Rogue Blog means anything.

I disagree that Thievery has a meaningful moral implication. I mean, Robin Hood exists and is widely referred to as a thief. He's genrally a good guy, and in some of the more 'loyal to the king' interpretations, could even be argued to be LG.

I'm sorry but how is Robin Hood who is Always depicted as fighting Against Prince/King John at all LG... I could see NG, but NOT LG! Fighting against the Authorities (see King John and the Sheriff of Nottingham) is Traditionally Chaotic. This is honestly why I HATE the conflation that LG can possibly fight against Society, because its Literally stealing from CG, and making people think that CG is just CN but Nicer. Society and Authority are Hallmarks of Lawful, so Fighting against said things would Inherently move one towards the Opposite. >.>

I'm sorry but how is Robin Hood who is Always depicted as fighting Against Prince/King John at all LG...

Prince John is not the rightful king. See here.

I know he's not but that doesn't change the matter that A) King Richard isn't around(he was actually off fighting in the crusades, by most tellings), and B) he's in charge right now, so by fighting against him, you are Still fighting against the Rightful Authority, even if he isn't the Rightful King according to Robin Hood and the story narrative, he is still a Rightful Authority. This is exactly how Monarchies went back then, and we're discussing Law vs Chaos not Good or Evil, I don't think anyone is going to argue that John wasn't evil and that Robin Hood wasn't good. But John was using the Law to his advantage to take over the throne for Himself, Lawful Evil to a T.

Also that clip you showed, showed him being Chaotic, because the Society Literally surrounding him in that clip, was following what they saw was Rightful Authority, the Lord Reagent of England, John. Meanwhile Robin was telling everyone that he saw them as traitors and that he'd Fight against this new Order and the oppression of the Saxon People(another CG Hallmark, fighting oppression), CG does what CG does.

Yeah, the LG interpretation relies on the idea that if Prince John were the rightful monarch, Robin Hood would not oppose him, and is opposing him out of loyalty to King Richard (the rightful King). That's a valid argument for LG under most definitions.

I actually prefer the CG interpretation of Robin Hood, I was just noting that a perfectly valid LG interpretation exists.

Also, thank you so much for proving my point that the argument was about Robin Hood specifically not whether a thief could be LG.

One *could* argue that fighting against illegitimate authority is the most lawful thing of all. Since the existence of illegitimate authority is a threat to all legitimate authority everywhere.

It's just a matter of being correct about the legitimacy question.

A pox on the phony king of England!

The question though is Cabbage, did Anyone else see it as Illegitimate Authority? And, if John had won out in the end, who then would be seen as the Legitimate Authority? History afterall is written by the victors, and Stories (if Robin Hood is indeed fictional) are written for Good to Triumph over evil(like John).

Law does not care about public opinion. Nor does victory imply righteousness.

The question though is Cabbage, did Anyone else see it as Illegitimate Authority? And, if John had won out in the end, who then would be seen as the Legitimate Authority?

There is the additional question of whether or not an LG character could oppose a legitimate authority acting in illegitimate ways. So, even giving that Prince John was a legitimate authority Robin Hood could oppose him if PJ were acting in an illegitimate manner.

I state the Contrary, Law IS Public Opinion, and Chaos is about Individualism.

Not in Pathfinder.

Indeed in Pathfinder.

Dracala wrote:

The question though is Cabbage, did Anyone else see it as Illegitimate Authority? And, if John had won out in the end, who then would be seen as the Legitimate Authority?

There is the additional question of whether or not an LG character could oppose a legitimate authority acting in illegitimate ways. So, even giving that Prince John was a legitimate authority Robin Hood could oppose him if PJ were acting in an illegitimate manner.

Depends on the specifics of why they're Lawful and what the nature of the legal system is. I mean, someone who's Lawful because they never break their given word but doesn't care about the laws of the land won't care what those laws say, and if the law says slavery is cool, it's hard to fight slavery in a manner that's consistent with that law.

In the specific example of Robin Hood, since it's pre-Magna Carta, King John would be an absolute monarch and almost literally can't abuse his authority by the laws of the time. Not that this stopped people from doing things about him...indeed, they made him sign the Magna Carta.

See I always saw it that Just because you follow a code of Conduct does not make you Lawful, being Lawful is about following Law. Chaotic people can have a Code of Conduct that they live up to just as much as Lawful people can, that doesn't make them any more Lawful, they just don't give a flip what anyone else thinks about it, its their individual freedom to do so. Though I will admit that chaotic people aren't Nearly as rigid as Lawful people are, they typically go by codes that allow them more freedom in what they can do, but still have things that They Won't.

The question though is Cabbage, did Anyone else see it as Illegitimate Authority? And, if John had won out in the end, who then would be seen as the Legitimate Authority? History afterall is written by the victors, and Stories (if Robin Hood is indeed fictional) are written for Good to Triumph over evil(like John).

Well according to the renowned political theorist Max Weber, there are three types of legitimate authority.

"The Three Types of Legitimate Rule" (Die drei reinen Typen der legitimen Herrschaft) is an essay written by Max Weber, a German economist and sociologist, explaining his tripartite classification of authority. Originally published in the journal Preussische Jahrbücher 187, 1-2, 1922, an English translation, translated by Hans Gerth, was published in the journal Berkeley Publications in Society and Institutions 4(1): 1-11, 1958. Weber also refers to the three types of legitimate rule in his famous essay "Politics as a Vocation."

Weber's ideas about legitimate rule also appear in his Basic Concepts in Sociology and The Theory of Social and Economic Organization.

The translation of the German word Herrschaft is at the heart of understanding Weber's point about political legitimacy. The translation Rule was employed in the 1958 essay translation by the key early Weber translator Hans Gerth, and is in the title of the essay as translated here. Other translators of Weber including Alexander M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons, translated Herrschaft as authority. Weber translators Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters discuss the difficulties in translating Herrschaft as well, typically using "dominion" and "domination" in addition to the original German Herrschaft.

According to Weber, beliefs in the legitimacy of a political system go beyond philosophy and they directly contribute to the state system stability and authority. All rulers have an explanation for their superiority, an explanation that is commonly accepted but during a crisis can be questioned. Weber sees only three categories of legitimation strategies (which he calls "pure types") used to justify the right of rulers to rule:

• Legal authority is based on a system of rules that is applied administratively and judicially in accordance with known principles. The persons who administer those rules are appointed or elected by legal procedures. Superiors are also subject to rules that limit their powers, separate their private lives from official duties and require written documentation.

• Traditional authority is based on a system in which authority is legitimate because it "has always existed". People in power usually enjoy it because they have inherited it. Officials consist either of personal retainers (in a patrimonial regime) or of personal loyal allies, such as vassals or tributary lords (in a feudal regime). Their prerogatives are usually similar to those of the ruler above them, just reduced in scale, and they too are often selected based on inheritance.

• Charismatic authority is based on the charisma of the leader, who shows that he possesses the right to lead by virtue of magical powers, prophecies, heroism, etc. His followers respect his right to lead because of his unique qualities (his charisma), not because of any tradition or legal rules. Officials consist of those who have shown personal devotion to the ruler, and of those who possess their own charisma.

The types of authority change over time, when the ruled are no longer satisfied with the system. For example, after the death of a charismatic leader his followers, if they lack the charisma of their predecessor, will try to institute a system based on tradition or law. On the other hand, these systems can be challenged by the appearance of a new charismatic leader, especially during economic or military crises.

These 'pure types' are almost always found in combination with other 'pure types' — for example, familial charisma (important in kingship and the Indian caste system) is a combination of charismatic and traditional elements, while institutional charisma (existing in all church organizations, but absent from a priesthood that fails to develop such an organization) is a mixture of charismatic and legal elements.

I think we can all agree that Prince John had none of the above: no legal authority, no traditional authority, and no charismatic authority. So we can safely declare him illegimate.

Wait, weren't we talking about rogues?

A Few last notes, I do believe that King John did have Traditional Authority, because A) he was Richard's brother and thus seen as suited to be Lord Reagent, and B) the Nobility Supported him in the story of Robin Hood.

Also! Go look at the Real History of Richard the Lionheart and King John, Richard actually forgave his brother for trying to keep him held prisoner, and then made him his Heir.

I am sorry however for sidetracking the whole Blog Thread!