| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Greetings and Merry Christmas!
I am starting a new campaign and the players are hashing out who plays what. I have only a couple of requests. Everyone must be good aligned. I want a written background and a goal. We just finished AP2 of the Ashes campaign and wanted to try something less linear and more free form.
I suggested a Lawful Good Orc Cleric and I was immediately told that can never be played.
> Said Cleric would not allow a rogue in the party as stealing is against the law.
I thought it would be a marvelous role play character with the story almost writing itself. How did he become LG? Was he ostracized? How did he get here?
My players feel that the alignment LG can NEVER be played and is never played as written.
My players expressly indicated that a Rogue may NEVER EVER be LG. That his profession by his nature precludes him from such ethics/alignment.
I would like the community to post what the rules say (about Lawful Good) and what can be allowed and how you would play a LG Cleric or Champion/Pally.
Can such a player have a (good aligned) rogue in the party?
Thanks for reading through. All these years with my Best Friend gaming and this 'discussion' is the hot one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thats a tricky question because you first need to determine the definition of lawful respectively good and especially for lawful I have seen any definition in between follows the letter of the law to follows his own personal code, which may easily not co-align with the law.
For example a lawful good monk may never care about the party rogues illegal activities as long as he follows his own strict personal code, like never skipping a day of training, never using a weapon, always keeping his word of honor etc.
...Lawful characters have a set system in life, whether it’s meticulously planning day-to-day activities, carefully following a set of official or unofficial laws, or strictly adhering to a code of honor...
Adhering to official laws is only one possible subset of being lawful.
I've seen Rogues played as Lawful Good.
One game I was in had a 'Robinhood' like character. He had a personal ethical code that also applied to other members of his guild. "Honor Among Thieves" story line.
If your players insist on Homebrew rules ("never played as written") then you need to figure out whether you want to run games under that ruleset.
|
My Lawful characters respect the powers that be and tend to leave responsibility for complicated decisions to those above their rank.
My LG Champion of Torag is the very stereotype of Dwarf, except that he is a cavern elf. He tries to protect people as much as he can. His motto is "my people get out alive." He is devoted to his god and does his utmost to follow Torag's edicts and anathemas. He has no problem working with a Rogue as long as they do no Evil. Even if they do not follow Torag's rules. After all, he chose to follow his god. They did not.
I think what he would hate the most is people doing Evil in Torag's name.
Rogues do not have to steal BTW. If they did, my Champion would warn them about the severe consequences that behavior can bring to both them and the party. And he would hold them responsible for the consequences.
Lawful Good Rogue is quite possible too. They use their abilities to the benefits of others, likely following orders from higher-ups or the tradition of their people. Obviously, they steer clear of Evil acts.
Note that a Class, especially one not directly linked to a deity, is mostly a bag of related abilities in PF2. Not a straightjacket with scripted behavior and alignment.
In fact any build that imposes an alignment says it explicitly in its requirements. If nothing is written, it means Paizo considers that all alignments are possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's funny because in early DnD, they couldn't be Lawful Good either. Except then they were called a Thief, and the name was changed specifically to get away from that stealing stereotype!
One typical example of a lawful Rogue is the spy. They can put great stock in obeying orders, working for a greater cause, and all the other lawful traits in regards to their own culture. Then they apply all their Rogue abilities against an enemy to said culture (et al). Saboteurs, educated aristocracy, and several other roles in society could suit being both Rogues & LG.
Also lawful embodies the sense of community (as contrasted w/ chaotic embodying individuality) or respect for authority. That may not be very Rogue-ish to care what the group consensus is or to work for "The Man", but it's allowed. In a similar vein, there'd be in-group/out-group dynamics. You have your own community and authorities that determine your lawfulness. They may approve of your unseemly actions, making them okay and hence lawful. Think of how the Yakuza is typically painted as quite lawful internally; and in some real-world iterations does well by their local communities! That doesn't prevent them from unleashing chaos on their enemies.
I think the trouble with theft is more that stealing IMO is evil (partly because Lawful doesn't need to tie into all laws at all times in all places). That is assuming the loss is harmful to the victim. But Rogues aren't required to steal, and even a Thief Racket Rogue could have moved on from their past (while maintaining those skills for heroic purposes).
Robin Hood has often been portrayed as the exemplary Chaotic Good character, yet in many variants he feels lawfully bound to the rightful authority (who's off fighting in the Crusades). He could be regarded as lawful in that light. Twist circumstances a little so that the local, lawful authorities are the poor, while the wealthy are chaotic warlords running amok, and Robin Hood becomes more obviously Lawful & Good, yet still could utilize his full slate of hoodwinkery, subterfuge, and thievery.
Edit: typo
To everyone,
Thank you for the VERY helpful responses. This thread gets posted on my discord!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think your players' definitions are very narrow.
Are pirates lawful or chaotic? For a while nations not only accepted it as part of the "rules" but even issued letters of marque to authorize the behavior on a legal level.
What happens if there is no organized central government? An example would be Kowloon Walled City, or mid-1990s Somalia, anarchist regions where local order amidst widespread chaos was the norm.
The stereotypical paladin and the stereotypical rogue are definitely products of a viewpoint from a modern citizen of a well-established democracy. The state and the church are seen as legitimate entities and the obedience to the rule is equated with doing good; an offense against one's property is an offense to that person and is equated with evil. It has not always been this case.
RPGs are about expanding your world, and I would encourage your players to be more open-minded.
On the flip side, RPGs are also about cooperation. If your players just want to have a traditional adventure, that's a valid request as well. Sometimes people just want an adventure where the bad guys all wear the same color and killing them solves the world's problems.
There is absolutely no reason for a paladin or other lawful good type to abhor a rogue. And there are legitimate reasons for a rogue to be lawful good. Rogues can be good and lawful, separately and together.
Oh, and don't forget that for paladins, good is more important than lawful. Seriously, it's in the rules. 'Follow lawful authority' is below the Tenets of Good.