An ancient question: Robin Hood, NG or CG?

[steverimmer]

Heh it looks to me Talan that this question is going to be argued about just as much for the next 3o odd years as  well

[Pankoki]

Heh... alignments are just guidelines anyway. So this whole conversation is pointless. I'm just bored and I like to argue for the sake of arguing and I know the description of the what DnD "thinks" alignments are and what actions dictacte that alignment.
  If you want to carry that to real life, the line is bent in sooooo many ways it no longer applies. But if you take the strict walls DnD places on characters then by those definitions my argument stands.

[Ozy_Llewellyn]

For kicks and giggles. Chaotic Evil. Here is my justification.

Robin Hood, defender of the peasents was little more then a minipulative petty noble like all the rest, he just won. Law and Chaos has nothing to do with obediancet words the law mearly obediance twords a certain set of personal ethics and morals, lawful being the embodyment of honer and ecetera (to the point of oppression), chaos being more about freedome (but also maddness). Robin expresses an extreamly chaotic side by jumping the fence repeatedly into changed plans and defyance of what he suposedly held dear dropping to robbery and murder.

Evil and good are more easly represented by the simple constants, helping others vs helping yourself while a good character will in general try and help others (a smart one will try and get himself in with the 'others') an evil one will be determined to help himself once again a smart one would be helping others to increase their own personal power. What beter way to gain power and prestege not to mention legendary status but by helping the poor by stealing from the rich? The poor were oppressed already so he steals from the rich and gives the poor a cut 'free' so they love him, thus makeing the sherif have to raise taxes, slaughter the doe and cancle christmiss causeing the poor to hate the sherif and undermine his authority givein Robin the Power he wished.

As you can see from my INSANE arugment that the legendary Robin Hood was a chaotic evil anarchist determined to undermine the power of england the way power is usualy attained, the systamatic exploitation of people.

[Talan Va'lash]

Ozy has just demonstrated what we have all (well at least me) have begun to suspect:

You can justify any action with any alignment.

hehe


But he brings up that Law vs chaos does not mean just "the law" of whomever is in power.  It also means a strict code of behavior.  This is why monks must be lawful, not that all monks abide by "the law" according to law makers or the authority.

The paladin that fights slavery in a new land or whatever, is still lawfull because he is abiding by his strict set of principles and beliefs and his own moral code of conduct in carrying out his fight.

[Murgleys]

What alignment is Gandhi?  This'll be fun to see...

[steverimmer]

Heh wasn't he above alignments?  Sort of 'Do you see the alignment...there is no alignment'

[Doc-Holiday]

In reguards to the Ghandi question, I would have to say that again... All actions can be taken by any alignment. Frankly, this whole alignment thing is really just how twisted we really can be. We can take someone like Robin Hood and make him Chaotic Evil just as easily as we can Lawful Good and they are both easily supported. Really I think it's just the wonderful gift humanity has to rationalize reality into any form it likes, even conflicting forms that cause migraines.

[Talan Va'lash]

I havent looked at this thread in a while, so, in response to what Pan said:

"By all means if Robin indeed would have been Lawful, the quest wouldn't have been to kill the prince and so on. But to look for the King and make him aware of what was going on so that the proper authority figures could enact the law."

In most (i think all) of the versions of the story I've read/seen Robin was sending the majority of the money he stold secretly to pay the kings ransom.  John refused to pay the ransom since it gave him more power.  John was breaking the law at that point, er, I doubt there was a written law against not paying the kings ransom... but sine the Kings word was law, he was breaking it by not allowing him to return by not paying his ransom.