Can a thief ever really be "lawful"?
SharGuidesMyHand
Member Posts: 2,580
It's always confused me as to why a thief is prohibited from being lawful good, but can still choose the other lawful alignments.
Why is only LG prohibited? If the argument is that thievery, by its very definition, is unlawful, then shouldn't the other lawful alignments be prohibited as well?
Also, how exactly does one play as a LN or LE thief?
0
Comments
A spy who is completely devoted to his master is an exemple of LN thief. The same could be LE if he enjoys the harm he his doing.
Be considered lawful right?
Otherwise you could consider a thief more of a tinkerer who is skilled at traps and stealth which are helpful adventuring skills that don't always result in theft or law breaking. Right?
But the real, non-game-justification reason thieves can't be LG is really Gary Gygax and his biases. He had a very boxy view of alignments and how they were supposed to be implemented. LG was supposed to be the Most Goodiest and Honourablest of alignments, and thus a character who was defined by such lowly actions as picking locks or pick-pocketing could never be both lawful and good at the same time. It doesn't make much sense, really, and that was the reason it was eventually changed (and probably house-ruled away by most players long before 3rd Ed).
*Gets a bowl of popcorn*
More seriously, to expand on what Francois is saying, if we the case of a government agent working to uphold a Good or Lawful government and who has explicit sanction from their lord to break laws in the line of duty, you can still make the argument that being Lawful Good is very difficult for someone in that position. Your actions run counter to the principles of a just and benevolent society, and arguably undermine the social trust that such a society relies on. C.f. the Operative from Serenity.
That said, I think the lawful/chaotic alignment axis has mostly been bollocks'ed into irrelevance by inconsistent implementation, so I generally just houserule it.
Generally, I agree with @francois interpretation, but I think in theory you could be both lawful and good at the same time. I know it can be difficult to compare with non-DnD characters but James Bond is an agent, lawful towards his organization and the good in the eyes of society (he doesn't really hurt anyone other than bad people and tend to want to save others) yet still he is kinda like a rogueish character.
As a completely different character concept, consider a former fighter who has dual-classes over to thief and now operates as a private detective. His fighter skills allow him to handle himself in rough company and his thief skills give him the ability to snoop around as he has been lawfully contracted to do. It may be a dirty job but it is still a lawful job.
AD&D thieves are pigeonholed into acting in an unlawful manner and using their skills to break laws. However a thief adventurer can use his skills - especially locks/traps etc in a lawful manner. There is nothing unlawful about picking a lock in an abandoned ruin or locating and disarming traps. Pickpockets can be used for sleight of hand and moving silently and hiding are not inherently unlawful activities.
It's the intent on how these skills are used which should determine alignment, not simply possessing these skills.