Can a Monk be a bandit leader? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Can a Monk be a bandit leader? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
realbombchu
02-18-05, 10:57 AM Considering they always have to be lawful, and all, does that mean they can't be part of a group of bandits?
Beamup
02-18-05, 11:26 AM It's entirely possible. Keep in mind that "Lawful" does not actually mean "follows the laws" in D&D. It's far more about discipline, structure, and having strict rules.

A gang of thieves where there are explicitly codified and strictly enforced rules of conduct, that emphasizes discipline (in the military or monastic sense) as the best means of success, is a Lawful organization, even though their entire purpose is to break laws.

You can think about it as Lawful meaning you strictly follow SOME explicitly codified set of rules, but not any particular set - in particular, not necessarily the "laws of the land."
fedexrico
02-18-05, 12:01 PM of course he can.
a lawful evil could do it without problems.. lawful follows the rules... that doesnt mean he cant follow the rules of the bandit group :P
Beamup
02-18-05, 12:03 PM Lawful Good can even do it without problems, given an appropriately-motivated group of bandits. (Think of Robin Hood running the Merry Men like a military organization.)
mojo_202
02-18-05, 12:04 PM Lawful can even just mean organized. A lawful evil monk would make an excellent bandit leader.
realbombchu
02-18-05, 03:31 PM Thanks guys, cuz (as some of you already know) I'm a big fan of the Suikoden video game series, and some of the best characters in that series are bandits, in fact, the series is based on an old Chinese legend called "The Bandits of the Marsh." So I wanted a bandit character, but I also wanted to play a monk this time. Thanks for all your help!
CuttinCurt
02-18-05, 03:47 PM These guys said it well. I think the main question here is; what is the Monks motivations behind leading a group of bandits, organizing them, and probably directing thier every move?

If it is for a cause he believes in and is willing to lay down his life for, then it would definately fall under any perview of lawfulness, wether good or evil.

Where it differs between good and evil lawfulness, is lawful good is law with compassion. Giving selflessly for the good of all those under the protection of your rule or the rule of your master/superior/king/leige/ect....

This goes beyond the mere lawfulness of the monk and moves into the realm of how you affect others with your actions. If you kill an innocent, wether you believe they are a part of the problem or not, you are not lawful good. Robinhood was not lawful good. He was lawful neutral, fighting for the people who were overtaxed. Did he have some sort of compassion for the people? Not really. It didnt go beyond his love of country and the hatred he had for the sherrif for turning his land into a lawless state of thievery.

His bandits were the real law, and the law were the bandits. But there was no lawful good in his actions, for his main goal was to revenge his honor upon the sherriff, and to free his land from the real thieves.

Lawful neutral at its finest.

CC
wordsofsortawisdom
02-18-05, 03:58 PM i find it hard to rationalize the requirement for monks to be lawful when they are dedicated to themselves, which has, especially recently, been defined as a more neutral tendency. the logic is further constipated, imo, when the alignment tendency for psions (the mental/magical version of monks?) is neutral, as per the psion book.
heretic888
02-18-05, 04:14 PM i find it hard to rationalize the requirement for monks to be lawful when they are dedicated to themselves, which has, especially recently, been defined as a more neutral tendency.

Actually, monks are dedicated to their art and their tradition --- not to themselves.
SwollenOstrich
02-18-05, 05:14 PM I disagree entirely. Not only do I find the concept of a monk leading a group of bandits pretty cheesy (unless the monk has deviated from his align/class and doesnt go back), but i disagree that ANYONE of a lawful alignment could lead, or even participate, in a bandit party. As it has been stated earlier, lawful characters uphold ideals like order, structure, etc. While a lawful character would be in the right for following the laws of the bandit group, bandit groups are by their very nature chaotic. They promote disorder and circumvent the basic structures that keep societies from plunging into anarchy.

Edit: This was stated earlier:

Lawful Good can even do it without problems, given an appropriately-motivated group of bandits. (Think of Robin Hood running the Merry Men like a military organization.)

Ask yourself this: Can you really imagine a paladin as the leader of a bandit group??
king_of_evil007
02-18-05, 05:49 PM A Monk is NOT a Paladin, even if they share alignments. Monks are disciplined to their art, their tradition, and their monastery. Paladins are dedicated to their religion, and goodness. There IS a difference.
Nephlite
02-18-05, 05:56 PM A Monk is NOT a Paladin, even if they share alignments. Monks are disciplined to their art, their tradition, and their monastery. Paladins are dedicated to their religion, and goodness. There IS a difference.
Actually the difference is Paladins mnust respect legitamate authority. So that is why he can't be a Paladin.

Monks do not have to respect legitamate authority.
They just need to folow their order, tradition, or oaths.
SwollenOstrich
02-18-05, 06:31 PM A Monk is NOT a Paladin, even if they share alignments. Monks are disciplined to their art, their tradition, and their monastery. Paladins are dedicated to their religion, and goodness. There IS a difference.

Fine, Ill give you that. I would definatly say its too far of a stretch for their art, tradition, and monastery to include practices such as banditry.
ehrin
02-18-05, 06:34 PM All it would take for a monk, or even a paladin, to run a group of "bandits" is for them to be part of an organization that is suddenly outlawed by some powers that they do not recognize as legal.

In real life, the Templar Knights (regardless if they were "paladin-like" or not) were thought to be be good and holy. But, a change of politics in Rome, and suddenly, they were banned, and stripped of power. One day, they are holy warriors, the next, they are outlaws. A paladin could belong to an order like that, have an illegitimate power take over, ban his group, hunt him down, and force him to become a bandit to survive, and he could still be "good" and lawful.

Japanese priests, warriors, and monks would frequently be "outlawed" by the powers in place at times, and be forced into criminal acts to survive. But, because they held to their original codes of honor and training, they could be role models for your monk bandit leader.
SwollenOstrich
02-18-05, 06:59 PM All it would take for a monk, or even a paladin, to run a group of "bandits" is for them to be part of an organization that is suddenly outlawed by some powers that they do not recognize as legal.

We obviously have different interpretations of the word 'bandit.' So that we are all on the same page, a bandit as described by dictionary.com is:

1.A robber, especially one who robs at gunpoint.
2.An outlaw; a gangster.
3.One who cheats or exploits others.

In this case, we are not talking about a group of virtuous knights doing good who suddenly find their actions illegal; nor do I think this is what the original poster had in mind. We are talking about a group of people who use force to deprive others of their belongings. In no way should a lawful character be engaged in this kind of activity.
Kullak-Kobold Sorcerer
02-19-05, 03:59 AM A lawful alignment means to follow the rules.

A Lawful Good person does this by not breaking the rules in the first place.

A Lawful Neutral person does this following the traditions closest to them first, such as family and honor, over the laws of the land.

A Lawful Evil person does this manipulating the laws to put them in the strongest position.

So a LG bandit is may be trying to restore justice and fair laws to the people, a LN bandit may choose banditry over breaking his family values (such as if it because illegal to arrange marriages, was promised to marry, followed through with it, and then was forced to flee with his betrothed), and a LE bandit may be bribing a magistrate to lessen the penalties for theft (by his specific method, of course) and blackmail jury members once he is caught.

A lawful person trusts and uses the rules and systems in place.
ehrin
02-19-05, 09:05 AM I still stand by my examples. Once a group is outlawed by authority, they almost certainly become bandits of some type.

1.A robber, especially one who robs at gunpoint. (probably not gunpoint, but simply living on your ancestral estates could be robbery after you are stripped of your titles. Also, you likely will have to steal food to eat, or clothing to live, or trespass and take from others in order to support your "outlaw" status.

2.An outlaw; a gangster. SElf explanatory.

3.One who cheats or exploits others. This would be the hardest for the Lawful Good (well, the good at least). CHeating and exploiting are more evil characteristics than good. But, a LE would have no problem cheating others, exploiting them, etc.
Thanatos02
02-19-05, 11:55 AM A sidenote, and not to derail the conversation, but Robin Hood is generally considered the exemplar of Chaotic Good behavior.

It's not my intention to get into a debate, but noting what is commonly accepted.
Lord Schpungus
02-19-05, 02:15 PM Nah, he's lawful good. Neutral Good maybe. He's resisting illegitimate authority on behalf of the 'right' rulers. A Chaotic Good bandit would tear down the throne and not put anybody on it. Robin Hood wants his feudal lord back on the throne so he can be given Marian as a gift for his loyalty.
angryman
02-19-05, 07:46 PM Something about the shaolin monks being hunted by the Chinese Imperial authorities suggests that they could have perhaps fled to the hills for safety and then perhaps, had they required food and shelter, taken to banditry against the government...

*Note, this is possibly entirely untrue. Anyone who has actually studied Chinese history better not start lecturing me about this subject. It was a suggestion, not a statement of fact. Ahem.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
realbombchu 02-18-05, 10:57 AM	Considering they always have to be lawful, and all, does that mean they can't be part of a group of bandits?
Beamup 02-18-05, 11:26 AM	It's entirely possible. Keep in mind that "Lawful" does not actually mean "follows the laws" in D&D. It's far more about discipline, structure, and having strict rules. A gang of thieves where there are explicitly codified and strictly enforced rules of conduct, that emphasizes discipline (in the military or monastic sense) as the best means of success, is a Lawful organization, even though their entire purpose is to break laws. You can think about it as Lawful meaning you strictly follow SOME explicitly codified set of rules, but not any particular set - in particular, not necessarily the "laws of the land."
fedexrico 02-18-05, 12:01 PM	of course he can. a lawful evil could do it without problems.. lawful follows the rules... that doesnt mean he cant follow the rules of the bandit group :P
Beamup 02-18-05, 12:03 PM	Lawful Good can even do it without problems, given an appropriately-motivated group of bandits. (Think of Robin Hood running the Merry Men like a military organization.)
mojo_202 02-18-05, 12:04 PM	Lawful can even just mean organized. A lawful evil monk would make an excellent bandit leader.
realbombchu 02-18-05, 03:31 PM	Thanks guys, cuz (as some of you already know) I'm a big fan of the Suikoden video game series, and some of the best characters in that series are bandits, in fact, the series is based on an old Chinese legend called "The Bandits of the Marsh." So I wanted a bandit character, but I also wanted to play a monk this time. Thanks for all your help!
CuttinCurt 02-18-05, 03:47 PM	These guys said it well. I think the main question here is; what is the Monks motivations behind leading a group of bandits, organizing them, and probably directing thier every move? If it is for a cause he believes in and is willing to lay down his life for, then it would definately fall under any perview of lawfulness, wether good or evil. Where it differs between good and evil lawfulness, is lawful good is law with compassion. Giving selflessly for the good of all those under the protection of your rule or the rule of your master/superior/king/leige/ect.... This goes beyond the mere lawfulness of the monk and moves into the realm of how you affect others with your actions. If you kill an innocent, wether you believe they are a part of the problem or not, you are not lawful good. Robinhood was not lawful good. He was lawful neutral, fighting for the people who were overtaxed. Did he have some sort of compassion for the people? Not really. It didnt go beyond his love of country and the hatred he had for the sherrif for turning his land into a lawless state of thievery. His bandits were the real law, and the law were the bandits. But there was no lawful good in his actions, for his main goal was to revenge his honor upon the sherriff, and to free his land from the real thieves. Lawful neutral at its finest. CC
wordsofsortawisdom 02-18-05, 03:58 PM	i find it hard to rationalize the requirement for monks to be lawful when they are dedicated to themselves, which has, especially recently, been defined as a more neutral tendency. the logic is further constipated, imo, when the alignment tendency for psions (the mental/magical version of monks?) is neutral, as per the psion book.
heretic888 02-18-05, 04:14 PM	i find it hard to rationalize the requirement for monks to be lawful when they are dedicated to themselves, which has, especially recently, been defined as a more neutral tendency. Actually, monks are dedicated to their art and their tradition --- not to themselves.
SwollenOstrich 02-18-05, 05:14 PM	I disagree entirely. Not only do I find the concept of a monk leading a group of bandits pretty cheesy (unless the monk has deviated from his align/class and doesnt go back), but i disagree that ANYONE of a lawful alignment could lead, or even participate, in a bandit party. As it has been stated earlier, lawful characters uphold ideals like order, structure, etc. While a lawful character would be in the right for following the laws of the bandit group, bandit groups are by their very nature chaotic. They promote disorder and circumvent the basic structures that keep societies from plunging into anarchy. Edit: This was stated earlier: Lawful Good can even do it without problems, given an appropriately-motivated group of bandits. (Think of Robin Hood running the Merry Men like a military organization.) Ask yourself this: Can you really imagine a paladin as the leader of a bandit group??
king_of_evil007 02-18-05, 05:49 PM	A Monk is NOT a Paladin, even if they share alignments. Monks are disciplined to their art, their tradition, and their monastery. Paladins are dedicated to their religion, and goodness. There IS a difference.
Nephlite 02-18-05, 05:56 PM	A Monk is NOT a Paladin, even if they share alignments. Monks are disciplined to their art, their tradition, and their monastery. Paladins are dedicated to their religion, and goodness. There IS a difference. Actually the difference is Paladins mnust respect legitamate authority. So that is why he can't be a Paladin. Monks do not have to respect legitamate authority. They just need to folow their order, tradition, or oaths.
SwollenOstrich 02-18-05, 06:31 PM	A Monk is NOT a Paladin, even if they share alignments. Monks are disciplined to their art, their tradition, and their monastery. Paladins are dedicated to their religion, and goodness. There IS a difference. Fine, Ill give you that. I would definatly say its too far of a stretch for their art, tradition, and monastery to include practices such as banditry.
ehrin 02-18-05, 06:34 PM	All it would take for a monk, or even a paladin, to run a group of "bandits" is for them to be part of an organization that is suddenly outlawed by some powers that they do not recognize as legal. In real life, the Templar Knights (regardless if they were "paladin-like" or not) were thought to be be good and holy. But, a change of politics in Rome, and suddenly, they were banned, and stripped of power. One day, they are holy warriors, the next, they are outlaws. A paladin could belong to an order like that, have an illegitimate power take over, ban his group, hunt him down, and force him to become a bandit to survive, and he could still be "good" and lawful. Japanese priests, warriors, and monks would frequently be "outlawed" by the powers in place at times, and be forced into criminal acts to survive. But, because they held to their original codes of honor and training, they could be role models for your monk bandit leader.
SwollenOstrich 02-18-05, 06:59 PM	All it would take for a monk, or even a paladin, to run a group of "bandits" is for them to be part of an organization that is suddenly outlawed by some powers that they do not recognize as legal. We obviously have different interpretations of the word 'bandit.' So that we are all on the same page, a bandit as described by dictionary.com is: 1.A robber, especially one who robs at gunpoint. 2.An outlaw; a gangster. 3.One who cheats or exploits others. In this case, we are not talking about a group of virtuous knights doing good who suddenly find their actions illegal; nor do I think this is what the original poster had in mind. We are talking about a group of people who use force to deprive others of their belongings. In no way should a lawful character be engaged in this kind of activity.
Kullak-Kobold Sorcerer 02-19-05, 03:59 AM	A lawful alignment means to follow the rules. A Lawful Good person does this by not breaking the rules in the first place. A Lawful Neutral person does this following the traditions closest to them first, such as family and honor, over the laws of the land. A Lawful Evil person does this manipulating the laws to put them in the strongest position. So a LG bandit is may be trying to restore justice and fair laws to the people, a LN bandit may choose banditry over breaking his family values (such as if it because illegal to arrange marriages, was promised to marry, followed through with it, and then was forced to flee with his betrothed), and a LE bandit may be bribing a magistrate to lessen the penalties for theft (by his specific method, of course) and blackmail jury members once he is caught. A lawful person trusts and uses the rules and systems in place.
ehrin 02-19-05, 09:05 AM	I still stand by my examples. Once a group is outlawed by authority, they almost certainly become bandits of some type. 1.A robber, especially one who robs at gunpoint. (probably not gunpoint, but simply living on your ancestral estates could be robbery after you are stripped of your titles. Also, you likely will have to steal food to eat, or clothing to live, or trespass and take from others in order to support your "outlaw" status. 2.An outlaw; a gangster. SElf explanatory. 3.One who cheats or exploits others. This would be the hardest for the Lawful Good (well, the good at least). CHeating and exploiting are more evil characteristics than good. But, a LE would have no problem cheating others, exploiting them, etc.
Thanatos02 02-19-05, 11:55 AM	A sidenote, and not to derail the conversation, but Robin Hood is generally considered the exemplar of Chaotic Good behavior. It's not my intention to get into a debate, but noting what is commonly accepted.
Lord Schpungus 02-19-05, 02:15 PM	Nah, he's lawful good. Neutral Good maybe. He's resisting illegitimate authority on behalf of the 'right' rulers. A Chaotic Good bandit would tear down the throne and not put anybody on it. Robin Hood wants his feudal lord back on the throne so he can be given Marian as a gift for his loyalty.
angryman 02-19-05, 07:46 PM	Something about the shaolin monks being hunted by the Chinese Imperial authorities suggests that they could have perhaps fled to the hills for safety and then perhaps, had they required food and shelter, taken to banditry against the government... *Note, this is possibly entirely untrue. Anyone who has actually studied Chinese history better not start lecturing me about this subject. It was a suggestion, not a statement of fact. Ahem.