What people want and what makes them happy rarely coincide.

[A Man In Black]

If you want to talk about theorycraft, then I am all for the removal of WBL and the neccesity of DM gifts in order to prop up character abilities.

We are talking about theorycraft. Or at least I've been trying to?

Cramming signature weapons into 3e isn't a really great plan... but I have hard time coming up with how it's any worse a plan than anything else that people have crammed into it. 3e is kind of a fucking mess, and "3e plus some random house rules and maybe some random non-core material I guess" is a moving target.

As for character quirks, style and personality traits, insisting that these are dependant on a specific prop is slightly disingenous. There is very little difference between Robin Hood and Zorro. The motivation and goals of these characters are very similar; they are both outlaws that fight against oppression. The means by which they do so are a product of the setting, moreso than the character itself.

There is a pretty fucking big difference between Zorro and Robin Hood. And, once again, it's reflected in the weapons they use!

Zorro is an artistocrat fighting corrupt artistocrats because they offend his sense of honor and decency, to the delight of the commoners. He is fighting the aristocracy on their own terms, so he uses their own weapon against them. The Don Diego is not an outlaw, only the masked Fox is.

Robin Hood is a commoner (or a noble laid low) who uses a commoner's weapon to overturn the oppression of the commonfolk by the aristocracy. He uses the weapon of a yeoman soldier or bandit or poacher, because he is all of these things.

I want to go back and call this shit out.

I think people need to drop their rigid concept of what makes a character unique.

Zorro isn't unique because he has a rapier. He's unique because he's the agile, suave alter ego of a nobleman with old-fashioned ideas of honor and justice who embarrasses and skewers his foolish and venal peers with wit and swordsmanship.

(Incidentally, Zorro, the Gay Blade still works because you just take "agile and suave" in a very tongue-in-cheek way and swap out the foolishness and venality of his peers with the stuffiness and hangups of his peers.)

You do violence to this character concept if you excise the "swordsmanship", but that's hardly all of what's making the character unique. Or even the most important part. Nobody at all is claiming that it's the most important part, just that it is important.

[Winnah]

There is a pretty fucking big difference between Zorro and Robin Hood. And, once again, it's reflected in the weapons they use!

The word "swashbuckler", generally describes a protagonist who is heroic and idealistic to the bone and who rescues damsels in distress. His typical counterpart is dastardly villain. There is a long list of swashbucklers who combine outstanding courage, swordfighting skill, resourcefulness, chivalry and a distinctive sense of honor and justice, as for example The Three Musketeers, The Scarlet Pimpernel, Robin Hood and Zorro.

I put it to you that the differences between the characters are primarily due to setting. Anything else that sets them apart is of little consequence to their respective stories.

This mirrors my own attitude toward gaming. While characters can certainly influence a setting to varying degrees, they remain constrained by it...Unless you're playing M:tA or something. Having basic assumptions about the campiagn world fluctuate according to the actions and aesthetics of a character is a recipe for disaster. It certainly inhibits immersion.

[A Man In Black]

I put it to you that the differences between the characters are primarily due to setting. Anything else that sets them apart is of little consequence to their respective stories.

No they are not due to setting. Robin Hood is a peasant. Zorro is an aristocrat. You know what's awesome about all four of those examples from Wikipedia? They are as different as different can be within the particular idiom. If you think they are all the same goddamned character except in a different setting, then your reading comprehension is astonishingly poor.

If you're just typing shit into Google or Wikipedia search to make some sort of point, just stop. Or at least read all of the goddamned Wikipedia articles you're quoting.

This mirrors my own attitude toward gaming. While characters can certainly influence a setting to varying degrees, they remain constrained by it...Unless you're playing M:tA or something. Having basic assumptions about the campiagn world fluctuate according to the actions and aesthetics of a character is a recipe for disaster. It certainly inhibits immersion.

Are you trying to say, once again, that you shouldn't cram Zorro, ill-fitting, into D&D? Because, holy shit, I totally agree with you. My point is that if you're going to make a game where people play Zorro, signature weapons are required. I am ambivalent (PROTIP: that means I have conflicting feelings) about whether D&D should try to support signature weapons at all.

[Winnah]

You have idiom and archetype confused.

[Username17]

No they are not due to setting. Robin Hood is a peasant.

Except when he's Lord Locksley or even the Earl of Huntingdon.

Zorro is an aristocrat.

Unless he's a street thief that got training in swordplay from an ex-con.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

Now do you see why I said that obsessing about props and visual aesthetics is bad for roleplay? People think that they will be able to recreate the epic stories of Robin Hood by wearing green and wielding a longbow - to the point where they insist that they can't roleplay the story properly until they're wearing the perfect clown suits and rejecting Robin Hoods that wear brown and use axes as impostors.

Cargo cult roleplay is the perfect term to describe this thought process.

[A Man In Black]

Except when he's Lord Locksley or even the Earl of Huntingdon.

The former Lord or Earl in either case, with his hereditary keep and lands seized by the crown. In contemporary versions of the story, he's a noble before and after the story, yes, but he's a yeoman from the point where the reader gets him to the point where the reader leaves him.

Unless he's a street thief that got training in swordplay from an ex-con.

Who ends up being trained immediately to be both a swashbuckler and to pretend to be a nobleman, and then spends the remainder of the movie doing so. This ends up shifting more of the focus on the alter ego part of the character.

The point isn't the origin, the point is what they are in the story. Robin Hood is one of the peasants, with them as they fight the oppression of the nobles, even if it took the seizure of his lands to make him realize their plight. Zorro is outfoxing his peers, even if he's putting on airs to do it.

People think that they will be able to recreate the epic stories of Robin Hood by wearing green and wielding a longbow - to the point where they insist that they can't roleplay the story properly until they're wearing the perfect clown suits and rejecting Robin Hoods that wear brown and use axes as impostors.

Holy crap, dude. Nobody with any sense thinks that. The point is that people have character concepts that include weapon choice as a consequence, and it's perfectly reasonable to want to have control over that if you're going to allow those character concepts in the game. Robin Hood is going to need to use the weapons of a peasant. Zorro is going to need to use the weapons of a swashbuckling aristocrat. You do violence to these characters to create game rules where these characters are wearing a clown suit and wielding a dire flail because it gives the largest bonuses.

This either means you remove the clown suit rules from the game or you tell the people who want to play these characters that this isn't the game for it. It's perfectly okay to tell them that! You're already telling them that they can't place Daleks or gelatinous cubes or ogres or Luke Skywalker. What you do not do is say that they are braindamaged retards who desire badwrongfun for wanting to play characters with themes that extend as far as costumes and weapons. This is not only demonstrably wrong, but it makes you an titanic asshole.

[Username17]

Robin Hood is going to need to use the weapons of a peasant.

Aaargh. Shut up so hard.

The longbow is a weapon of the Yeomen, not a weapon of the peasantry. Also, Robin Hood uses a fucking sword, which is illegal for peasants to even own. Robin Hood uses weapons of every social class.

Zorro also uses a whip and a cudgel, weapons of the common low born outlaw. Both characters use weapons from the entire gamut of available weapons available to every social class in the settings they are in. Because they are swashbucklers, and that is what swashbucklers do.

Let me quote TV Tropes a bit for you:

[*]Utility Belt: Albeit an example that doesn't involve an actual belt. On most occasions, Zorro is armed—at minimum—with a sword, a knife, a pistol, a bolo, a lariat, and a set of lock-picking equipment. He often also carries a rope and graple-hook. Sometimes he'll have even more weapons and equipment than that.
[*]Whip It Good: In addition to his sword, Zorro usually also carries a bullwhip which he's nearly as good with. He can even use it for a short Building Swing. (In the pulp stories, Zorro also has a pistol as a backup weapon, but with the technology limitations of the time, seldom relies on it.)
This is also the character's main weapon in Zorro: The Gay Blade, he uses it even while engraving the "Z" mark.

With the exception of the sword and pistol, those are not aristocratic accouterments.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

I don't understand what you're saying that forcing Robin Hood and Zorro to wear clown suits does violence to their idiom. They're already wearing clown suits. If a suit of plate-mail or some enchanted business clothes dropped that were better than their current outfits, not only would they not be wearing clown suits after upgrading but they've actually stopped wearing clown suits. So when anti-clown suit advocates are saying 'bro, let me wear what I want because I don't want to wear a clown suit' it's ironic because these players invariably choose to perpetuate the wearing of clown suits. Actually, that's more hypocritical and lacking of self-awareness than ironic, but whatever.

The only reason why we think that they look good is because, like Superman and Batman, they managed to kick an amazing amount of ass anyway. If they (Zorro, Robin Hood, Batman, or Superman) had worn different clothes in earlier productions and someone else suddenly donned their outfits for the first time in a comic or a movie we'd laugh right in their fucking face - until they proved their badassery on their own merits and for lack of want of a nail those costumes became independently popular.

Saying that Robin Hood and Zorro (or any would-be folk hero rebels) would be diminished if they had to wear something different completely mixes up cause and effect. Sure, it's helpful that the characters wear the same basic outfits across their incarnations... for the marketing department trying to convince people to buy Robin Hood pencil sharpeners or lunch boxes. Since TTRPGs don't have that concern, it does no harm to the character.

[A Man In Black]

The longbow is a weapon of the Yeomen, not a weapon of the peasantry. Also, Robin Hood uses a fucking sword, which is illegal for peasants to even own. Robin Hood uses weapons of every social class.

Zorro also uses a whip and a cudgel, weapons of the common low born outlaw. Both characters use weapons from the entire gamut of available weapons available to every social class in the settings they are in. Because they are swashbucklers, and that is what swashbucklers do.

Yeoman, not a peasant, what the fuck am I on about.

Anyway. They use a bunch of other weapons to suit the many other things that they are because they are a bunch of things. No, Robin Hood doesn't use a bow for every fucking thing. Zorro is also an outlaw, so he also uses an outlaw's weapons. The weapons (like all parts of the costume) are consequences of parts of the character concept.

I'm not arguing that anyone should be using one weapon all the time for everything ever, just that weapons are part of the costume.

Let me quote TV Tropes a bit for you:

TVTropes is a fucking terrible site written by pedophiles and people who were born without the ability to get the point, so please don't.

I don't understand what you're saying that forcing Robin Hood and Zorro to wear clown suits does violence to their idiom. They're already wearing clown suits. If a suit of plate-mail or some enchanted business clothes dropped that were better than their current outfits,

Stop right there. It does violence to half of these characters to make them scavengers in the first place. They just aren't compatible with D&D, or at least any version of D&D with kill-the-guy-and-take-his-gear. Zorro does not rummage through his defeated enemies' pockets; while he's pretending to be a bandit, he isn't actually one, and rolling bodies is gauche. Likewise, Darth Vader doesn't give a shit about any of the loot his enemies have. His weapon is the Force.

It's not the signature weapons that are the problem, it's the scavenging.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Nobody with any sense thinks that. The point is that people have character concepts that include weapon choice as a consequence,

You are aware that this completely undermines your denial of confusing symbolism with structure, right?

and it's perfectly reasonable to want to have control over that if you're going to allow those character concepts in the game. Robin Hood is going to need to use the weapons of a peasant. Zorro is going to need to use the weapons of a swashbuckling aristocrat.

But why? Why does Robin Hood need to use the weapons of a peasant? Does that advance his cause in getting King John back from the Crusades in time? Does that advance his cause of beating up the Sheriff of Nottingham's crooked guards? Does that let him beat Guy of Gisborne in a duel fast enough so he can interrupt Maid Marian's forced wedding? If the weapons of a peasant let him do these things, then he uses the weapons of a peasant. But if Robin Hood comes across an Executioner's Axe of Lords which allows him to A.) turn the people he kills with it to jewels, which finances John's ransom B.) terrify the guards so much just by the unsheathing that they run and flee rather than getting into a fight with him C.) lets him slice right through Guy's sword parry and decapitate him in one blow:

Then how does sticking to his bow and arrow and plain jane longsword advance his cause of being Robin Hood? Sure, he doesn't look like much of a common outlaw anymore, but Robin Hood has a lot more goals than just looking like one of the guys.

This is a perfect example of confusing visuals with effects.

[A Man In Black]

But why? Why does Robin Hood need to use the weapons of a peasant? Does that advance his cause in getting King John back from the Crusades in time? Does that advance his cause of beating up the Sheriff of Nottingham's crooked guards? Does that let him beat Guy of Gisborne in a duel fast enough so he can interrupt Maid Marian's forced wedding? If the weapons of a peasant let him do these things, then he uses the weapons of a peasant. But if Robin Hood comes across an Executioner's Axe of Lords which allows him to A.) turn the people he kills with it to jewels, which finances John's ransom B.) terrify the guards so much just by the unsheathing that they run and flee rather than getting into a fight with him C.) lets him slice right through Guy's sword parry and decapitate him in one blow:

Then how does sticking to his bow and arrow and plain jane longsword advance his cause of being Robin Hood? Sure, he doesn't look like much of a common outlaw anymore, but Robin Hood has a lot more goals than just looking like one of the guys.

This is a perfect example of confusing visuals with effects.

Because he is one. (Technically a yeoman, my fuckup, but whatever.) It does violence to the story of Robin Hood if Robin of Locksley suddenly becomes Super Executioner and cuts a bloody unstoppable swathe through the nobility, mooting the story except for the fact that he terrifies the shit out of Maid Marion, the end.

Holy shit dude. How can you ask me "How is Robin Hood not Robin Hood if he gets superpowers" and accuse me of confusing symbols for structure?

[MGuy]

Once again I'm a bit confused as to what the actual argument here is. As far as I can tell Lago wants things to be random because he hates non-random things (as is usual but whatever). Frank is arguing that the settings shouldn't be perfectly molded for PCs and that if things seem to be that way (such that everyone gets exactly what they want all the time) he walks. Not something I particularly disagree with. Everyone else seems to be saying its ok for a PC to want to use a katana most of the time and that a PC should be able to do that without being punished. Again something I agree with (though I hold also that the mechanics of the game should make it so that weapon selection doesn't alter a character's numbers by a lot.)

The rest of it reads like random noise to me. Frankly when I play (instead of DM which is what I do most of the time) I don't care what weapon my PCs use as long as the DM doesn't fuck with my primary theme without my permission. That being said, if a PC's primary theme is to be a Sword Master or Shield Bearer then the DM should not be encouraged to diminish or try to destroy these concepts for that character simply because they don't like the concept [which both Lago and Frank are advocating]. I don't find it any more disgusting to give a sword Master a new sword than I would creating a dramatic situation for an angst focused character. I haven't even heard a solid argument against having a character using certain weapons as their primary weapons other than some people don't like it. To that I'd have to say that there are some people who do like it and a whole lot more people who simply don't give a shit. I know I've played in games with people who have had weapon focused characters and I haven't ever before felt like his/her love of swords has ever detracted from the game from me. In all my years of playing the game the only thing that has gotten on my nerves about other people's characters is when their actions are not consistent with what's going on (sometimes a symptom of the system), someone who doesn't stick to their character concept (a friend of mine and I actually walked away from a game table because a knight refused act by his own code), and when people get too much "special treatment" from the DM.

What I really don't get is why this is even an argument. Lago and Frank obviously don't give enough of a damn about weapons for it to really matter whether or not a character is using an axe or a sword so why is it a problem if someone decides to use primarily one or the other? In a game like DnD it is actually better to focus on one kind of weapon for people who actually use them as their primary thing so a "specific Weapon Master" is something that is not only appropriate but mechanically superior to someone who just picks up random things. If we start talking about a situation where someone isn't better for using any single specific type of weapon then I have to ask why should I care if someone uses one thing primarily. If its too minor/passive of a detail to make any major mechanical impact on the game then why should I give two shits about how someone decides to decorate their character? Its like trying to argue about whether or not a person can have their character wearing green all the time.

[Lago PARANOIA]

It does violence to the story of Robin Hood if Robin of Locksley suddenly becomes Super Executioner and cuts a bloody unstoppable swathe through the nobility,

Who said that the story had to be like that? Robin Hood is already a Super Executioner. Unless we're talking about the kid-friendly version, Robin Hood kills people extra-judicially. A lot of them, too. The fact that Robin Hood will not get any jewels out of killing Guy does not mean that he wasn't going to ghetto stab him in the forest and leave his corpse for the wolves anyway. It's just that doing it with the Executioner's Axe of Lords instead of an arrow will allow him to pay towards King John's ransom that much faster. Similarly, scaring off the common guard mooks just by displaying the axe helps his cause because he can break the morale of the enemy force before they kill off too many of his Merry Men. Killing Guy of Gisborne in 5 seconds instead of 5 minutes gives Robin Hood just enough time from bursting into the church hall and avoiding hearing the Sheriff of Nottingham gloat that he's too late to save Maid Marian.

There's absolutely no reason why Robin Hood holding up a scary-looking axe with a jeweled golden skull on it means that he suddenly has to take up random axe murdering. Only someone who thinks that props are a substitution for roleplay would think that.

How can you ask me "How is Robin Hood not Robin Hood if he gets superpowers" and accuse me of confusing symbols for structure?

Because to me Robin Hood is more than a dude who uses medieval weapons and dresses in green. To me, Robin Hood is a guy who:

[*] Robs from the rich and gives to the poor.
[*] Routinely beats up and humiliates the corrupt police force with his cunning.
[*] Is a showboat who loves showing off his combat prowess, especially with but not included to archery.
[*] Is a great leader of men who can get them to stop fighting each other for a common cause.
[*] Protects people who have been unjustly persecuted by the law.
[*] Is in a weird boddice-ripper romance with Maid Marian where he protects her virtue.
[*] Fights to restore the legitimate ruler, maybe get his old status back too.

Now depending on the particular story there might be more on that list. In Conquests of the Longbow 'fights a tyrannical sect of magic-wielding cultists' is on that list. If we're talking the Disney version of furry Robin Hood, 'brings a smile to childrens' faces' is on that is.

But in all of those cases 'wears green tights and uses peasant weapons' (which isn't even accurate) is pretty far down the list. The idea that Robin Hood or a player of Robin Hood would take actions that would, through action or inaction, weaken even some of those quintessential Robin Hood properties such that he can advance the cause of 'wears green tights and uses peasant weapons' is completely baffling to me. The only reason why anyone would think that using nothing but a longbow is more important to Robin Hood's character than curbstomping the Sheriff of Nottingham is if they think the props are more important to the character than the actual character itself.

Hence the term 'cargo cult roleplaying'.

[A Man In Black]

Who the fuck is talking about green tights? It does a lot of fucking violence to Robin Hood if he stops stealing things and turns into a magic guy who has jewels fall out of his butt.

There's absolutely no reason why Robin Hood holding up a scary-looking axe with a jeweled golden skull on it means that he suddenly has to take up random axe murdering. Only someone who thinks that props are a substitution for roleplay would think that.

He has a beef a bunch of nobles. You said the axe can scare off their guards and cut off their heads with one stroke. So he moots the fucking story and just goes and does that. He's not murdering people randomly, he's murdering the villains of the story.

The whole point of Robin Hood is that with his pluck and wit and the support of his Merry Men, he overthrows the corrupt nobles and wins the heart of the Maid Marion (and his lands back if he was a deposed noble). The weapons are not the whole point of Robin Hood but giving him inappropriate costume props (like a magic axe with superpowers) causes dissonance, depending on how inappropriate the props are.

Remember how retarded it was in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves when they have gunpowder barrels for no goddamned reason? Same deal.

[hyzmarca]

Holy shit dude. How can you ask me "How is Robin Hood not Robin Hood if he gets superpowers" and accuse me of confusing symbols for structure?

Really, if you want to play Robin Hood you have to throw out advancement altogether. Robin Hood is a Level 3 Ranger. He will never, ever become a Level 4 Ranger under any circumstances. He has a Masterwork Bow. He will never, ever, find a weapon better than that Masterwork bow under any circumstances.

His sword may or may not be Masterwork, it it isn't he might find a masterwork melee weapon but that's doubtful. He will never, ever find a melee weapon that's better than Masterwork. He probably won't ever find any melee weapon that's better than a generic sword.

You don't have to worry about Robin Hood ever falling behind because there is no vertical advancement at all. Equipment just isn't upgraded. Characters simply do not gain levels.

[Winnah]

Sheesh. I'm glad I did not bring up the whole Batman/Zorro thing.

[Lago PARANOIA]

It does a lot of fucking violence to Robin Hood if he stops stealing things and turns into a magic guy who has jewels fall out of his butt.

1.) I intentionally left the number of jewels the fictional EAoL creates from killing people vague to test your imagination; apparently without me saying how many gems it creates you have the idea that it would take so many that it'd make his burglaries/robberies irrelevant. It may or may not, depending on if the thing creates tiny soulgems or works more like a portable Midas' touch but with jewelry.

2.) If you're allowing Robin Hood to wield magic weapons at all he turns into a magic guy. If you're saying that letting Robin Hood have access to any magic or magic above a certain level would hurt the setting that would be one thing, but let me remind you that there are a LOT of Robin Hoods out there and some of them even manage to throw magic into the mix.

3.) Even if his magic weapon is a longbow that transforms the arrows he shoots into various elemental effects he's still a magic guy. Unless you're proposing a cap on overall magical effects, this is just special pleading. Hell, in the Movie Prince of Thieves they apparently made a big deal about him firing explosive arrows.

He has a beef a bunch of nobles. You said the axe can scare off their guards and cut off their heads with one stroke. So he moots the fucking story and just goes and does that.

That doesn't affect his characterization, just the tone of the story. If Robin Hood's axe allows him to curbstomp the current generation of guards and heroes that would be incredibly boring if it went on for more than a few chapters, but that doesn't hurt his character. He still does almost all of the Robin Hoodly things he did before, he just does it a lot more efficiently. He doesn't suddenly become a drooling, shirtless, overly-muscled axe murderer just because he held the axe.

If your beef with him getting the axe is that magical weapons in his setting makes Robin Hood win too hardcore that's one thing; if you're saying that it's okay for him to get a Longbow that's just as or almost as powerful as the axe but not the axe itself that's just silly.

The weapons are not the whole point of Robin Hood but giving him inappropriate costume props (like a magic axe with superpowers) causes dissonance, depending on how inappropriate the props are.

This is such a vague statement that you can infer any truth value from it. Giving Robin Hood a spaceship without changing anything else of his mythos is an inappropriate prop, but past extreme statements we can argue all day about what is an appropriate prop and what isn't. For example, whether Robin Hood should have magic weapons at all and what the magic weapons should do.

But getting your panties in a bunch because the superpowers come in axe rather than rapier form? Get the fuck outta here.

[A Man In Black]

1.) You activated my trap card!

Since he has the power to murder anyone for jewels, he doesn't do any robbing, he just murders anyone he doesn't like and gives the jewels to the poor. This is sort of an interesting story, I guess, but a very different one.

2.) If you're allowing Robin Hood to wield magic weapons at all he turns into a magic guy.

3.) Even if his magic weapon is a longbow that transforms the arrows he shoots into various elemental effects he's still a magic guy.

If I squint, I can almost see a Robin Hood here that fits into D&D. Like, the nobles all have magic shit and Robin Hood picks up whatever they use and keeps it to use. You're saying that the players shouldn't bitch that they can't get a magic bow because the nobles wouldn't have a magic bow. Your Executioner's Axe of Bullshit is stupid, but it's stupid because there's no reason that anyone in Robin Hood should have that stupid axe at all, not because it's stupid for Robin of Locksley in particular to have it.

Okay. I'm convinced. I still think the slot machine is stupid, particially because it leads to results like giving people the Executioner's Axe of Bullshit, and partially because of all the other reasons, but you're trying to argue to me that Robin Hood isn't a signature weapon character based on some definition of "signature weapon character" that I'm pretty sure is indefensible anyway.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Also, I had a total derp moment there. I meant Richard the Lionhearted.

Since he has the power to murder anyone for jewels, he doesn't do any robbing, he just murders anyone he doesn't like and gives the jewels to the poor.

Well, not if the gems he gets from his axe doesn't make up for the amount of money the sheriff is extracting. Considering that almost every Robin Hood movie shows the taxes piling up in fat sacks of gold this could very well be the case.

You could make it I suppose so that the wielder of the axe gets a fat stack of cash when he kills someone and then it gives Robin Hood the moral dilemma of whether instead of sparing bastards like the sheriff he should instead axe murder him and get King Richard back a few months early. But we're starting to get off track here. The only reason why I included the 'turn corpses into money' feature because it seemed like a weapon a total greedy bastard would use and it's also an unusual way to advance one of Robin Hood's signature goals.

Your Executioner's Axe of Bullshit is stupid, but it's stupid because there's no reason that anyone in Robin Hood should have that stupid axe at all,

Oh, I don't know about that. I don't think it's that much of a stretch in a more supernatural Robin Hood tale (one that has things like mythological critters in Sherwood forest and has witches with actual powers and maybe even The Green Knight makes an appearance) for the Sheriff of Nottingham to have a corrupt judge/jury/executioner-type at his beck and call and 'convinces' this new villain to up the conviction rate to make a tidy profit; this profit will come about because of his secret axe which few people knows that he has otherwise it would cast suspicion on the Sheriff's new 'tough on crime' stance. So the Sheriff of Nottingham robs the subjects both coming and going and actually enjoys the perpetual wars against the Merry Men because each prisoner brutally executed puts more money in his pocket.


As an aside, I don't think that all magical items are appropriate for all games. I mean, I like magical carpets and Instant Towers and Apparatus of Kwalishes even though I don't think they'd be appropriate for most idioms of Robin Hood. That particular kind of pre-game item elimination is fine in my opinion (just as I don't think that Dark Sun campaigns should have decanters of endless water at the price they're at) as long as it's done in a manner that's impartial and doesn't railroad the plot.

[Username17]

In Robin of Sherwood, Robin Hood runs around with a magic sword that gives him clairvoyance. In the BBC's Robin Hood, Will Scarlet is an axe master rather than a dagger master, and Robin Hood uses axes accordingly.

So um... yeah. Those are Robin Hood variants made by the actual British people, whose folk hero Robin Hood actually is. So I think we can safely take any claims that Robin Hood stops being Robin Hood if he has a magic melee weapon that drives the plot forward or uses an ax as being false. Because the BBC actually went to all the trouble of disproving exactly those statements.

-Username17

[hyzmarca]

Apparatus of Kwalishes .

Apparatuses of Kwalish.

[A Man In Black]

In Robin of Sherwood, Robin Hood runs around with a magic sword that gives him clairvoyance. In the BBC's Robin Hood, Will Scarlet is an axe master rather than a dagger master, and Robin Hood uses axes accordingly.

You're really bad at following this conversation, or being a purposefully disingenuous asshole. Anyway, point's already made, I was offended that the superpowers were stupid, not by Robin Hood plus magic.

If you have some point that isn't disingenuous nitpicking derail bullshit, it would be welcome.

[Swordslinger]

If you have some point that isn't disingenuous nitpicking derail bullshit, it would be welcome.

His point is that there are dozens of retellings of classic stories in which things change.

Robin Hood uses an axe, Zorro is a commoner, etc.

And the point is in D&D, you're also doing a retelling, and it's okay for things to change. If in your version of Robin Hood, you happen to use an axe instead of a sword, that's not a big deal. You're still Robin Hood.

[Chamomile]

No one has argued that Robin Hood will utterly cease to be Robin Hood once he starts using an axe. All that's been argued is that it would be a bad narrative decision because the character's appearance will be undermining his actual personality, and you don't want those two elements working against each other.

EDIT: And you can also reimagine Robin Hood as having a pretty radically different personality from what he has traditionally, and thus a different set of weapons and armor/clothes would be appropriate to his idiom while still making him Robin Hood. For example, if he's a vengeance-driven ex-noble who doesn't really care for the poor so much as he just wants John thrown in a dungeon and the Sheriff of Nottingham's head on a stick, then black studded leather and an axe would fit the character and he would still be Robin Hood. But throw the same weapons onto the traditional interpretation and they look out of place. It doesn't magically destroy Robin Hood's personality, it's just a poor choice for the narrative.