Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Paladin2004 02-24-05, 07:05 PM	Ok, not sure how many othe dms have this problem but the rogue is never always trueful to the party about what he finds on the monsters and normally keeps the good magic stuff for himself (don't worry, i do some times throw in cursed items bwaahhahaha ( Rogue: "Ooo i've seen one of these before its a hand of glory, i put it on" Me(dm):As you do the hand grabs for your neck, make a reflex save, bwahahahha) (we're running 3.0e) What skill is it for him to hide and conceal items from the pary against there oppsed spot check? ty for the help
Kaboth 02-24-05, 07:14 PM	Slight of Hand to conceal and Bluff if the party asks about it with an opposed sense motive check.
LukiLoki 02-24-05, 07:19 PM	Sleight of hand to "pouch" an item under observation. Opposed by spot and situationally modified by the size of the item. But if you just mean, how to carry an item without anyone knowing you've got it, I'd say it depends a lot on the item. Ring? very easy. Greataxe? not so much. At a certain point, though, common sense is going to lead the party to ask questions, regardless of game mechanics, if the rogue keeps adding to his magic item collection when nobody else has ever seen the stuff. Your "rich uncle" can only die and leave you his stuff so many times.
danielinthewolvesden 02-24-05, 07:21 PM	Note there is no more reason for a rogue to steal from the party than a barbarian. "Rogue" does not equal "theif". Next of all- even evil folks don't steal from their freinds- that takes a certain type of lunacy- usually they are sociopaths. Sociopaths do not get along with a party. Finally- this is a problem that cause groups to break up and freindshisp to founder. There is no good reason for it, and many bad. As the DM just say NO! Tell him "No sociopaths, no CE's in my game. Stop it." Do not try any "In character fixes'- this is a player problem, usually caused by an immature or greedy player.
Burgundy Lotus 02-24-05, 08:03 PM	I assume you mean treasure that the rogue has found that the party has not already claimed. If this is the case then slieght of hand vs spot checks seem best if needed at all. If the rogue (or anyone else) is interested in pocketing things, they should do it when away from the rest of the party, this requires no immediate checks and maybe a few bluff checks if the subject comes up later.
Fixxxer 02-24-05, 11:50 PM	Note there is no more reason for a rogue to steal from the party than a barbarian. "Rogue" does not equal "theif". Of course, you're assuming that the PC isn't a thief. Forget for a moment that his PC class is rogue and focus on the fact that he's trying to steal something. As you're playing 3.0, Pickpocket is the skill to use, since Sleight of Hand doesn't exist.
Greldinard 02-25-05, 02:55 AM	Still, characters stealing from their "friends" is the way to go to disrupt a party.
Solidcobra 02-25-05, 03:26 AM	What happens if a rogue steals from the party. "Thunder strikes you. No save. You're fried. the item you stole strangely survived. roll up a new character, no rogue. or leave the game you cheating ****"
fdnickerson 02-25-05, 09:49 AM	Note there is no more reason for a rogue to steal from the party than a barbarian. "Rogue" does not equal "theif". Next of all- even evil folks don't steal from their freinds- that takes a certain type of lunacy- usually they are sociopaths. Sociopaths do not get along with a party. Finally- this is a problem that cause groups to break up and freindshisp to founder. There is no good reason for it, and many bad. As the DM just say NO! Tell him "No sociopaths, no CE's in my game. Stop it." Do not try any "In character fixes'- this is a player problem, usually caused by an immature or greedy player. I disagree on all points. First, while there's no rule saying a Rogue has to be a thief, he certainly has an unusual skill set for someone who isn't interested in "materials acquisition." Next, Evil people steal from their "friends" all the time. I've known people like this rogue. They're "me first, me next, me again, and finally, if there's anything left, still more for me kind of people." Is this sociopathic? yes, but many (even most) evil people have sociopathic tendencies. That's why they're evil. People like this do it because they never expect to get caught. Lastly, this is a character problem because (1) the character's actions are what's at hand and (2) the character's actions are neither illegal (in a game mechanic sense not a judiciary one) nor inconceivable. You can ban CE characters if you don't like them, but that's just like arbitrarily banning a core class or species. This is what I suggest. If the character is not CE make him play his alignment. If the character is CE let him steal. Eventually, he'll get caught. Let, the players decide how to handle this situaion. In the end, I'm sure being beaten to death by his teammates will be a better lesson against stealing than being struck by lightning from God (the DM). You'd think God (the DM) had better things to do with his time than punishing petty theft.
Defcon4 02-25-05, 10:37 AM	A character i played was a neutral halfling who was a Druid/Rogue. Every time i disabled a trap or opened a chest, and i do mean every time, the rest of the party would leave the room for fear of the character setting off a trap. My character complained about this and finally decided he deserved hazard pay. the rest of the party wasn't going for it, so he decided to take 10% off of the top of any coins he found in secret. The Halfling made his slieght of hand checks the odd time the party was in eyeshot of him and the DM rolled spot checks for the party. Was the halfling Druid/Rogue a sociopath? I'd say no. Whether wrong or right, he thought he desrved hazard pay, and as he realized his opinion was not a popular one and not wanting to have the same argument for the umptenth time, he took matters into his own hands. The little guy always backed up his allies and got them out of binds more times than i can count (the synergy of a halfling Druid/Rogue is broken), so i'd still consider him a true friend. He's simply a little dishonest when he deems it neccesary.
Lord Ian Stark 02-25-05, 10:45 AM	A character i played was a neutral halfling who was a Druid/Rogue. Every time i disabled a trap or opened a chest, and i do mean every time, the rest of the party would leave the room for fear of the character setting off a trap. My character complained about this and finally decided he deserved hazard pay. the rest of the party wasn't going for it, so he decided to take 10% off of the top of any coins he found in secret. The Halfling made his slieght of hand checks the odd time the party was in eyeshot of him and the DM rolled spot checks for the party. LOL my wife plays a Monk and noticed the Rogue kept taking a certain amount of treasure. So she would stay with the Rogue when he disarmed treasure chests or areas where "loot" might be always countering his Slieght of Hands check with her high spot. Her saves are awesome so the traps never really effect her. My buddy is the Rogue and finds this hilarious and annoying at the same time. :D
Bardicstorm 02-25-05, 11:13 AM	Note there is no more reason for a rogue to steal from the party than a barbarian. "Rogue" does not equal "theif". Next of all- even evil folks don't steal from their freinds- that takes a certain type of lunacy- usually they are sociopaths. Sociopaths do not get along with a party. Finally- this is a problem that cause groups to break up and freindshisp to founder. There is no good reason for it, and many bad. As the DM just say NO! Tell him "No sociopaths, no CE's in my game. Stop it." Do not try any "In character fixes'- this is a player problem, usually caused by an immature or greedy player. I too have to disagree on all points... True, rogue does not always mean thief, but quite a few times it does. Especially when you have a rogue who happens to be a member of the local thieves guild. Secondly, taking something off the top before the party splits it up can be viewed as a finders fee, or something other than stealing. It would be pretty simple for a non-lawful rogue to justify himself a little extra before the party splits things up. I would say this is right in character most of the time. And, one more point on this, many people steal from their friends.. I've had friends do it to me, and I see it happen all the time, but since they're our friends we don't always view it as stealing. Lastly, this is only a problem that causes groups to break up if you have an immature group. The party should deal with this in character. I also feel I have to express that I disagree with the notion that a party has to work together and towards the same goal simply because they're a party. Some of the BEST games I've ever played as both a DM and a player were when several characters were in conflict with one another. These types of situations provide roleplaying opportunities that surpass anything a DM can throw at the players, and it's usually of their own making. Does it alter the campaign? sometimes, but sometimes for the better. I played in one SWRPG campaign where my character worked with the party, but got a little out of control and started becoming a second dark lord... I have never seen party unity like when the rest of them finally teamed up to take out my character. It was one of the best games I've ever played, and the DM hardly had to work at it. (even the DM claims it as one of his favorite campaigns). When my character was killed, I rolled up another one. I never require my players to use "only good" alignments, or that they always work together. The stories get much more interesting that way. Now, as to the problem of the Rogue stealing magic items... It would be a pick pockets roll opposed by the other characters spot checks as was mentioned before.. in 3.5 replace pick pockets with sleight of hand.. also as mentioned before. If the party members ask about things it would be a bluff check opposed by the other characters sense motive checks. If this was happening more often than I was comfortable with I would give the other characters bonuses to their spot or sense motive because they know the rogue better than most people since they spend every day with him. Thus they would know to watch him or be able to pick out little tell-tale signs that he was lying. A +5-10 to their spot or sense motive is not unheard of if they've been with the rogue a long long time, or are suspicious of him doing this. And if you roll certain spot checks for the characters, you can decide if you want them to catch the thief or not. By all means NEVER punish the player for actions that are in keeping with the character however. This promotes bad roleplaying. Always conceive a way for the players to deal with the situation in character.
Paladin2004 02-25-05, 11:47 AM	The rogue in question is choatic good, are his actions breaking his alignment?? (We play 3.0 by the way ty) This rogue never steal directly from the party he just takes the best of the treature he finds (such as magic rings and things he can use) then turns the rest of the treasure in , but he does sometrimes lie? is that evil or just choatic??
Bardicstorm 02-25-05, 12:17 PM	The rogue in question is choatic good, are his actions breaking his alignment?? (We play 3.0 by the way ty) This rogue never steal directly from the party he just takes the best of the treature he finds (such as magic rings and things he can use) then turns the rest of the treasure in , but he does sometrimes lie? is that evil or just choatic?? It's more chaotic than it is evil, unless of course his lies knowingly hurt the group, then I would say they are evil... With a CG alignment I would require a pretty good justification why the rogue thinks taking the best for himself is acceptable... (ie, how he thinks it's doesn't affect party as a whole). Chaotic: The rogue is going against the assumed order of dividing treasure equally and taking the best for himself (greed is also a factor, which some contribute to evil, I personally don't) Evil: The rogue takes the best treasures for himself even knowing (or because he knows) that doing so is hurting the party. Ultimately I feel what the rogue is doing is a CN act.. a CG rogue really shouldn't steal from his friends unless he thinks it is helping them (ie, testing for cursed items ;) ) But then, alignment is such a subjective thing that I don't use it, so expect many to disagree with me on the alignment views.
amethal 02-25-05, 12:38 PM	The rogue "skimming something off the top" is not a problem for the DM, its a problem for the characters. The spot vs pickpocket (or sleight of hand) has been mentioned several times, and would seem the best way to deal with the mechanics of it. Also mentioned is the bluff vs sense motive check. Personally, I don't like to use skill checks for this kind of character vs character interaction. That's what role-playing is for. Otherwise, you get :- Cleric "I accuse rogue of stealing" Rogue "I bluff" DM <rolls; rogue wins> "You decide he didn't steal anything after all." Cleric "Like heck I do! He's a thieving ......!" Rogue "No, I bluffed you. You believe whatever I tell you." Anyway, from my reading of the bluff skill, its effects generally don't last very long and people gradually realise they have been fooled.
Bardicstorm 02-25-05, 01:02 PM	The rogue "skimming something off the top" is not a problem for the DM, its a problem for the characters. The spot vs pickpocket (or sleight of hand) has been mentioned several times, and would seem the best way to deal with the mechanics of it. Also mentioned is the bluff vs sense motive check. Personally, I don't like to use skill checks for this kind of character vs character interaction. That's what role-playing is for. Otherwise, you get :- Cleric "I accuse rogue of stealing" Rogue "I bluff" DM <rolls; rogue wins> "You decide he didn't steal anything after all." Cleric "Like heck I do! He's a thieving ......!" Rogue "No, I bluffed you. You believe whatever I tell you." Anyway, from my reading of the bluff skill, its effects generally don't last very long and people gradually realise they have been fooled. Between characters I like to use Bluff and Sense motive to sort of back up the RPing and to quell metagaming... I mean, any situation like that can be RP'd, so really there's no sense for the skill to exist. Also, some players just aren't that good at RP because they're new or just plain bad at it. And as for metagaming.. if the clerics player knows the rogue took a ring, no matter how well the rogue role plays the bluff, the clerics player may not let it go. Bad Situation: Cleric: "I accuse rogue of stealing" Rogue: "Look, you were all with me, you all watched me gather the treasure, when would I have taken anything? You have no reason to think I'm cheating you, after all, where would I be without you guys?" Cleric: "Hmm.. I just don't believe you rogue.. you're going to have to turn out your pockets." DM <no rolls, wants pure RP> Rogue: Look, I swear I didn't take anything.. If you really want me to turn out my pockets I will, but I'm no criminal" Cleric "Look, I just know you took something... so turn out the pockets!" Rogue "Argh.. you can't know.. you didn't see it" plunge into metagaming ensues... Good situation: Cleric: "I accuse rogue of stealing" Rogue: "Look, you were all with me, you all watched me gather the treasure, when would I have taken anything? You have no reason to think I'm cheating you, after all, where would I be without you guys?" Cleric: "Hmm.. I just don't believe you rogue.. you're going to have to turn out your pockets." DM <rolls; rogue wins> Rogue: Look, I swear I didn't take anything.. If you really want me to turn out my pockets I will, but I'm no criminal" DM: "Cleric, the rogue's words and demeanor are pretty convincing. You really want to believe him." Cleric "hmm.. ok, I'll let you slide this time.. but next time I'll be watching!" Rogue "Fair enough..." Now, with a good RPing group who doesn't metagame, the second situation could happen without the rolls.. but most groups are not comprised of all experienced players who don't metagame and are good RPers. Yes, you could punish them for metagaming, or stop them outright, but then they get bitter and things get worse.
danielinthewolvesden 02-25-05, 01:05 PM	The rogue in question is choatic good, are his actions breaking his alignment?? (We play 3.0 by the way ty) This rogue never steal directly from the party he just takes the best of the treature he finds (such as magic rings and things he can use) then turns the rest of the treasure in , but he does sometrimes lie? is that evil or just choatic?? Yes. If he was just taking a little cash- as some have mentioned- which didn't hurt the other party members chances of survival significantly- then he's only CN. But if he is indeed skimming off the best of the magic- increasing his chance of survival at the cost of the other members of the party, then that's Evil. Sure a Rogue can be a Thief- but a Rogue isn't a theif. A barbarian can also be a thief just as well (the Thug type). Wizards make good theives. The justification that the rogue "deserves it" becuase he is scouting and takings risks? :rolleyes: So is the Tank.... but does he get extra? Does the cleric get extra for healing? Does the Wizard get extra for IDing the loot? Scouting ahead and disarming traps is the job of the rogue (well of a certain type of rogue)- if he thinks it's too dangerous- don't be that sort of rogue, If he wants to be that sort of rogue- then ask the party for an extra share. If they say "no", then he can leave. The job is no more dangerous than some others.... in fact, the Tank has the most dangerous job, IMHO. And it's not just "Bluff" vs "Sense Motive" or Spot vs Slieght of Hand. It's also Will vs Zone of Truth, or nothing vs detect Evil, or nothing vs Divination. The Cleric or Pally can simply go "detect evil" "BING" " Aha- sorry Mr Rogue, you'll have to leave us now". There is no way a theif can conceal the fact he is stealing from the party over the long haul. No defense at all vs Divination, for example. Oh, and before you ask "why should the cleric cast those spells?"- in a world where such is common, such would be suspected. See, there is also another "meta- rule" that most folks seem to forget- "It's a game, games are supposed to be fun, thus we'll let you play". This 'rule" is why the party doesn't spend an entire gaming nite checking out the background and motives of 'the new guy"- which they would in any real world. But no- the "new guy" is simply accepted into the party because of that "meta-rule"- as it wouldn't be fun for that player to just sit there and not be able to play. The "meta-rule" requires a certain supension of disbelief- and a certain requirement that your PC's motives are more or less in line with the "good of the party". Now- if the DM tells the players that PC's can join the party with malice aforethought, and thus the "background check" isn't going to be "handwaved"- then all is fair. But the "meta-rule' says that the normal way of playing is to just let anyone join so the group can get on with the game. Again, however- this likely isn't a Character problem- it's a Player problem. Discuss it with him. Really- it can destroy a game, and break up freindships. It's not worth it. Well- OK, sometime the DM can say he's running a game where Evils are OK, and 'anything goes". Then- that's fine also, with a mature group, as "something different".
fdnickerson 02-25-05, 01:44 PM	Again, however- this likely isn't a Character problem- it's a Player problem. Discuss it with him. Really- it can destroy a game, and break up freindships. It's not worth it. Well- OK, sometime the DM can say he's running a game where Evils are OK, and 'anything goes". Then- that's fine also, with a mature group, as "something different". This is a complex issue and different DM's solve it in different ways. I disagreed with danielinthewolvesden earlier in this thread, but after having read his reply, I think he's made some valid points. Certainly, I would handle the problem differently than daniel. However, every campaign (and group) is different and the same problem can and should be handled differently in each. The first question you should ask yourself is, "Are these actions disrupting the group?" D&D is a group game and if you're not helping the group you shouldn't be playing. However, some groups are perfectly fine with evil characters. If it is causing problems with the group (or you think that it might cause problems) then you should definitely try to stop it, because if people aren't having fun they won't play. As I stated earlier, daniel and I disagree on whether this is a player problem or a character problem. The truth is that it doesn't matter how you handle the problem, ic or ooc, as long as it is handled tactfully and without hurting anyone's feelings (well, you can hurt their feelings a little bit).
LukiLoki 02-25-05, 01:47 PM	Good situation: Cleric: "I accuse rogue of stealing" Rogue: "Look, you were all with me, you all watched me gather the treasure, when would I have taken anything? You have no reason to think I'm cheating you, after all, where would I be without you guys?" Cleric: "Hmm.. I just don't believe you rogue.. you're going to have to turn out your pockets." DM <rolls; rogue wins> Rogue: Look, I swear I didn't take anything.. If you really want me to turn out my pockets I will, but I'm no criminal" DM: "Cleric, the rogue's words and demeanor are pretty convincing. You really want to believe him." Cleric "hmm.. ok, I'll let you slide this time.. but next time I'll be watching!" Rogue "Fair enough..." I would like to highlight this for any new DMs reading this thread. Bardicstorm has presented the absolute best way to handle roleplay situations of this sort where metagame issues are almost impossible to eliminate entirely. Especially important is the wording of the DMs explanation of the result of the bluff. If you try to force the player of the cleric to abide by the dice rolls, he's a lot more likely to be resentful and quietly look for every further opportunity to metagame and thus catch the rogue in the act next time. But establishing the DM's role as the one who translates the metagame (since the player of the cleric doesn't want to find the rogues "words and demeanor" convincing at all) into a tendency on the part of the character to believe based on the result of a roll. Handling it this way, the player of the cleric is much more likely to see the interaction as fundamentally a part of the game world and not a personal conflict between himself and the player of the rogue. Very well illustrated, Bardicstorm. :bow:
danielinthewolvesden 02-25-05, 02:23 PM	Do note that I have seen a rogue played who "skimmed" and it worked without any friction at all. The background was that "Jade' had a passion for green gems, and couldn't resist them. Thus, she would 'skim" any such from the loot if given the chance- and if not given the chance- would take them as her share. BUT- the player and the DM presented this OOC to the rest of the players- and got a "buy in" from them, they all said they'd have no objections- as players that is. Do note that she also woudl never spend her precious horde, either, so it was primarily a roleplaying hook. The Players and the DM all had fun with it. But note that the DM made sure that no one would be upset by this before he allowed it. Also- it doesn't have to be a rogue/theif that gets the parties dander up. In one game, a Cleric of Waukeen decided that he'd start charging for healing (unless you'd convert). :eek: And, being stuck in the middle of a dungeon, this was a nasty suprise. The players- quite rightly- objected to this "last minute" suprise. Another time it was an Exalted that insisted that all "downed but not dead' bad guys be healed, taken prisoner, and led back to town. In other words, after nearly every encounter, they'd have to 'go back". In another, it was a PC that insisted that anything handed to him "to carry' was "given to him", and was "his". That almost killed a game. :rolleyes: PC's that aren't going to get along with the normal party should be discussed before hand with the players. Get a "buy in". Convince them that it'll be a cool roleplaying thing, and it's just not you being childish or dispruptive. Then- it's a 'win-win". Communication, folks.
danielinthewolvesden 02-25-05, 02:27 PM	Oh, and I want to thank everyone for a nice mature discussion, especially fdnickerson for his "agree to disagree" :P and as LukiLoki pointed out- Bardicstorm's nice example of Bluff vs Sense Motive.
Defcon4 02-25-05, 02:32 PM	The justification that the rogue "deserves it" becuase he is scouting and takings risks? So is the Tank.... but does he get extra? Does the cleric get extra for healing? Does the Wizard get extra for IDing the loot? Scouting ahead and disarming traps is the job of the rogue (well of a certain type of rogue)- if he thinks it's too dangerous- don't be that sort of rogue, If he wants to be that sort of rogue- then ask the party for an extra share. If they say "no", then he can leave. The job is no more dangerous than some others.... in fact, the Tank has the most dangerous job, IMHO. Again, this is your opinion. Discussing the merits of a Rogue who thinks he deserves hazard pay is a topic for another thread. Besides, unless the fighter is the only member of the group swinging pointy objects, he doesn't have a leg to stand on trying to get "tank" pay. The point was, not everyone, and i think not most people, who decide to steal for whatever reason is a sociopath who's trying to spoil the game for everyone else. The other point is any players who find themselves whinning when the rogue steals a little coin (not counting prominent magic items) needs to check their maturity bar and get to roleplaying. If a person finds himself getting actually upset that the player playing the rogue is getting over a little, there's something wrong with him, not the other guy.
Bardicstorm 02-25-05, 02:55 PM	Please not that all my points and examples revolve around having mature players. Everything breaks down when you have players whos maturity level will not let them play any type of conflict without bringing the character conflict into the real world. Always know your players. The most important rule in my opinion.
Super Guy 02-25-05, 03:01 PM	Aw, you shouldn't use weak cursed items on him. What you should do is talk to him OOC and see if he'll stop. If not, wait for a few adventures. Set up some rich and paranoid guy. Have him carrying a BEAUTIFUL necklace, that looks just like an item he is familiar with (say like "In his hand he is clutching a shining necklace with a hand attached to it). The Rogue slips it on. Necklace of Strangulation time! Here's the thing: it won't kill the Rogue if the party saves him (as long as they can. They need the right spells I think) but, the party WILL know that the Rogue was stealing, and will never let the Rogue do things by himself again. That is, if they even associate with the Rogue again.
DarkLordDiablos 02-25-05, 03:15 PM	You do realise that 2nd Edition called the Rogue class the Thief class, don't you? Though they don't HAVE to steal, it certainly suits them, and it balances things out... A Wizard uses magic, right? So why should you even TRY to disallow a Rogue from stealing or skimming, even if he steals from his friends? It'd be the same as disallowing certain spells. I say, if your Thief wants to steal and it's IC, let him do it! After all, that's the point of the Rogue class: sneaking around at night, backstabbing and stealing to gain knowledge, power and advantage to him and/or the party. I have a player (a natural talent, especially in thievery and assassinations, he knows his stuff, knows his character, and is one of the best players I know...), and he always plays a treacherous character... Given half a chance he would push a character off a cliff for ten measly Gold Dukats (GP in our campaign). Well, that's a bit exaggerated, but he goes a long way for even the tiniest bit of money, and he almost never fails. NEVER did I punish him in any way for this: his character does this, not the Player himself. Sure, he got abandoned once or twice in perilous situations by his friends, but he always managed to escape, return, and come back for some more. He plays a great character, and the other players know that he's IC, so they start playing IC too, and everyone starts having more fun. My lesson to you? Just make sure everyone has fun, if no one enjoys the robberies, tell the player this, and make it clear to him/her that (s)he should keep the thievery to a minimum, or else the party is given the right to kill his/her char in a way too gruesome to describe.
fdnickerson 02-25-05, 03:17 PM	Always know your players. The most important rule in my opinion. Well Said.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-25-05, 03:44 PM	I say, if your Thief wants to steal and it's IC, let him do it! NEVER did I punish him in any way for this: his character does this, not the Player himself. he should keep the thievery to a minimum, or else the party is given the right to kill his/her char in a way too gruesome to describe. to a minimum? You got that right. One strike and you're out. As a player, I either kill or ban from the group any rogue who steal from me (that I can catch). The rogues likes to point out that he's playing his character, and his character's a thief, so it's in his nature to steal. to wich I respond that MY character doesn't like to be stolen from (obviously). If one of you were to catch a friend stealing your stuff, odds are you wouldn't be friends anymore, or at the very least, you'd have a serious "discussion" with him. come on, if a real-world thief tells you "it's in his nature to steal", would you excuse him or still punish him? Guess what? Same goes fro PCs. I really hate any kind of I'm only playing my character's personality "arguments". Each time it's said, it create a double standart: the jerk (who did something against the team) say he should be allowed to play his C, but at the same time, the rest of the party can't react to this according to their PC's personnality, because the other wasn't wrong, he was "only" playing his PC...
Guy Humual 02-25-05, 04:07 PM	to a minimum? You got that right. One strike and you're out. As a player, I either kill or ban from the group any rogue who steal from me (that I can catch). The rogues likes to point out that he's playing his character, and his character's a thief, so it's in his nature to steal. to wich I respond that MY character doesn't like to be stolen from (obviously). If one of you were to catch a friend stealing your stuff, odds are you wouldn't be friends anymore, or at the very least, you'd have a serious "discussion" with him. come on, if a real-world thief tells you "it's in his nature to steal", would you excuse him or still punish him? Guess what? Same goes fro PCs. I really hate any kind of I'm only playing my character's personality "arguments". Each time it's said, it create a double standart: the jerk (who did something against the team) say he should be allowed to play his C, but at the same time, the rest of the party can't react to this according to their PC's personnality, because the other wasn't wrong, he was "only" playing his PC... :clap: Any PC that steals from another PC doesn't deserve to be a party member. As a DM I'd never force a PC to play his character a certain way (i.e. insist that he not steal from other party members), but I'd also never force a party to keep a thief that steals from party members. By playing this type of character you are effectively playing a character that's backstabbing the group. Thieves that have no honour should never expect to be tolerated by any group.
BW0222 02-25-05, 09:55 PM	As a DM, I never allow this in games. First, stealing for profit is evil. Not chaotic. Evil campaigns are hard to handle and typically don't last long. Second, chaotic (or even evil) should not mean stupid. If you steal from friends who your adventure with and who risk their lives for you, guess what happens. Third, players who do this are meta-gaming. They are saying to themselves "If I get caught, the DM won't allow other PCs to kill me." In the real world, if one party member saw another pocketing treasure, the party would a) beat the snot out of him, b) take all his treasure (not knowing how much he has been stealing), and c) toss him out of the party. Guess what happens if you are caught stealing from your buddies in the army? However, your player knows in the real world, that means a player is kicked out of the campaign and the player is obviously thinking "They won't do that because that would end the campaign." Any player who is intentionally doing things which are likely to result in the end of the campaign for one or more players, should be asked to sit out of few sessions. The DM and other players who are putting a lot of effort into a campaign deserve better than having it ended because someone is trying to cause it end.
Super Guy 02-25-05, 10:07 PM	I think Vegetable said it well. It might be in character to steal (not neccesarily in class- Rogues can be lawful just as easily as chaotic), but it doesn't mean he should be rewarded or anything. I know that's not what DarkLord was saying, I'm not attacking his point, I'm just reminding that there's certainly a line to be drawn. If he comes in next session as a blackguard who wants to kill the entire party, and then does it while they're sleeping, you don't go "XP award for playing in character!" you go "Dammit, if this wasn't a joke, then get the hell out of my house. Regardless, everyone wakes up after a horrible dream..." There's a line drawn where playing in character becomes insignificant when it's hurting the party. It doesn't automatically have the right of way in a campaign. Edit: clarification of... er... linguistics?
Burgundy Lotus 02-25-05, 10:15 PM	You might mean 'right of way' I still think that a little light fingerness on the part of any character is reasonable as long as it isn't anything major. If it was something major it would be dealt with in-game.
Super Guy 02-25-05, 10:33 PM	You might mean 'right of way' Ah, of course. Much thanks. :D
Shadowmagyk 02-25-05, 10:38 PM	I am currently playing a Rogue. He was a Noble before a Revolt, and was forced to become a nomad. Now, he travels with a party, and he skims off the top for treasure finds so that he can rebuild his empire. It isnt done all the time, but it is still done. If we kill some baddies, I get to the bodies first, Sleight of Hand, and give the rest. If we come across a big chest, I dont skim. I let the rest of the party "carry my treasure for me." I will not kill my party or steal from their personal effects because that could possibly be a detriment to my life or well being. The fighter of the party has caught me once before, and forced me to split what I skimmed. We had a monk come in later, and the player of the monk knows that my character is doing this, but his character does not since he has never seen me do it. Here is the scenario: I had made a deal with a merchant to have the group travel to a monestary to find let the Monks of the nearby Monestary know that the merchant was in town, and that they could trade goods. The Merchant and I made a deal for 10% of the sales. I told the group about our hiring, and let them know that the payoff was 5% of the sales. When we get back with the monk (the rest in the monestary were dead), I tell the Merchant that they are dead, so he gives me 50 GP for the trip. I tell the party that the Merchant gave us 10 GP as compensation for our time, and the Monk wants a Sense Motive check. (Before you say that the fighter told the Monk, he did not since the fighter is not around anymore. The fighter is the only character that has seen me skim.) Now, I understand that anyone can be suspiscious, but the suspiscion was totally unfounded. This is a sure sign of meta-gaming. I can understand if the Monk had previously spotted me skimming, but there was nothing to tip him off to my shenanigans. To answer the question.... Yes, a Rogue can conceal "stolen" treasure from the rest of the group. He will get caught, eventually. What happens after that is up to the party. Should a character steal from the group? No. However, pocketing treasure before it is divvied is not stealing. Well, it is stealing since it is not the party's treasure. Therefore, it does not matter that the Rogue is pilfering the box before the rest get to pilfer. None should be doing it in the first place (Well, good characters should not).
KismetRose 02-25-05, 11:58 PM	Note there is no more reason for a rogue to steal from the party than a barbarian. "Rogue" does not equal "theif". Next of all- even evil folks don't steal from their freinds- that takes a certain type of lunacy- usually they are sociopaths. Sociopaths do not get along with a party. Finally- this is a problem that cause groups to break up and freindshisp to founder. There is no good reason for it, and many bad. As the DM just say NO! Tell him "No sociopaths, no CE's in my game. Stop it." Do not try any "In character fixes'- this is a player problem, usually caused by an immature or greedy player. Reasons to steal are plentiful, but the means to stealing successfully are not. Rogues (and bards) have an easier time of it given that the skills necessary for successful stealing - sleight of hand, bluff, open locks - are class skills for them. A rogue might just do it because they can, which has more to do with curiosity than anything else. And who says that all evil folks don't steal from their friends? There are plenty of folks out there who hold themselves first and all others at a distant second, including friends, if that's what it takes. Hell, even good characters can steal from friends. It's not nice, they might feel guilty about it, but they have the ability to do it. Telling someone "No sociopaths in my game" isn't going to cut it, because while the stealing is not friendly, it is not sociopathic. Your player might not even realize what you're trying to say. "No sociopaths? What...?" (By the way: sociopaths can get along quite well with people and groups. Some sociopaths can be quite charming. It is not that they are antisocial per se, but that they don't have much in the way of a conscience. They often lie very well because they don't care about who gets hurt, as long as it isn't them.) Telling someone "No CE in my game" won't fix it either, because a person can come up for reasons to steal even if they aren't CE. This may indeed be a player problem, but it is one that is best handled within the confines of the game, if that's possible. Give the other party members rolls to spot the character's deception. If the rogue sells items that the party should have known about, maybe the person he sells them to will come asking for more stuff - in front of the party. "You know those magical bracers you sold me? You know, these ones with the awesome runes on them? Do you have any more?" When the rest of the group finds out about the stealing, they can try to put a stop to it, or put out a want ad for a new rogue. Don't force them to keep this one just because of the player; if the group becomes very divided and angry over this, give them the opportunity to ditch the offending character... preferably in a dragon's lair...with a really big dragon...while the dragon's awake...
Fixxxer 02-26-05, 12:20 AM	What happens if a rogue steals from the party. "Thunder strikes you. No save. You're fried. the item you stole strangely survived. roll up a new character, no rogue. or leave the game you cheating ****" Please explain to me how a PC concept that involves larceny equals a cheating player. While you're at it, please educate me as to how a DM that intentionally kills a PC because he doesn't like how he acts is somehow better than a player who wants to play a PC that might care a little more about himself than others.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-26-05, 01:01 AM	Please explain to me how a PC concept that involves larceny equals a cheating player. While you're at it, please educate me as to how a DM that intentionally kills a PC because he doesn't like how he acts is somehow better than a player who wants to play a PC that might care a little more about himself than others. DM don't like the way you play and therefore kills you instead of talking? come on, it's not unbalancing, it's no big deal. Let the other players deal with him without any restrictions, but frying his ass is both childish and unfair. PC wants to play a concept. Not an unbalanced twink, not an annoying joke, an evil concept. Unless your game is totaly good (or even exalted), let him play it. First rule of evil PCs:Act as you wish, but deal with the consequences. Unless you have alignement restrictions, why should everyone care about others? In short, in your example, DM's way wrong and PC's right.
Cantankerous 02-26-05, 01:47 AM	No, rogues do not have to be theives, but any player who has a rogue who is a theif is not thereby either evil or chaotic by definition. Stealing is situational in D&D. It isn't one of the absolute no no's that they list in the alignment descriptions for any alignment and is conspicuos by it's absence. Do any of the you think that a devil will not steal? Or that a Bralani would even hesitiate to steal an evil artifact from a devil? Stealing from the party is no different than stealing from a rich merchant, in an absolute sense, it differs in a practical sense however in that people do not appreciate being stolen from, especially if they've just saved your backside ten minutes earlier. The penalties for this kind of stupid (not Chaotic or Evil) behavior are not set in alignment, but rather in social interaction. Sooner or later, no matter how good he i, the Theif WILL be caught and at that point... You bastard! Didn't I save your miserable hide from those harpy's last week. Haven't I freely given you every aid I could, since you were my companion and , fool I was to think it, my friend? Get out of my sight before I take off both of your hands at the wrists! Role playing and interaction are what the whole game is about. If the party's rogue wants to "foul his own nest" something most real professional theives won't even consider, because it's just asininely stupid, then he just has to live with the consequences. Period. Isshia
Guy Humual 02-26-05, 03:28 AM	No, rogues do not have to be theives, but any player who has a rogue who is a theif is not thereby either evil or chaotic by definition. Stealing is situational in D&D. It isn't one of the absolute no no's that they list in the alignment descriptions for any alignment and is conspicuos by it's absence. This is absolutely true. I do tend to believe that, if we were to place it on an alignment bar, it would probably be on the law/chaos bar rather then the good/evil bar, as stealing is not considered an honourable act. However, having said that, certain acts of theft will, without a doubt, be evil acts. The fact that the book doesn’t give an alignment status to the act of theft is probably an intentional move by the designers to give certain classes a little more wiggle room when it comes to plot hooks and story devices.
Fixxxer 02-26-05, 07:57 PM	However, having said that, certain acts of theft will, without a doubt, be evil acts. In the end, yeah. However, there are those who will try to tell you that skimming off the top of the treasure pile is evil because you're increasing the chances of you being able to afford better gear and decreasing the same chances for the rest of your party. I notice, though, that many of these same people don't seem to think it's an evil act when the theft doesn't involve the other PCs.
amethal 02-26-05, 08:26 PM	Good situation: Cleric: "I accuse rogue of stealing" Rogue: "Look, you were all with me, you all watched me gather the treasure, when would I have taken anything? You have no reason to think I'm cheating you, after all, where would I be without you guys?" Cleric: "Hmm.. I just don't believe you rogue.. you're going to have to turn out your pockets." DM <rolls; rogue wins> Rogue: Look, I swear I didn't take anything.. If you really want me to turn out my pockets I will, but I'm no criminal" DM: "Cleric, the rogue's words and demeanor are pretty convincing. You really want to believe him." Cleric "hmm.. ok, I'll let you slide this time.. but next time I'll be watching!" Rogue "Fair enough..." I really like your alternative scenario. You have shown me how opposed dice rolls betwen PCs in social situations can be used as a roleplaying aid. Thank you! By the way, in my rare outings as a player I find that my character mentioning to the other characters that "I always carry a 50' rope with me, in case it turns out we have a thief among us" can often stop this problem arising in the first place.
Demon Lightfoot 02-27-05, 06:41 AM	Sooner or later, no matter how good he i, the Theif WILL be caught and at that point... You bastard! Didn't I save your miserable hide from those harpy's last week. Haven't I freely given you every aid I could, since you were my companion and , fool I was to think it, my friend? Get out of my sight before I take off both of your hands at the wrists! Isshia Thief: "Oh, and I haven't saved your life countless times when I've disarmed the traps that you couldn't even find which would have crushed/burned/disemboweled/poisoned you and maybe half of the group as well? Accuser: "Now, wait just a-" Thief: "What about all the times that I flanked the foeman who had you at his mercy and skewered him through the kidneys, saving your tinplated arse? Or the time I saved your sister from being taken to the illicit festhall in Zhentil Keep all by myself and paid the note on your house because you'd drunk and gambled your cut of the treasure away and didn't have the coin to give to Simon Legree, thus keeping your mother, baby brother and newly-rescued sister off the streets?" Acccuser: "Err...ah...um..." Thief: "I oughtta slug you..."
True Archon 02-27-05, 07:52 AM	Hehehehehe. I think that Paladin 2004 should use the "DM rolls for Spot, Listen, Bluff, Sleight of Hand (or Pickpocket), etc.-rule." Then tell use a little Rule 0 (or DM Karma) and say that the rogue was caught by some unusually skilled PC with the opposing skill check. Then see what happens. ;) However, it really all comes down to the maturity of the players in your group on how you should deal with it. Personally, I'm not a big fan of in-party theft or strife, and I'm a big believer in putting a little back-lashing karma into the picture. For example: One PC isn't getting along with the rest of the group. That PC suddenly find themselves in a predictament that they can't solve without the other PC's (taking PC prisoners is a fun one). Another example: Rogue is "skimming" from the party. That PC becomes the unfortionate victim of not one, but two robberies upon which they are left with little, while the rest of the group is sitting pretty. Oh, another!: Party is being hired by a noble who wants them to recover some family heirlooms that he lost in a bandit raid. However, his suspicious nature requires the party to submit to a few "interview" questions under the power of a zone of truth spell with all the members present. The noble's question for the rogue.... "Without their knowledge, have you stolen or taken anything from those that you work with?" Sometimes it's just fun to mess with the PCs on occasion. :D As to Chaotic Good? From what I've read, the rogue appears to be behaving more like Chaotic Neutral. Of course, the rogue's overall alignment may lean more towards good because of the rogue's other deeds.
FriendoftheDork 02-27-05, 10:20 AM	Note there is no more reason for a rogue to steal from the party than a barbarian. "Rogue" does not equal "theif". Next of all- even evil folks don't steal from their freinds- that takes a certain type of lunacy- usually they are sociopaths. Sociopaths do not get along with a party. Finally- this is a problem that cause groups to break up and freindshisp to founder. There is no good reason for it, and many bad. As the DM just say NO! Tell him "No sociopaths, no CE's in my game. Stop it." Do not try any "In character fixes'- this is a player problem, usually caused by an immature or greedy player. It happens quite often in my Drow campaign, that the rogue steals rings etc. from opponents before the party can do anything. I've tried to warn him that he risks execution if discovered, but he seems it think it a calculated risk. Lately though, he have agreed to stop stealing most things so not to lessen the others' fun.
Nomad4life 02-27-05, 12:37 PM	Errr… In our campaigns, if someone wants to “skim” part of the treasure away without the others noticing it, the player just announces this, and die rolls are made. The other players may jokingly yell things like “you a**h***” but their characters don’t do anything about it unless the thief (as in someone who steals things, not any one character class) gets noticed or caught in-character. It never occurred to me that other groups would have done things any differently. I mean, do you guys have ANY IDEA how often groups of thieves, or looting soldiers keep things for themselves if they can get away with it IRL? Just keep in mind that “bad” things tend to happen to “bad” people who try to double-cross other “bad” people. If a character gets caught, just roleplay things out accordingly. Inter-group conflict is often the most interesting kind of roleplaying experience. If the group catches the party cleric trying to pocket something that “was clearly a gift to HIM from his deity” (in his mind) a good ol’ fashioned smack-down between characters might be in order. Why on earth, as a “good DM” would you try to prevent this from happening? It’s part of the fun. NOTE: It is entirely possible that a good aligned character would attempt to hide treasure from the rest of his/her party too, under circumstances that would “justify” just actions.
danielinthewolvesden 02-27-05, 03:11 PM	It never occurred to me that other groups would have done things any differently. I mean, do you guys have ANY IDEA how often groups of thieves, or looting soldiers keep things for themselves if they can get away with it IRL? . Almost never. In fact, my Dad told me an interesting story from WWII about a 'scounger/looter", who was very adept at what he did- but he always shared with the rest of his squad. When you fight battles alongside a group of guys, you constantly have to trust them with your life- and thus that means you have to know you can trust them with everything else. Another example was in the Royal navy in the days of sail. One of the few "unforgivable" sins was stealing from your shipmates. OTOH, looting from the enemy was encouraged and codified, and fair shares given to all. It would appear from the various "Pirate Codes' we have from that nigh lawless period that the same was expected from a group of cutthroats & buccaneers.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-27-05, 08:35 PM	Thief: "Oh, and I haven't saved your life countless times when I've disarmed the traps that you couldn't even find which would have crushed/burned/disemboweled/poisoned you and maybe half of the group as well? Accuser: "Now, wait just a-" Yes, we both saved each other's life a lot of time. does that gives you the right to steal from me? Thief: "What about all the times that I flanked the foeman who had you at his mercy and skewered him through the kidneys, saving your tinplated arse? Or the time I saved your sister from being taken to the illicit festhall in Zhentil Keep all by myself and paid the note on your house because you'd drunk and gambled your cut of the treasure away and didn't have the coin to give to Simon Legree, thus keeping your mother, baby brother and newly-rescued sister off the streets?" Acccuser: "Err...ah...um..." So? As I said, we've both saved each other's life a lot of time. If you truly want a reward for it, how about asking instead of acting like a jerk and stealing my stuff? Thief: "I oughtta slug you..." bold statements are my own addition (for realism) So, the thieve and the accuser both saved the other's life quite a few time. wich make them even. Now, the problem was betrayal of trust, not who saved who's live most often. now, simple logic: would you keep someone in your team if you know he's gonna steal from you? no. If you know a friend is gonna steal from you (why his he still a friend, I'll never know...), are you gonna let him stay in your house unsupervised or are you gonna throw the bastard out? Edit: Danielinthewolvesden sumed it all perfectly.
Fixxxer 02-27-05, 11:45 PM	Almost never. In fact, my Dad told me an interesting story from WWII about a 'scounger/looter", who was very adept at what he did- but he always shared with the rest of his squad. When you fight battles alongside a group of guys, you constantly have to trust them with your life- and thus that means you have to know you can trust them with everything else. Don't take this the wrong way, but did you ever think that just because that was one guy's way of doing things, it doesn't have to be the most common way things are done? You've given us examples from the Royal Navy, which does help to support your claim, but I'd hardly say that the tiny handful of examples you've listed thus far constitutes proof that most people with close ties to friends and workmates (such as fellow soldiers) who steal and loot share their spoils with their mates.
Descended 02-28-05, 11:04 AM	I don't believe players should roleplay a solution to intraparty theft, nor do I believe the DM should outright disallow intraparty theft, unless the campaign is explicitly being run under the premise that the party is comprised of characters who know, like, and trust each other. What I do believe is that secret rolls on Sense Motive and Spot are all that is usually needed to keep this sort of thing in check. If a rogue's player comes to you and says, "Hey, [my PC] is going to be skimming treasure; he'll want to pocket the most valuable looking small object he thinks the party hasn't noticed, but only if I pick up my pencil with my left hand when someone says to search the bodies or a treasure chest," this is your opportunity to award the other players who have high Int and Wis stats, or have put points into Sense Motive and/or Spot, as well as an opportunity to reward the thieving PC for points spent on Bluff and Sleight of Hand. However, the players don't need to know this; you can keep metagaming out of this by hiding the fact you are making Spot/Bluff/Sleight of Hand/Sense Motive checks. What I won't tell a thief PC is that everytime he pockets something, if he has to report what he's found, he must succeed on a Bluff check versus the best roll from the rest of the party's Sense Motive rolls (although, if they trust the thief, they receive the -5 to Sense Motive for wanting to believe him). A smart player will know that this is going to happen anyway (Duh. If a character is being lied to, it gets a Sense Motive check), and I believe in making less-than-smart players suffer until they learn wisdom.
danielinthewolvesden 02-28-05, 11:18 AM	Don't take this the wrong way, but did you ever think that just because that was one guy's way of doing things, it doesn't have to be the most common way things are done? You've given us examples from the Royal Navy, which does help to support your claim, but I'd hardly say that the tiny handful of examples you've listed thus far constitutes proof that most people with close ties to friends and workmates (such as fellow soldiers) who steal and loot share their spoils with their mates. NOT just "close ties to freinds and workmates". A "band of brothers' where you have fought alongside these men, and saved each other lives repeatedly. I have listed three examples where such behavior was anathema. Show me where such was common, eh?
Nomad4life 02-28-05, 11:38 AM	Almost never. In fact, my Dad told me an interesting story from WWII about a 'scounger/looter", who was very adept at what he did- but he always shared with the rest of his squad. When you fight battles alongside a group of guys, you constantly have to trust them with your life- and thus that means you have to know you can trust them with everything else. Well that’s sorta my point: Your dad would NEVER KNOW if this guy decided to keep anything big for himself, despite all the popular romantic illusions of comradery. Even years later he still believes that this guy actually shared everything with the others. Another example was in the Royal navy in the days of sail. One of the few "unforgivable" sins was stealing from your shipmates. OTOH, looting from the enemy was encouraged and codified, and fair shares given to all. It would appear from the various "Pirate Codes' we have from that nigh lawless period that the same was expected from a group of cutthroats & buccaneers. Right. And why did they make such a law? Because EVERYONE was trying to get away with it. These examples are interesting stories, but in the end I’m just not convinced that “most” thieves and looters behave with any degree of so-called “thieves honor.”
Drachasor 02-28-05, 11:51 AM	Well that’s sorta my point: Your dad would NEVER KNOW if this guy decided to keep anything big for himself, despite all the popular romantic illusions of comradery. Even years later he still believes that this guy actually shared everything with the others. Let's keep a little perspective here. In a war food and such will be shared pretty evenly (even if the scrounger keeps a bit extra for himself). However, if you could go out and buy Protection from Bullets shirts and Wands of Cure Light Wounds, then this sort of thing isn't going to be tolerated. Greed like this gets people killed, which means it can well get *you* killed. Even if you are the scrounger, you're likely to get slaughtered if the rest of your squad goes down. Unless you are a coward of course, but that's going to be pretty obvious by how you act. So sure, someone can do this, but it just isn't very smart in a D&D setting. -Drachasor
Nomad4life 02-28-05, 12:03 PM	So sure, someone can do this, but it just isn't very smart in a D&D setting. Which was also part of my point: It is NOT smart to keep valuable things from other people who will be sure to see it as “rightfully theirs.” All I’m saying is let this play itself out in-character. There’s no “need” for a game mechanic that takes away this option from the players, unless the players just aren’t mature enough to handle such things.
Aliquid 02-28-05, 12:22 PM	Errr… In our campaigns, if someone wants to “skim” part of the treasure away without the others noticing it, the player just announces this, and die rolls are made. The other players may jokingly yell things like “you a**h***” but their characters don’t do anything about it unless the thief (as in someone who steals things, not any one character class) gets noticed or caught in-character.Same here.... I've been playing that way with various people for 21 years.. and it wasn't until I started posting on these boards that I discovered that people make a fuss over this. It never occurred to me that other groups would have done things any differently. I mean, do you guys have ANY IDEA how often groups of thieves, or looting soldiers keep things for themselves if they can get away with it IRL?How about the amount of theft in stores done by the actual employees? In big department stores etc, it isn't uncommon for there to be more theft done by employees than 'customers'. In many cases the employees are buddy-buddy with their bosses, and friendly with everyone... while at the same time harming the profitability of the store. I really hate any kind of I'm only playing my character's personality "arguments". Each time it's said, it create a double standart: the jerk (who did something against the team) say he should be allowed to play his C, but at the same time, the rest of the party can't react to this according to their PC's personnality, because the other wasn't wrong, he was "only" playing his PC...A valid point, but I don't know if I would call it a double standard, and this is why: When a 'thief' character takes stuff from the party, because he was playing 'in character', he believes that is ok. When the other players freak out at the player who is running the 'thief' that isn't ok. The reason the player uses the argument "I was just playing in character" to his defense, is because the rest of the players are attacking him personally. They are getting angry OOC, when it should be dealt with IC. The fact that they are getting angry OOC shows that they are having a bit of trouble with role playing, and are taking things way too personally. It is easy to avoid the rogue player's argument of "I was just playing in character". Make sure you are clearly dealing with the issue in character as well. For example you would say "Thorak, my barbarian is furious with the rogue now that we found out he is skimming from the top. I am going to grapple him and I think the rest of the party should go through his stuff". Roll the grapple check, and then the rest of the party can *role play* dealing with this issue. Punish the character, and have your character make it clear that the punishment will be worse next time.
Edymnion 02-28-05, 12:49 PM	Personally, I don't see the Rogue skimming a little off the top of a treasure pile to be a bad thing. If the Rogue is scouting ahead and takes a monster out, the party does not get a share of the xp, they had nothing to do with the encounter, its all his. As for the treasure, lets put it this way. The Rogue is out ahead of the party scouting. By himself. With his low hitdice and really only a couple of skill checks between him and death if he's found. He is taking a HUGE personal risk for the good of the party. Nobody else is expected to just walk into enemy territory by themselves, even the party tank would think thats suicidal. The Rogue's reward for the extra risk is the ability to skim off the top. Doesn't mean he automatically gets to keep everything he finds for himself, or that he always gets the best item, but an extra handful of coins or gems is perfectly fair. He did stick his neck out just so the rest of you wouldn't have to. And frankly, if that doesn't deserve something extra for a reward, then he shouldn't be doing it. Let the fighter in his full plate try to sneak around, just see how good of a job he does at it.
True Archon 02-28-05, 01:12 PM	Well, in times when someone needs to depend on someone else in order to survive, the smart thing to do would be to keep those you trust loyal to you. Honestly, I don't see how anyone can see that the rogue "skimming" from the rest of the party is going to keep his party mates loyal to him. It doesn't come down to "if" the rogue is going to get caught, but "when" the rogue will get caught. Simply put, if anyone in my group wants to steal from the group as a whole, and justify it as "it happens in real life", they better be well and good with accepting the repercussions that also "happen in real life." At the harshest, that rogue may very well be dead and his belongings divied up. At the very least, he may be deemed as untrustworthy, and replaced by someone else more reliable. Somewhere in the middle is going to be... Cleric: "Alright, who needs healing?" Whole Party: "Me! I do! Over here!" Cleric: "Okay, fighter, you get a cure critical wounds, two cure serious wounds, and three cure light wounds. Wizard you get a cure serious wounds and two cure light wounds. Now how are you two doing." Fighter: "I'm a little injured, but overall, alright. I'll go loot the bodies and divide the spoils." Rogue: "Can I get some healing here?" Cleric: "Wait a minute. Wizard?" Wizard: "I'm in good condition. I'll go cast detect magic on the loot to see if anything is magical." Rogue: "Ah come on! I stole from you guys a loooong time ago. Heal me up, and let me help loot the bodies." Fighter and Wizard: "No way!" Fighter: "Hey, look at this nice looking sword, amulet, and ring. We also got this sack of coin and gems." Cleric: "You guys need my detect magic, detect evil, or zone of truth for the loot?" Rogue: "This is bull, what if I stop telling you all where the traps are? Do your jobs!" Fighter: "I did when I helped you flank that one enemy so that you could do your handy work after I killed the other two enemies that had you're scrawny butt surrounded. I even put myself at risk (provoked an AoO) for your benefit because I knew that you wouldn't survive with that many enemies around you." Wizard: "Same here. I did put the mage armor and invisibility on you before we went into battle so that you could survive longer and sneak attack for your first attack. Then I blasted the BBEG and his minion with a maximized lightning bolt. Cleric: "Hey, those spells are usually reserved for our benefit to make sure that we don't pick up something we don't want and to make sure that we're getting our fair share. So, Fighter? Wizard? Do you want me to use those spells, or can I use them to cure the rogue?" Fighter: "Nah, I don't think we're going to need them this time." Wizard: "Yeah, I think we're good." Cleric: "Okay Rogue, here is a cure moderate wounds, cure light wounds, and cure minor wounds for you." Rogue: "Ah come on, I'm still hurt." Cleric: "Sorry, I'm out of spells after this cure moderate wounds for me and because I used the maximized cure serious wounds on you during the battle. And that still leaves me a bit hurt." Rogue: "Fine then. When do you all think you'll will trust me again with the loot?" Fighter, Cleric, Wizard: "We'll let you know." In the end, it's better not to steal from your "friends".
Aliquid 02-28-05, 01:30 PM	Well, in times when someone needs to depend on someone else in order to survive, the smart thing to do would be to keep those you trust loyal to you.no, it isn't smart...... but you should never underestimate how stupid people can be ;). Although mechanically, in D&D I think this sort of behaviour would be associated with a low Wis, not a low Int Honestly, I don't see how anyone can see that the rogue "skimming" from the rest of the party is going to keep his party mates loyal to him. It doesn't come down to "if" the rogue is going to get caught, but "when" the rogue will get caught.Never underestimate how incredibly arrogant people can be. ;) It is perfectly reasonable for the rogue to be smug enough to truly believe that he will never be caught (again a lack of wisdom). Simply put, if anyone in my group wants to steal from the group as a whole, and justify it as "it happens in real life", they better be well and good with accepting the repercussions that also "happen in real life."I 100% agree. Although... considering we are playing in a world where magic exists... the reprecussions might be worse thatn those that "happen in real life" :devil:
Drachasor 02-28-05, 01:37 PM	Which was also part of my point: It is NOT smart to keep valuable things from other people who will be sure to see it as “rightfully theirs.” All I’m saying is let this play itself out in-character. There’s no “need” for a game mechanic that takes away this option from the players, unless the players just aren’t mature enough to handle such things. The meat of any such conflict is handled between players. However, the characters still need to notice that it is going on. Initial grabs are spot checks against slight of hand, later on intelligence checks to figure out the rogue seems to have more resources than he should. I think bluff vs. sense motive has a role, but only for the DM to say "he seems to be telling the truth" on a successful bluff or "he seems to be lying" on a successful sense motive. How things get sorted out beyond that (both before, between, and after all these checks) is solely up to the players. Assuming they can behave themselves, as you said. -Drachasor
True Archon 02-28-05, 02:38 PM	Same here.... I've been playing that way with various people for 21 years.. and it wasn't until I started posting on these boards that I discovered that people make a fuss over this. LOL, same here. How about the amount of theft in stores done by the actual employees? In big department stores etc, it isn't uncommon for there to be more theft done by employees than 'customers'. In many cases the employees are buddy-buddy with their bosses, and friendly with everyone... while at the same time harming the profitability of the store. But when they are caught, they're almost always fired and sometimes even prosecuted. In less than "civil" parts of the the world or society, it could be worse. A valid point, but I don't know if I would call it a double standard, and this is why: When a 'thief' character takes stuff from the party, because he was playing 'in character', he believes that is ok. When the other players freak out at the player who is running the 'thief' that isn't ok. The reason the player uses the argument "I was just playing in character" to his defense, is because the rest of the players are attacking him personally. They are getting angry OOC, when it should be dealt with IC. The fact that they are getting angry OOC shows that they are having a bit of trouble with role playing, and are taking things way too personally. It is easy to avoid the rogue player's argument of "I was just playing in character". Make sure you are clearly dealing with the issue in character as well. For example you would say "Thorak, my barbarian is furious with the rogue now that we found out he is skimming from the top. I am going to grapple him and I think the rest of the party should go through his stuff". Roll the grapple check, and then the rest of the party can *role play* dealing with this issue. Punish the character, and have your character make it clear that the punishment will be worse next time. Which is exactly my point. Just because the player's rogue is playing in character, doesn't mean that the other players' characters can't respond in kind to the rogue when caught. Heck, who's to say that the rest of the party isn't trying to scam the rest, either? Don't get mad out of campaign, do it in character. Likewise, the DM shouldn't have to come up with a rule or do anything beyond opposed Bluff, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, or Spot checks. Personally, I don't see the Rogue skimming a little off the top of a treasure pile to be a bad thing. If the Rogue is scouting ahead and takes a monster out, the party does not get a share of the xp, they had nothing to do with the encounter, its all his. As for the treasure, lets put it this way. The Rogue is out ahead of the party scouting. By himself. With his low hitdice and really only a couple of skill checks between him and death if he's found. He is taking a HUGE personal risk for the good of the party. Nobody else is expected to just walk into enemy territory by themselves, even the party tank would think thats suicidal. The Rogue's reward for the extra risk is the ability to skim off the top. Doesn't mean he automatically gets to keep everything he finds for himself, or that he always gets the best item, but an extra handful of coins or gems is perfectly fair. He did stick his neck out just so the rest of you wouldn't have to. And frankly, if that doesn't deserve something extra for a reward, then he shouldn't be doing it. Let the fighter in his full plate try to sneak around, just see how good of a job he does at it. Trying to justify that a rogue can "skim" because he is taking a risk of scouting ahead by himself isn't a real good example of why it should be justified. Scouting ahead benefits the rogue, as well. Otherwise, the whole party will be unprepared for any enemies.... including the rogue. In most battles where the party encounters an enemy group without any aforeknowledge, the rogue is now stuck with his low hit dice, low AC, and a hope that there is some opportunity to flank or find concealment to save him. On top of that, a party that doesn't find a way for the rogue to survive his scouting trips is also going to have them finding the body of the rogue, and then being surprised by whatever killed the rogue! A wizard should be prepared in assisting a rogue with spells like invisibility, fly, spider climb, greater invisibility or stoneskin. A cleric is better prepared with spells like status and when capable of casting it refuge. Spending 1500 gp is worth it for that one situation when the rogue is caught out in the open, by herself, and in need of getting back to the party in a hurry. Likewise, I love hearing stories of when the rogue of the party is disarming a trap, and the rest of the party runs from the room. I mean, come on! If a trap is capable of taking out the WHOLE party, at least cast some spells like resistance, aid, stoneskin, barkskin, protection from evil, guidance, cat's grace, endurance, owl's wisdom, resist energy, contingency or SOMETHING! Don't leave the rogue alone in situations like that! Otherwise, I can see why she feels justified to take some off the top!
danielinthewolvesden 02-28-05, 08:44 PM	Well that’s sorta my point: Your dad would NEVER KNOW if this guy decided to keep anything big for himself, despite all the popular romantic illusions of comradery. Even years later he still believes that this guy actually shared everything with the others. These examples are interesting stories, but in the end I’m just not convinced that “most” thieves and looters behave with any degree of so-called “thieves honor.” Well, you see- when everything you own is in a small pack, and you sleep, eat, and excrete with no privacy and withing a few feet of your fellow squadmates'- it's really hard to hide anything. But I didn't say that "most thieves and looters" have any sense of honour. I am saying that in a "band of brothers'" - people who you trust to save your life on a constant basis- there is that level of trust. 100%. However, I still note that you have no counter-examples. No class is "more valuable' to the party than any other. The team is critical. Whereas the rogue takes risks- the cleric makes sure those risks are survivable. In most games I have seen- the frontline fighter is the guy who dies most often, anyway. The rogue also has Evasion, and can hide. But this thread is a perfect example of why "stealing" shouldn't be generally allowed- look at the ire and controversey. And- that's on a MB, not around a table. I am not saying that a little "skimming" is always bad- I gave an example of one time where it worked. BUT- there is no reason not to discuss it with your fellow players in advance to see if any there do have a problem with it. Same with playing any "controversial" PC- Frenzied Berserker, Male Chavinist Pig, Rapist, Drunk, Sociopathic Killer, cannibal- whatever. Hey- maybe your group of players is Ok with a "little off the top". Great. Or maybe they'll kick you out of the group and blackball you. Why take the chance? Communication is a great and wonderful thing- try it.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 02-28-05, 11:14 PM	How about the amount of theft in stores done by the actual employees? In big department stores etc, it isn't uncommon for there to be more theft done by employees than 'customers'. In many cases the employees are buddy-buddy with their bosses, and friendly with everyone... while at the same time harming the profitability of the store. Agreed, it happen. But look at the consequences if you're caught stealing from the store. In most case, you'll be fired fast (and maybe violently). Also, there's a huge difference between friendly co-worker relationship and friends you'll trust with your life. A valid point, but I don't know if I would call it a double standard, and this is why: When a 'thief' character takes stuff from the party, because he was playing 'in character', he believes that is ok. When the other players freak out at the player who is running the 'thief' that isn't ok. The reason the player uses the argument "I was just playing in character" to his defense, is because the rest of the players are attacking him personally. They are getting angry OOC, when it should be dealt with IC. The fact that they are getting angry OOC shows that they are having a bit of trouble with role playing, and are taking things way too personally. emphasis mine. Agreed, but only if we assume the player is angry, not the PC. In most case, the PC is gonna be angry. Wether the player is angry or just amused is kinda irrelevant for the consequences. The party won't be attacking the rogue's player personnaly, they'll attack his PC's personaly. I'm not angry at a rogue stealing my stuff. But my monk would be pretty ****** off. This is the double standart I'm talking about. Why should the rogue's theft be an IC act (and not stem from OOC knowledge about the party's collective spot) and the offended party's answer automaticaly be considered an OOC "vengeance"?
Aliquid 03-01-05, 01:15 PM	Agreed, it happen. But look at the consequences if you're caught stealing from the store. In most case, you'll be fired fast (and maybe violently). Sure there are always concequences for doing stupid things like that.... even so, some people are still foolish enough to do it. Also, there's a huge difference between friendly co-worker relationship and friends you'll trust with your life.Ok... I will try to think of a more appropriate example. I think the difference in my thoughts on this is that I don't think that all adventuring parties consist of a group of people who trust their lives with each other. Many adventuring parties are together due to convenience, or neccesity... not because they totally trust or like each other. The only example I can think of off the top of my head is Lord of the Rings. Consider the Fellowship of the Ring. Some people in the Fellowship didn't trust Boromir, and in the beginning Legolas and Gimli didn't trust each other... but that didn't stop them from travelling together. What about Sam Frodo and Gollum? They travelled together due to neccesity, but Sam certainly didn't trust Gollum with anything. Sure, over time some people will develop a level of camaraderie and trust (i.e. Legolas and Gimli), but this doesn't happen every time. It is perfectly possible for a group of adventurers to not trust each other, and to have good reason for it. This is the double standart I'm talking about. Why should the rogue's theft be an IC act (and not stem from OOC knowledge about the party's collective spot) and the offended party's answer automaticaly be considered an OOC "vengeance"?Well.... going off some of the comments on these boards... people have posted comments that they would "ban the player" if it was in their group, and that they would not accept such behaviour from a player in their game... These people are clearly getting angry OOC. It is automatically considered OOC "vengence" when the players display their anger in an OOC fashion. It is completely different if the players say jokingly, and with a smile "you jerk" to the player, and then have their character beat the snot out of the rogue. That would be an IC response, and the player of the rogue would have no reason to complain.
TripleDee 03-01-05, 02:53 PM	I am pretty much on the side of the rogue, this is a game and although I can understand people getting very attached to characters it is stretching it a little to be so attached with a non-existant item so as to disrupt the game. Still, if the rogue wants to do it he'd better be damned good, I'd expect him to roleplay it out carefully and depending on the forcefulness and tact of either side add modifiers or some such to the rolls required by the bluff. Any serious case of metagaming and I'd be a little narked.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 03-01-05, 07:15 PM	Sure there are always concequences for doing stupid things like that.... even so, some people are still foolish enough to do it.. Yep. same as with rogues. It's possible to do it. but the consequences don't make it worthwhile (stupid question... could I have said "unworthwhile"? or is it a word I just invented...). Ok... I will try to think of a more appropriate example. I think the difference in my thoughts on this is that I don't think that all adventuring parties consist of a group of people who trust their lives with each other. Many adventuring parties are together due to convenience, or neccesity... not because they totally trust or like each other. The only example I can think of off the top of my head is Lord of the Rings. Consider the Fellowship of the Ring. Some people in the Fellowship didn't trust Boromir, and in the beginning Legolas and Gimli didn't trust each other... but that didn't stop them from travelling together. What about Sam Frodo and Gollum? They travelled together due to neccesity, but Sam certainly didn't trust Gollum with anything. Sure, over time some people will develop a level of camaraderie and trust (i.e. Legolas and Gimli), but this doesn't happen every time. It is perfectly possible for a group of adventurers to not trust each other, and to have good reason for it. . Even if they don't trust each other completly, there's still a minimum of trust to be had if you want to stay togheter as a group. You can't fight effectively as a group if you fear that someone's gonna stick a dagger in your back. You can't really rest if you have to put a sentry to watch both for monsters and in case the rogue's stealing your stuff. boromir tried to take the ring, and was "banned" from the group. (in the sense that the group was made to protect the ringbearer and the ring bearer fled from him, never wanting to see him again). He later (sooner :D) repented his deads most sincerely. Gollum's example is trickier (very good example, by the way, as gollum could very well be suspected of trying to steal the ring... :headexplo ). yes, Sam didn't trust gollum the slightest bit. This made for an almost unworkable group. Yet, remember that Sam tied gollum by a rope to prevent treachery, and that he wasn't exactly a companion, but more of a prisonner. also, Sam WOULD have killed gollum had he tried anything against them. Well.... going off some of the comments on these boards... people have posted comments that they would "ban the player" if it was in their group, and that they would not accept such behaviour from a player in their game... These people are clearly getting angry OOC. It is automatically considered OOC "vengence" when the players display their anger in an OOC fashion. It is completely different if the players say jokingly, and with a smile "you jerk" to the player, and then have their character beat the snot out of the rogue. That would be an IC response, and the player of the rogue would have no reason to complain. I agree totaly. Banning the PLAYER is a stupid thing to do. He's just playing his character, after all. Of course, if a player always use his rogue to steal loot, you could prevent him from playing such a concept (the point of the game being to have fun, after all). I am pretty much on the side of the rogue, this is a game and although I can understand people getting very attached to characters it is stretching it a little to be so attached with a non-existant item so as to disrupt the game. The disruption of the game all started when the rogue stole from his party. If he decide to steal from his friends, he has no reasons at all to be upset if his PC's dismembered as a result. It's called making a choice and living with the consequences.