Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rbrt_Spade 03-31-05, 03:59 PM	Please post if you can do this? Link to my D&D website- http://www.dndgaming.co.nr
Santrilla 03-31-05, 04:12 PM	Define 'stealing', and the intention behind it. If you're stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, you're probably Chaotic Good. If you're stealing from the BBEG to stop him from raising an army of the undead, or you're stealing battle plans from an enemy castle, that could certainly be interpeted as good- I'd be inclined to say neutral good, though I suppose you could argue that you're protecting the laws of your own society. If you're stealing from a rich baker so that you can eat, you're probably Chaotic Neutral. If you're stealing from innocents for your own gain, you'll be moving towards Evil. EDIT: Also, I'll refer you to the 'Theft as an Evil Act' thread, in this very forum.
pres_man 03-31-05, 04:19 PM	No he can not steal if he wants to stay lawful good. By steal I mean taking items/goods/etc. that someone is both lawfully and rightfully intitled to. On the other hand taking items for redistribution that maybe someone's lawfully but not rightfully. Think of a merchant that cheats everyone, exploits his workers, and runs the competition out of business. This merchant (who is probably LE) might be very wealthy and be lawfully entitled to all of his wealth (he never broke any laws, just bent them a little :devil: ). In this case a LG rogue might take some of the merchant's wealth and use it to help those that the merchant has harmed. This would be valuing the G over the L. He might support the law the rest of the time. On the other hand a LG rogue may take an item that rightfully belongs to somone but who doesn't lawfully have ownership. Think of a family heirloom that a bad guy buys/trades for helping the family out. Then refuses to sell it back even for a generous trade, because he likes gloating it over the family. A member of that family may steal the item back, leaving payment for it. It might be his by right, but not by law. In this case a LG rogue might take the item and return it to the bad guy (getting the money back as well). He might be supporting L over G in this case, but he might also be supporting G if he is trying to keep the family member out of trouble. The problem with LG rogues "stealing" is they have to be very careful that they are not taking items that lawfully and rightfully the property of others. Otherwise they are slipping towards CE. Of course there is no reason that a LG rogue needs to steal. He can work as a scout, a guard, a detective, etc. Stealing is not really something that good characters should be doing regardless if the are lawful, neutral, or chaotic.
Moon-Lancer 03-31-05, 04:21 PM	probably if you were espenosh extrodinar you might be lawfull and beable to steal. Like james bond 007.
Thomar_of_Uointer 03-31-05, 04:29 PM	The answer is yes. But I imagine that it would be difficult to roleplay. Any action can be performed by any alignment, and there is even some liniency in motive. The only thing the alignment system really determines is how some spells affect you.
FriendoftheDork 03-31-05, 04:42 PM	Yes he could, but not from anyone or for any reason. If this rogue steals magical supplies from a evil order of mages in order to protect his own country from them, he can probably stay LG. If he is stealing from random people in the street, then he can't be LG. Perhaps you can tell us WHY he steals, and from whom? And how do you defend his alignment?
caeruleus 03-31-05, 04:50 PM	Lawful does not mean obeying laws. It could mean that, but it doesn't have to. Being lawful good could mean that you believe in a well-ordered society for the benefit of everyone involved. You may also be of the opinion that the whole notion of private property is oppressive to most, and therefore must be abolished. "Stealing" could be a rogue's form of protest.
FriendoftheDork 03-31-05, 05:52 PM	Lawful does not mean obeying laws. It could mean that, but it doesn't have to. Being lawful good could mean that you believe in a well-ordered society for the benefit of everyone involved. You may also be of the opinion that the whole notion of private property is oppressive to most, and therefore must be abolished. "Stealing" could be a rogue's form of protest. Eh, sorry but trying to abolish private property is pretty much chaotic. Marx, for example was a rebel, as he challenged traditional ways of thinking and wanted the society to change. You're not lawful simply because you have invented some sort of "code" that you follow and want to change society to follow as well.
Shima 03-31-05, 06:15 PM	If a paladin can kill, a paladin can steal. It all depends on your moral and the reasons for your actions. If you rule that killing is an evil act and that the only situation it is justified is in self-defense, then a paladin cannot kill. If stealing is evil or chaotic, then the situation in wich a paladin would it would simply called something else like "retreiving". Do police officers steal drugs when they their hands on dealers? (note they also "steal" the money as well) When asked properly, you found out that almost everyone considers that actions by themselves are not alligned.
ehrin 03-31-05, 06:19 PM	Stealing, probably not. Stealing will shift your alignment away from lawful good. It would be very hard to take things from rightful owners without due process, and try to remain LG. However, property recovery, treasure recovery, bounty hunting, property repossession could all be done lawfully and good(ly), with the right flavor. Just make sure you have order and good on your side...
Crossover-Chronicler 03-31-05, 06:25 PM	You can indeed play a Lawful Goood character who takes things that, strictly speaking, belong to someone else. It might even be what he does for a living - for example, a rogue in service to a Lawful Good order of preists, who is charged with recovering dangerous magical items to be neutralized or destroyed; even if the current owners don't want to part with their trinkets, such a character might still remain Lawful by fulfilling his mission by other menas (theft, confidence games, etc). On the other hand, it's a lot harder to play a LG rogue who steals as a matter of convenience and greed. You might steal if circumstances demand it for the greater good (though this will eventually push you to a non-lawful alignment if you're not careful), but not because you could really use a few extra GP right now.
fallabel 03-31-05, 06:59 PM	But, police officers don't keep the things that they confiscate. If the LG rogue retrieves something and gives it back to its lawful owner, fine. However, unless the item originally belonged to the rogue, he can't keep it for himself while still being LG.
trapspringer 03-31-05, 09:08 PM	Click the link in my sig. 8 Bit theatre's thief often 'steals' through lawful means. Reference the ultra-fine print.
twad 03-31-05, 09:43 PM	err. maybe he can steal criminals and give it back to the poor.. then get the baddies in court of justice..kinda like a lawfull robin-hood.
Delfedd 03-31-05, 10:12 PM	There was recently a dragon magazine with this at the end. It gave some suggestions, like playing him as a "Street savior," giving to the poor people on the street, a spy for the government, doing good but not breaking the law (ok, maybe the law bends with him).
CzarGarrett 04-01-05, 09:58 AM	I'd say its fine, so long as he isn't an exalted character, and he doesn't do much else that would be considered chaotic.
MrkGrismer 04-01-05, 10:12 AM	Note also that "letters of marque" meant that 'pirate' ships that had them were doing nothing illegal, at least as far as their home countries were concerned. Commerce raiding can be very subjective in whether it is lawful or chaotic, depending which side of the war you are on. Raiding the commerce of a chaotic evil society would probably not be an issue, especially if that commerce involved something like slaves, poisons, drugs, or pillage.
Evil Wizard 04-01-05, 10:49 AM	Well, if your theft is legally sanctioned, and your motives are genuinely pure, you could probably be a Lawful Good thief. That is, if there's some clear cut, justifiable reason why you need to steal something, and you're doing it for the greater good, it all works out. Someone Chaotic Good will steal - and do anything else - if it does good in the end (robbing the rich and giving to the poor). Someone Lawful Good needs a more purposeful motive (It's okay to steal this painting back because it doesn't belong to him to begin with. Yoink!) You don't necessarily have to abide by the law, but you do need a specific set of principles that dictate who you can steal from and when, and adhere to those principles at all times. If you firmly believe it's permissible to steal back stolen goods for the purpose of returning them to their rightful owners, you can rob and remain Lawful Good.
weasel fierce 04-01-05, 01:16 PM	To be honest, Lawfull Good is not overly compatible with theft. For an LG rogue, I'd look at the stealthy stuff instead, though I'd likely recommend the player to consider a neutral good character
totoro 04-01-05, 05:14 PM	Since stealing is depriving a lawful owner of property, I don't think you could build a very fun LG thief. You could build something similar to a thief. If you only "steal" items that are not lawfully owned, such as demon-summoning wands (presumably illegal in a LG society). You could also recover illegally obtained items, but that is not really stealing (and you probably would return the items to their lawful owners, if possible). You could also be an agent that is sent on missions to obtain lawfully owned items in other societies (especially enemies who will use the items against your country). Again, you probably wouldn't get to keep the stuff. LN would be similarly difficult to make into a thief. You could still "steal" contraband, but you would be even more limited than LG, since LG might make an exception for a lawfully owned, but extremely dangerous magic item. On the other hand, you might be able to pull off a contraband-collection agency that finances itself with the acquisitions. You have to get funding or your society loses out on your wonderful services! You could even sell dangerous items overseas to chaotic barbarians or something. Kind of like the British opium trade. <grin>
caeruleus 04-04-05, 03:52 PM	Eh, sorry but trying to abolish private property is pretty much chaotic. Marx, for example was a rebel, as he challenged traditional ways of thinking and wanted the society to change. You're not lawful simply because you have invented some sort of "code" that you follow and want to change society to follow as well. If what you say is true, then no paladin could ever challenge a Lawful Evil ruler without violating the lawful component of his alignment. What you suggest is merely one interpretation of alignment. I was suggesting another, not saying that it's "correct", because none of them are. Conservatives who want to change the way things are to make them more in line with their own views are not chaotic.
Delfedd 04-04-05, 05:09 PM	Just a note, a paladin is not the definative lawful good.
danielinthewolvesden 04-04-05, 05:26 PM	No.
Wizard 04-04-05, 08:18 PM	I play a LN rogue that's a spy. He uh, "procures," like mad. I see no contradiction here, because he follows the laws of his country and adheres to his spy organization's rules very carefully.
Monkeys Po0p in your MiLk 04-04-05, 10:36 PM	I found these articles very helpfull. Lawful and Chaotic (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a) Alignments in Play (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050318a) Hope it helps. :dancin: :dancin:
kliate 04-04-05, 11:04 PM	Two word answer... "Repo Ninjas" :evillaugh
The_Cowled_One 04-05-05, 12:24 AM	Well, being an LG thief is pretty much a prerequisite to playing a Shadowbane Inquisitor; although those rogue/paladins stress the stealth/sneaking aspects of their rogue abilities, it's entirely concievable for an inquisitor to specialize in stealing key components to evil plans, or "retrieving" otherwise unlawful (or unlawfully obtained) goods; for instance, he could infiltrate cults, steal stuff that they've assembled for their dark rituals, and then use this stolen property as evidence of their misdeeds. In any case, such a character would definitely not be a rogue in the sense of running against a country's laws; he would always either be some sort of undercover lawman (with theif-like abilities used to defeat those who evade more conventional attempts at law enforcement), or he would restrict his theft to stealing from monsters who the party was going to kill anyways. He definitely wouldn't thieve from the party, and would definiltey toe the line whilst in towns.
Ottergame 04-05-05, 03:05 AM	It depends on what you mean by "theif." If you mean a rogue, then sure, it's entirely possible to be one. There's nothing directly evil or chaotic about a lot of their abilities. However, if you mean thief as in a THIEF, someone who steals, then that gets a little tricky. Personally, I would say it would be unlawful or non-good to do any of the following: Stealing for self gain, stealing from otherwise lawful people to give away to anyone else (rob from the rich and give to the poor), to deprive something of an object that isn't going to be used for an evil deed. I would say it's alright to: recover stolen property to return to the rightful owner or authorities, to steal an object that someone is going to use to cause mayhem or evil, or to weaken an evil menace before confronting them head on. Taking money from a greedy merchant to give to the poor is a chaotic act. The merchant maybe evil and greedy, but unless he's using the money to fund an evil purpose or if the merchant is scamming people, the merchant has earned their money lawfully, and it's not a good or lawful act to take it from them. If they are using the money to fund an evil purpose, then the money taken from them would have to be given to the authorities as proof of wrongdoing. If they are scamming people, the money needs to be given to the authorities to redistribute to the scammed customers. Likewise for instance, taking a spellbook from an evil wizard isn't a good or lawful act, unless they planned on using the spells to create evil and break laws. And, again, the stolen objects would be need to be turned into the proper people, keeping the objects for self gain wouldn't be lawful, though I would personally forgive it if they kept them with the intent of repairing or stopping damage done by the bad guys. Just because someone is evil DOESN'T mean you have the right to steal, harrass, or kill them. Doing so would be an evil act in itself unless it is justified. Evil alignment does NOT mean someone is a baby killing, virgin raping, puppy kicking, flower crushing villian. MOST evil people are simply self intrested and do not care for people at large. A CE bartender probley isn't a spy for a local death cult, chances are he's apathetic to the plight of people, overcharges for basic services, and wouldn't lend a helping hand unless force to at sword point. He might slip an extra coin or two from the pouch of a drunk patron, but he's not going to stab them in their sleep.
Naeron 04-05-05, 10:22 AM	Eh, sorry but trying to abolish private property is pretty much chaotic. Marx, for example was a rebel, as he challenged traditional ways of thinking and wanted the society to change. You're not lawful simply because you have invented some sort of "code" that you follow and want to change society to follow as well. Yes you are lawful, if you propose a "better" system of society based on rules and laws (i.e. a lawful society) and fight to overthrow an existing society (whether lawful or not) then you are acting in a lawful manner. Marxism is a lawful structure in D&D terms so anyone fighting for it would also probably be a lawful being - even if they were trying to overthrow a lawful theocracy. So yes you could have a LG thief as long as any thefts remain lawful (i.e. arising from order given by a rigid heirarchy or from a system of rules and laws) and good (they do not harm the innocent).
BW0222 04-06-05, 01:32 AM	Propably not, but you might get close. You could imagine that you come from a society in which stealing in an honorable thing to do. For example, in certain North American native groups, it was considered more honorable to steal an enemy's horse than to kill him. You aren't necessarily stealing for personal gain, but to defend the honor of your tribe, avenge deaths, etc. Assuming you also had some moral fiber and were careful that stealing didn't harm "innocents", then you could come up with a lawful neutral character who steals. Lawful good would be an extreme stretch, since stealing depriving others of property is not a good act. It's not that someone couldn't try, but it would be a hard road to follow. Assuming you only stole from the most evil folks for the greater good, I suppose you could get away with it. Some lawful variation of Indiana Jones, Robin Hood, or something.
PoeticJustice 04-06-05, 10:18 AM	I believe you could, or, I would allow you to. LAWFUL denotes orderliness. You take the same route almost every time because that's what works. You expect others to do the same for efficiency's sake. Lawfulness doesn't demand that you respect the laws of the land, though you're character or people may have a tradition of doing so, if they do, then you actually are probably chaotic. Otherwise, if you have a code, keep to it, and show a methodical line of thinking I'd give you lawful. GOOD Denotes respecting other individuals. You won't sell out the lives or rights of other people for profit, unless the people themselves are evil and are using these gifts towards evil ends. So yes, you could play Robin Hood under certain circumstances. You couldn't steal from just anyone, but it could work.
Dragonchild 04-06-05, 12:07 PM	Good lord, this is like trying to mix oil and water. The only thing I can think of is someone who uses legal loopholes (stuff like tax shelters, debt/bankruptcy laws, etc.) to amass wealth, and then donates the money to charity. That would be A) stealing, in an ethical sense, B) 100% legal, ergo, Lawful, and C) a Good deed, IF you believe the ends justify the means. So it's arguably Stealing While Lawful Good. Even after all that, there are two key problems. One, this definition could be strongly challenged on ethical grounds (points A and C). Two, more importantly. . . There isn't much D&D action to be had role-playing a philanthropic accountant. :rolleyes:
Swiss619 04-07-05, 01:11 PM	I'd say it's alright to steal while a LG rogue. Lawful merely means they have a system, beleive in an order. There'snothignt heir that says the law has to be the king's law or the order os society. PErhaps that of a Rogue's guild? Prehaps even institute a code of honor the PC strongly beleives in. (Don't steal form the poor, Pelor churches are off limits, etc.) Also, the good aprt merely means they beleive in the right thing. The evil Baron, BBEG, cruel merchant, slave driver (if the country allows slavery), etc, would all be unjust targets that the rogue could targetwhile remaining within their ethical code of conduct. It may be hard to wrap your brain around at first, but a lawful charactor CAN be an outlaw nd not be Robin Hood. (Though there is nothing worng with the Robin Hood mold.) Just because one adheres to order doesn't mean they adhear to the order of those in power, just to a defined and estasblished system.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 04-07-05, 09:52 PM	...lawful...steals... No. Those two words don't belong in the same sentence. http://www.m-w.org/ defines "steal" as "to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice." The other things described, reposessing items that belong to others, etc. are fine, but it's not stealing.
Stafir Ortnev 04-07-05, 10:28 PM	Ok..I won't get into the whole..is theft good or evil debate..(though I think its neutral but..). Theft is an unlawful thing to do..HOWEVER..this is only when you consider theft in the truest since of the word. This does not consider those people who practice slight of hand..in order to disarm..or do harm..to those foes that they will already 'loot the bodies' of once they are done. In other words..instead of stealing from random people..you simply remove said enemies property from their being..before you off them and remove it anyway. Or you take from those who don't need the item..or would do harm with it.
caeruleus 04-08-05, 11:27 AM	No. Those two words don't belong in the same sentence. http://www.m-w.org/ defines "steal" as "to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice." The other things described, reposessing items that belong to others, etc. are fine, but it's not stealing. As I often tell my students when they write their papers, dictionaries are the worst place to look when trying to understand a concept. Dictionaries do not give definitions in the strict sense--they make empirical claims about how words are used. And people don't always use words properly.
Swiss619 04-08-05, 12:48 PM	Eliza_Stormwhisper, lawful doesn't always mean you obey laws. It means you obey a system, and beleive in an order. That order isn't always the order of those in power.
Dragonchild 04-09-05, 03:31 AM	Swiss619, I see your idea and think it's close, but on a detailed level I think you're dead wrong. Lawful does mean you obey laws, whether or not you agree with them. To have your own system means you're disciplined. But a person who breaks society's laws is practicing either civil disobedience or hypocrisy. Neither are lawful. Even LE characters wouldn't do that. Lawful people don't break laws; they work within the system to change them (LG) or work the system to their own ends (LE). It's called respecting society. If you're lawful, everyone plays by the same rules. (Though in LE societies, the rules themselves are biased, so it's not always equal.) Like I said, there are state-sactioned forms of theft, such as tax shelters and off-shore bank accounts used today. Also, governments can approve of more direct theft: It's called search and seizure, almost exclusively used in the name of law enforcement (sometimes justifiably, sometimes not -- depends on the government). It can be done overtly or covertly. It's legal because the government allows it, and it's also seizure of what the government acknowleges as private property. Hence, it's Stealing While Lawful. (That takes you halfway. Mixing state-sactioned theft with Goodness is a bit tricky.) But saying, "To heck with the laws, I got my own system," shows an utter disrespect for social systems that no Lawful person would ever exhibit.
Dragonchild 04-09-05, 03:35 AM	To follow up, I think I just hit on a LG Thief that isn't an accountant: One who works with law enforcement to acquire evidence of criminal activity with legal approval. Such a LG Thief would obtain permission from the local government (theocratic and/or secular) to sneak into BBEG's palace to obtain proof the government needs to bust the BBEG. A paladin would certainly find such services useful, as after said proof is obtained, s/he could put the Holy Smackdown on BBEG with a clear conscience. Chaotic types will have a tough time playing this game patiently, however. They'd rather just bust right in and be proven right (or wrong) later. kliate's "Repo Ninjas" is somewhat close, but I think ninjas who sneak away with property so a bank can sell them is LN at best, and far too often LE. :)
Leap 04-09-05, 04:44 AM	Lawful Good regularly steals; it's called taxation though. They take the property of another, regardless of that others agreement, usually with threat of force behind it.
Lobo13 04-10-05, 01:57 AM	There are no good or evil acts, there are only good or evil outcomes.
Ottergame 04-10-05, 05:18 AM	There are no good or evil acts, there are only good or evil outcomes. That's not true. Alignment is only concerned about intent and actions. If a fighter shoots and kills an orc who's holding a torch, it's not going to turn him into a bad guy when the torch lands into a keg of gunpowder, where the explosion kills the trapped hostages the heroes came to save. A paladin (shouldn't) lose his powers. Especially in the case where there was no way of knowing that outcome was going to happen. If a fighter goes on a random killing spree of farmers, that's going to turn him good even if all the people he killed were actually secret death cultists, planning to topple all of civilization.
Lobo13 04-10-05, 01:28 PM	A quote from ottergame... That's not true. Alignment is only concerned about intent and actions. If a fighter shoots and kills an orc who's holding a torch, it's not going to turn him into a bad guy when the torch lands into a keg of gunpowder, where the explosion kills the trapped hostages the heroes came to save. A paladin (shouldn't) lose his powers. Especially in the case where there was no way of knowing that outcome was going to happen. If a fighter goes on a random killing spree of farmers, that's going to turn him good even if all the people he killed were actually secret death cultists, planning to topple all of civilization. Ah but it is true. While alignment in your paradigm considers only intent and actions, the quote you responded to was of a different analysis by an author long gone before DnD began. What i offered was a fresh look at what we are talking about. It is my premise that your situation above describes a horrible act, committed by a horrible man, who killed in cold blood a family man, a blue collar worker and a loving husband. Sounds evil to me. The orc holdign the torch was under the employ of a greater orc. Their lair has been destroyed several times over the last few months by human town officials, adventurers, and drunk teenagers. In a desparate effort to keep their home safe from further intrusion, they do the only thing they can, take hostages. they put them by a barrekl of gunpowder thinking "they're not dumb enought o do violence with explosives around, maybe they will negotiate instead". The humans won't negotiate with them because they are "evil orcs not worth our time". And this guy doesn't want his family to get trounced again while they're eating supper, so he offers to help out by taking care of the hostages. the orc feeds them every day, makes sure their bonds are not too tight, and provides them with water to cleanse themselves. He hates the idea of bathing but knows these creatures value it, so he provides it. Sure, he might be in on a crime by *OUR* values, but to him, he's diong this for his family, for the survival of his people. A minority, scoffed at and chastised by the "higher" races is just trying to survive. and your Lawful good paladin just killed him for doing his job. His family is devastated, the spirit of the clan is broken, and the hostages were sad that you thought you had to kill him to save them, which you didn't anyway since the whole thing went kablooey. I'm not here to argue, I am just trying to get everyone to think outside the box a little. To the orc and *HIS SOCIETY* he was a lawful goody-goody. To the paladin he was an evil worthy of smiting. To the orc society and his family, the acts of that warrior/paladin whatever were of pure hate, Chaotic evil to the core. YOu want to fight the evil they perceive every day, get them some land they can peacefully coexist on that isn't Mansoned-up by "adventurers" who are vanquishing "evil". To us, they are an infestation, they steal our people, take our food, kill our traveling traders, and pillage our resources. The more of them that die by our hand the better. They take and kill without a thought, choatic evil to the core. We are Lawful good, upholding the laws and order of *OUR SOCIETY* and killing orcs in the process. As for the fighter, his act was to kill people. If viewed throught he lense of "this fighter slaughtered all these people, but they were evil cultists bent on world domination", the outside viewer would assume he did a good thing. But the families of those people, and most who uphold law and order, would see it as evil. And, to the fighter himself, mybe he was insane and just thought they were cultists, having no knowledge they were, but since they were, he doesn't get thrown in jail. Perspective. Paradigm. Inner demons. these things can be fun to play with in DnD. Many a roleplay situation is missed because alignment issues are not considered in the light i have suggested. Again, not an argument, just an illustration (lenghty i know) that alignment can be a fluid concept if you want it to be. And, from experience, i can tell you that theft can indeed be a lawful good act. Law school's good at giving you useless info like that. Oh, and otter, if you ever come around Tulsa, i'm looking for a group to game with. Talk later.-Lobo13
Sarella Starshine 04-10-05, 09:50 PM	my personal take is that stealing, theft, or any other word that means an illegal transfer of property ownership is something that no good, lawful, or lawful good person would do, rogue or not. the reason is twofold. 1) theft is not a 'good' action, dispite the many atempts by the people of this board to twist it into one, 2) theft is not a lawful action, regardless if the law that person is following is thier own deep seeded personal convictions or the laws of the society they inhabit. theft to me personaly is one of the few actions that is considered 'evil' (though not to the same degree as say murdering of babies to drink thier blood) no matter what the person's intentions are because it causes 'harm' (the hallmark of an 'evil' action) (even though the 'harm' varies from person to person depending on how much was taken and how much they had) to the person you are stealing from, regardless if that person is the spawn of satan, or the avatar of pelor. to me, any attempts to justify theft by claiming that the person you are stealing from is 'evil', that he did not deserve his riches, etc, is all just justifications and does not lessen the theft. saying things like taxes, search and seizeure are all legal forms of 'theft' is silly. while i do admit that sometimes goverments go overboard on the search and seizure thing, taxes are not 'theft' as 'theft' is often discribed as an illegal aquirement of goods not legaling belonging to you.
Stafir Ortnev 04-10-05, 11:52 PM	But taxing is theft and evil..these people earned their money..and now you are FORCING them to give you their money..the money they earned..just because they were born in the same land as you..and they arn't capable of leaving the land. If they don't give you their money..your gonna send them to jail..just because they want to keep the money they earned..and use it for themself. Sounds like bandits..commiting theft (robbery)..just like any ambush. Point is...Theft does NOT hurt the person..as much as many of you make it out to be. Otherwise...making someone worry is evil....making someone cry is evil. Giving someone a good chewing out to make them see how they are ruining their life and make it so they can turn it around...is evil. Theft is simply taking property. It would ONLY be evil...if the item is needed for their survival. Making someone loose some money is not evil...taking a loaf of bread is not evil. Taking the last bit of money someone needs to keep the evil government from taking their shop..where they earn their livelyhood is evil. Taking a loaf of bread that is a mans last supper, is evil. However..Theft is chaotic...it is breaking the law of posession. The law that something actually belongs to a person. The law that states an item is not there for anyones use..but instead is solely the right of use of just one person..until they give up that sole right of use (in one form or another). Really...ya'll take it too far..remember we live in a lawful...and I guess somewhat good society. The law will teach everyone that something against the law is evil..is morally wrong..so that nobody will do it. I still wouldn't go out and steal someones stuff IRL...but even I know that stealing isn't evil...its simply chaotic.
Leap 04-11-05, 04:36 AM	saying things like taxes, search and seizeure are all legal forms of 'theft' is silly. while i do admit that sometimes goverments go overboard on the search and seizure thing, taxes are not 'theft' as 'theft' is often discribed as an illegal aquirement of goods not legaling belonging to you So it isnt theft for a govt to take taxes because the govt has not defined it as illegal. How convenient. However..Theft is chaotic...it is breaking the law of posession. The law that something actually belongs to a person. The law that states an item is not there for anyones use..but instead is solely the right of use of just one person..until they give up that sole right of use (in one form or another). What law is this you are on about? Theft is not chaotic - there is lawful theft as well (unless you define theft as illegal taking and thus no govt will ever call itself thief as it will always legalise its own taking). You appear to be definining ownership based on legislation (very lawful of you) ;)
Stafir Ortnev 04-11-05, 11:04 AM	Actually I'm defining ownership by the very thing that made ownership..the law :). Consider the only 'owners' in the animal kingdom..are those who are strong enough to keep it from being taken from them...and those who can steal or hide their stuff...will also keep what they have. If you want to define things by natural order..that right there would be the natural order...whatever you can take, and keep off of other people's hands is yours. But if they are stronger, or sneakier..its then theirs. Of course I'll still agree I'm a bit lawful IRL..but thats besides the point :).
Ottergame 04-11-05, 11:45 AM	Oh, and otter, if you ever come around Tulsa, i'm looking for a group to game with. Talk later.-Lobo13 Tulsa is a tad to far away to game, sadly. :)
Ottergame 04-11-05, 11:54 AM	But taxing is theft and evil..these people earned their money..and now you are FORCING them to give you their money..the money they earned..just because they were born in the same land as you..and they arn't capable of leaving the land. If they don't give you their money..your gonna send them to jail..just because they want to keep the money they earned..and use it for themself. Sounds like bandits..commiting theft (robbery)..just like any ambush. Point is...Theft does NOT hurt the person..as much as many of you make it out to be. Otherwise...making someone worry is evil....making someone cry is evil. Giving someone a good chewing out to make them see how they are ruining their life and make it so they can turn it around...is evil. Theft is simply taking property. It would ONLY be evil...if the item is needed for their survival. Making someone loose some money is not evil...taking a loaf of bread is not evil. Taking the last bit of money someone needs to keep the evil government from taking their shop..where they earn their livelyhood is evil. Taking a loaf of bread that is a mans last supper, is evil. However..Theft is chaotic...it is breaking the law of posession. The law that something actually belongs to a person. The law that states an item is not there for anyones use..but instead is solely the right of use of just one person..until they give up that sole right of use (in one form or another). Really...ya'll take it too far..remember we live in a lawful...and I guess somewhat good society. The law will teach everyone that something against the law is evil..is morally wrong..so that nobody will do it. I still wouldn't go out and steal someones stuff IRL...but even I know that stealing isn't evil...its simply chaotic. Taxes aren't evil. Taxes are used to make roads, hire soldiers to protect the land, to build keeps, castles, forts, public buildings, and public spaces, pay for services, and pay for adventurers. Theft DOES hurt people. You take someone's property, and the person has to replace it, which costs money. They will not be able to afford as much food. Or they cannot buy something that they really wanted. All because of moralless person decided they were more deserving of someone elses rightfully earned things.
Naeron 04-11-05, 12:05 PM	I see your idea and think it's close, but on a detailed level I think you're dead wrong. Lawful does mean you obey laws, whether or not you agree with them. To have your own system means you're disciplined. But a person who breaks society's laws is practicing either civil disobedience or hypocrisy. Neither are lawful. Even LE characters wouldn't do that. You are complety wrong according to the PHB, nowhere in the PHB does it say that being lawful means that you must obey all laws. Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. If the authority that you respect happens to be the Mafia (of the idealised Hollywood model) then you would be Lawful Evil. You satisfy all the tenets of being lawful but the society that you belong to and promote is the Mafia, not the local government. Lawful people don't break laws; they work within the system to change them (LG) or work the system to their own ends (LE). It's called respecting society. If you're lawful, everyone plays by the same rules. (Though in LE societies, the rules themselves are biased, so it's not always equal.). No, a LG being would not observe or respect a LE law passed by a LE authority because it is not legitimate. Being Lawful means that you promote your society, not anyone elses. Take a look at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a which specifically says "Lawful does not necessarily mean "adheres to the letter of the law." A law (or body of laws) is merely a rule that a government imposes on those who are subject to its power. A lawful alignment, on the other hand, represents an orderly approach to matters of ethics and personal conduct. Most lawful characters do respect the order that the laws of the realm represent, but adherence to local ordinances is only one way of demonstrating a lawful alignment."
Stafir Ortnev 04-11-05, 12:37 PM	Taxes aren't evil. Taxes are used to make roads, hire soldiers to protect the land, to build keeps, castles, forts, public buildings, and public spaces, pay for services, and pay for adventurers. Theft DOES hurt people. You take someone's property, and the person has to replace it, which costs money. They will not be able to afford as much food. Or they cannot buy something that they really wanted. All because of moralless person decided they were more deserving of someone elses rightfully earned things. Taxes are evil..I don't want to pay for your roads that you use..while I work out in bumville, raising my own crops..and making my own livelyhood. I don't need your keeps, your castles, your forts, your buildings, your space..or your adventurers. However you come to my house..demanding my hard earned money..crops..livestock..whatever..just because I live on your land. Why should I pay? Oh right..you'll throw me in jail, because I didn't pay your items..and you'll probably storm in..and take the house and property that I staked out..I claimed..and I grew on for years..just because I happened to be born in an area you are claiming as yours. Bah! Theft dosn't hurt people, unless it is done in specific way..that is..to take something that they require to live. A person dosn't need a fancy house..they don't need a feast to serve kings. They need food (but not an abundance), they need a safe place to sleep (but not a mansion). In essence..a neutral thief..when they steal...will still only those things a person may want..but they, in no way, actually need. And this is where people are being hung up. There is a difference between want and need. There is no pain done, when you take an excess item. There is no real pain done when you take a want. The only pain is emotional pain..the only harm done is psychological. And if thats evil..so is dumping a person you don't want to date, or punishing your kid for doing wrong, or heck..being rough to someone so that they'll stop being a wimp..and will be able to actually survive on their own.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 04-11-05, 12:55 PM	EDIT: Accidental double post (Happens a lot when the boards are slow)
Eliza_Stormwhisper 04-11-05, 12:57 PM	Taxes are evil..I don't want to pay for your roads that you use..while I work out in bumville, raising my own crops..and making my own livelyhood. I don't need your keeps, your castles, your forts, your buildings, your space..or your adventurers. However you come to my house..demanding my hard earned money..crops..livestock..whatever..just because I live on your land. Why should I pay? Oh right..you'll throw me in jail, because I didn't pay your items..and you'll probably storm in..and take the house and property that I staked out..I claimed..and I grew on for years..just because I happened to be born in an area you are claiming as yours. Bah! If you said that to me and I were the queen of a region, I'd either exile you (more likely), or when my lands got invaded, deny you entry into the defensive keep (if I let you even stay in my lands). Everyone in my lands are part of my system. You are in my lands. You are in my system. You can go somewhere else, out of my lands. In the modern world... imagine you own a house. Someone you don't know wants to live in your house. Are you going to let them live there for free? Probably not. You're going to charge them rent for the upkeep of the house. Apply that in a grander scale to the system of government and taxes. You are paying your "rent" for the upkeep of the lands. Theft dosn't hurt people, unless it is done in specific way..that is..to take something that they require to live. A person dosn't need a fancy house..they don't need a feast to serve kings. They need food (but not an abundance), they need a safe place to sleep (but not a mansion). In essence..a neutral thief..when they steal...will still only those things a person may want..but they, in no way, actually need. Whether or not they need it or not, it is rightfully theirs. Just because they don't need it doesn't mean you have the right to take it from them. *snip*
Swiss619 04-11-05, 01:07 PM	Originally posted by Dragonchild Swiss619, I see your idea and think it's close, but on a detailed level I think you're dead wrong. Lawful does mean you obey laws, whether or not you agree with them. To have your own system means you're disciplined. .... But saying, "To heck with the laws, I got my own system," shows an utter disrespect for social systems that no Lawful person would ever exhibit. It's not saying the person created their own system. I'll give you an example: cold war espionage. The CIA hires and trains a spy, then sneds them to the USSR to collect information. The spy is breaking the laws of the USSR, but is acting in accordance with the rules and guidelines of the CIA and USA. They don't do it because they are evil, and it doesn't nescesarily mean they aren't lawful people. It's just a matter of who's laws. The LG Rogue would obey the laws and code of conduct the guild levies, not the society. Maybe he is from another city-state, or the guild operates illegally, but has recruited him. It's all a matter of how you establish the details of the world the rogue is to operate in. To cite another modern day example: drug rings. They use a rigid hierarchy, demand tribute/fealty from their underlings, and work as a unit to acheive their desired end. That's a lawful system, due to the hierarchy and rigid rule set. Unfortunitally for them, it's an illegal lawful system. IMO, lawful just regards to respect for a system. Dragonchild, I know wedisagree on this, but that's cool. Thinking people don't always agree on everything. :tiphat:
Stafir Ortnev 04-11-05, 01:15 PM	If you said that to me and I were the queen of a region, I'd either exile you (more likely), or when my lands got invaded, deny you entry into the defensive keep (if I let you even stay in my lands). Everyone in my lands are part of my system. You are in my lands. You are in my system. You can go somewhere else, out of my lands. In the modern world... imagine you own a house. Someone you don't know wants to live in your house. Are you going to let them live there for free? Probably not. You're going to charge them rent for the upkeep of the house. Apply that in a grander scale to the system of government and taxes. You are paying your "rent" for the upkeep of the lands. What rent? I was born and raised here..my family has had the land for generations...they gave it to me..the 'king' is merely some big pompous fool who came in after my family and claimed the land as his. I don't have the ability to leave the land...and my family fought for the right and protected this land on their own. Then this king comes by..and tells me that my land..that my family fought for, that they have raised for generations. Is his? Just because he said 'hey its mine now..and this law says so'. Even though I was never even a part of this law? I'm sorry..I will not look up to you as some sort of benevolent leader..I'm sorry..but you are being evil. You are taking things that rightfully belonged to me..and in return you are doing nothing that affects me..other than 'letting' me live on land that is already mine. Whether or not they need it or not, it is rightfully theirs. Just because they don't need it doesn't mean you have the right to take it from them. By law its rightfully theirs. I'll agree there. This is why its chaotic to steal. The point being made here is not if its ok under the law or not..the question is if its evil or good.
totoro 04-12-05, 04:17 AM	What rent? I was born and raised here..my family has had the land for generations...they gave it to me..the 'king' is merely some big pompous fool who came in after my family and claimed the land as his. I don't have the ability to leave the land...and my family fought for the right and protected this land on their own. Then this king comes by..and tells me that my land..that my family fought for, that they have raised for generations. Is his? Just because he said 'hey its mine now..and this law says so'. Even though I was never even a part of this law? I'm sorry..I will not look up to you as some sort of benevolent leader..I'm sorry..but you are being evil. You are taking things that rightfully belonged to me..and in return you are doing nothing that affects me..other than 'letting' me live on land that is already mine. Taxation is a good example of lawful theft. Countries are fictions held together by those who are strong enough. The taxes that are collected by the political elite in every country are far greater than that needed to maintain the roads and bridges. How your politicians choose to spend your money is a function of their personal alignments. Honestly, there isn't really that much difference between the government taking your money to fund an invasion of countries you don't want invaded and the mob collecting protection money. Both are utterly distasteful, but, supposedly, both keep you safe if you pay up (and both are merciless if you do not). However, they are only distasteful you are not lawful evil. (Unless you live in New Zealand where the politicians are good.) :)
Dragonchild 04-12-05, 11:32 AM	Naeron, you can have your PHB, and I'll have my role-playing. Swiss619, I'll admit, you half-stumped me with the example of a spy choosing between two systems. But I think while you shot down my rhetoric (which was badly worded), you reinforced my point. Because while said spy may not be obeying Russian law, he's operating according to U.S. laws despite being thousands of miles from the U.S. border! So, we really are talking about giving one system preferential treatment over another. Fine, I'll concede that point, but it was forced. The root of your argument is exactly the same as the point I'm trying to make: respect for the system. (In the spy's case, the U.S. system.) Compare that to the examples flying around here. Personal codes? Thieves' Guilds? The Mafia? As if having my own rules or simply carrying a membership card to Joe's Footpads suddenly makes me Lawful. You don't escape the rules of society by joining a frickin' club, people. Take the Mafia. Organized crime is organized, yeah. But the closest they get to Lawful is traditions (which are played fast and loose), not rules (which are followed). In the crime world, it's not what you do, but who you are. For example, there could be a rule against spitting indoors. So? Who's going to point that out to the Godpigeon when he coughs up a wad in the kitchen? The Mafia is hardly an exemplary example of a consistent, lawful organization. It only looks that way because they have to be organized to conduct business, but there's my point: Organized/complex does not equal Lawful. As I said, the former is disciplined, but discipline, even hierarchical discipline, lacks a systemic element that's characteristic of Lawful. I adhere to a ton of rules at work, and I'm very organized there. Does that make me Lawful? No, I'm organized because I'm paid to be organized, and I can't get work done if I'm not. The pile of papers on my desk does not make me Lawful; give me half a chance and I'll throw them out the window! There's a difference between coerced behavior (anyone can act Lawful if there's money to be made) and respect for the system. Furthermore, while everyone wants to focus on so-called "Lawful" people preferring one system over another, I'd like to point out that to most Lawful people, rules are cumulative, not mutually exclusive. Again, take my job. People are expected to obey company policy AND all governmental laws from city to federal. That's so obvious it's ridiculous that I have to point it out. Obeying the company rule to wear shoes doesn't suddenly make stealing acceptable! When systems collide, they stack to restrict Lawful behavior. Following the rules of some club does not suddenly make the government moot! To close, I admit, respecting a system doesn't mean obeying it 100%. I concede that ground. But I really hate the examples flying around here. Being Lawful, if nothing else, means showing a lot more regard for social systems than most of what I'm reading around here.
Leap 04-13-05, 04:44 AM	Actually I'm defining ownership by the very thing that made ownership..the law :). Consider the only 'owners' in the animal kingdom..are those who are strong enough to keep it from being taken from them...and those who can steal or hide their stuff...will also keep what they have. If you want to define things by natural order..that right there would be the natural order...whatever you can take, and keep off of other people's hands is yours. But if they are stronger, or sneakier..its then theirs. Of course I'll still agree I'm a bit lawful IRL..but thats besides the point :). Legislation is just a new form of strength/sneakyness.....it is not an absolute form of such though. There remain other forms of strength/sneakyness and thus possession. Taxes aren't evil. Taxes are used to make roads, hire soldiers to protect the land, to build keeps, castles, forts, public buildings, and public spaces, pay for services, and pay for adventurers Taxes are used to impose a will on a land, usually with an economic order attached. They are used to consolidate a powerbase. Why should I pay? Oh right..you'll throw me in jail, because I didn't pay your items..and you'll probably storm in..and take the house and property that I staked out..I claimed..and I grew on for years..just because I happened to be born in an area you are claiming as yours. Bah! Theft dosn't hurt people, unless it is done in specific way..that is..to take something that they require to live. A person dosn't need a fancy house..they don't need a feast to serve kings. They need food (but not an abundance), they need a safe place to sleep (but not a mansion). In essence..a neutral thief..when they steal...will still only those things a person may want..but they, in no way, actually need. [raises glass] If you said that to me and I were the queen of a region, I'd either exile you (more likely), or when my lands got invaded, deny you entry into the defensive keep (if I let you even stay in my lands). Everyone in my lands are part of my system. You are in my lands. You are in my system. You can go somewhere else, out of my lands Proves the point very well, thankyou ;) We may find yours claims arrogant nonsense. "Serfs" are pawns in the lords strategies, it generally makes no difference which lord rules yet they always like to suggest "they" are the most benevolent ;) In the modern world... imagine you own a house. Someone you don't know wants to live in your house. Are you going to let them live there for free? Probably not. You're going to charge them rent for the upkeep of the house. Apply that in a grander scale to the system of government and taxes. You are paying your "rent" for the upkeep of the lands So you would claim to have built the land, comparing your relationship with nature to that of housebuilder to house?? *cough* Hubris *cough* ;)
TheBard 04-13-05, 07:06 AM	Lawful good thief... Sounds cool. When I read this, I get this character idea about a specialist working for the government or another "lawful" organisation. Kind of a spy. You enter enemy territory, make your way through the headquarter and find (= "steal") the secret plans of enemy camps, arms and raid groups. Then you return. Splinter Cell's Sam Fisher is a "Lawful Good" Thief :-)
Stafir Ortnev 04-13-05, 11:37 PM	Actually..it depends on the legislation. Some do use it as the new brute stength. However...many use it to give people who don't have the sneakyness or brute stength...the ability to keep items they otherwise could not keep. This is where the lawfulness comes in. Law says they deserve it simply because they payed money, or had it first...or whatever. They don't need to protect it...law does it first. Law introduces the idea that an item belongs to a person..not that the person has managed to keep the item for their own use. And it introduces the idea that taking an item from someone..without their permission...is a bad thing. But yeah..in many cases (such as the several kingdom/taxation examples I used) legeslation is simply another way for someone to strong arm someone out of their money.
totoro 04-14-05, 02:59 AM	Actually..it depends on the legislation. Some do use it as the new brute stength. However...many use it to give people who don't have the sneakyness or brute stength...the ability to keep items they otherwise could not keep. This is where the lawfulness comes in. Law says they deserve it simply because they payed money, or had it first...or whatever. They don't need to protect it...law does it first. Law introduces the idea that an item belongs to a person..not that the person has managed to keep the item for their own use. And it introduces the idea that taking an item from someone..without their permission...is a bad thing. But yeah..in many cases (such as the several kingdom/taxation examples I used) legeslation is simply another way for someone to strong arm someone out of their money. Taxation is still lawful theft, though. If you want to steal money from people to help the weak, then you are lawful good. If you want to steal to maintain an orderly society, then you might be lawful neutral. Of course, any evil alignment would happily tax as much as possible!
Leap 04-14-05, 03:50 AM	Actually..it depends on the legislation. Some do use it as the new brute stength. However...many use it to give people who don't have the sneakyness or brute stength...the ability to keep items they otherwise could not keep. Ah, but then I said "strength" not "brute strength"..... This is where the lawfulness comes in. Law says they deserve it simply because they payed money, or had it first...or whatever. They don't need to protect it...law does it first. Law introduces the idea that an item belongs to a person..not that the person has managed to keep the item for their own use. Nope, it becomes simply a new way of keeping others off your "property" (by instigating legislative sanctions against them).