Post/Author/DateTime	Post
EGD Eric 03-04-05, 03:20 AM	Here's the situation: I'm making a new character with a DM who's only Dmed 1.4 sessions I wanted to play a character that steals for a living (but doesn't kill) and he complained, saying that that was just too game breaking, that there'd be no reason for you to join the party, that "Evil characters in a good party are annoying". Me: "I'm not going to be evil" DM: "What do you call robbing people of all their stuff?" (I wanted to be a pirate, sort of a "honorable" one sort of) Me: "well, I guess that's evil, but.." Eventually he argues alot, keeps sighing and asking me why I've got to complain and whine so much.... Feeling guilty about this, I decide to back down, I'll be the same character, but during the raids on ships, once in a while (as hard as they try) someone on the receiving end of the looting ends up dying, and at some point I just cant take it anymore, because that last one had alot of death in it, unavoidable or not, so he quits the crew, goes to the bar and drowns his sorrows in booze.... DM: "That's much more interesting" Me: (Not agreeing with the "anti-thief" attitude, but actually liking this character hang up, so I shut up..... But that doesn't last, next I say: "But I'll still steal stuff once in a while..." "What? No! What do you call stealing people's stuff? Me: "Chaotic" DM: Its evil, so you'd eventually turn evil... Failing that you'd get the party in trouble by stealing something... or cause an inter-party argument, which isn't fun...its annoying... Me, after slow tired argument (its late): "Fine I won't steal" By the way, this is the second idea for my character, the first was a rooftop thief, but he Xed that idea too. By the way I've never ONCE ever, in my years of playing D&D ever played a shifty dude. My characters are always good honorable guys. I can play this character, no problem, I just wanted a chance to play a somewhat shady character for once.
anders 03-04-05, 03:46 AM	your dm is right. If you want to play a shady character play one with a dm thats fine about having evil characters.
Fiery_Fighter_Drake 03-04-05, 04:11 AM	Stealing in and off itself is not evil, it is the purpose of the stealing that can be evil. Are you stealing to increase your personal wealth? Then it is evil or at best chaotic neutral. Are you stealing because you've just lost your job and need to feed your family of 4? Then it's chaotic good because you're following your own moral compass instead of obeying the rules. Talk with your DM and explain to him the difference between stealing because you want to and because you need to.
Ut-Napishtim 03-04-05, 04:11 AM	I disagree. I've been DMing for years, and as I've said on other threads the only thing players are garaunteed is the suff in the PHB. DM's that start messing with stuff in there should be wary of player backlash. Since you said 'Thief' I'm guessing you guys are playing 2E - you should really consider upgrading to 3.5. It's entirely possible to have a LG Rogue in 3.5 - just beacause you know how to pick a lock doesn't mean you use that talent to rob people. Even if you do, that's not evil - it's chaotic. I guess that make Bilbo Baggins evil too - after all, he was hired as a 'burglar' by the Dwarfs. Heck, my current character in one of my players' games is a LN Fighter/Rogue. Now he doesn't go around robbing people and stuff, but is more of a 'security consultant' kind of guy that disarms traps and picks locks for the party when they're in a dungeon or something. It's perfectly possible to have a CN or CG Rogue that doesn't want to kill people, but simply sneak their riches out from under them. By your DM's logic Robin Hood and Santa Claus would be evil too (how many counts of B&E does Santa rack up on Christmas Eve?). Who cares if he was bringing toys and joy to children - he broke the law and is evil! Whatever. :rolleyes:
MarkB 03-04-05, 04:44 AM	If you genuinely don't intend your character to steal indiscriminately from innocents, for mere personal gain, then try coming up with some famous non-evil thieves from fiction and history. Bilbo Baggins has already been mentioned, start from him and Robin Hood and maybe try to find an example that's close to your character. Make it clear that your character would only be stealing from the bad guys, and only to further the party's goals, and that he certainly won't be taking anything from other party members, and if your DM is at all reasonable, he should see the light. Of course, if the above is not how you intend to play your character, it becomes much more likely that your DM was right to be wary of letting you play a thief, and you should reconsider your character.
Arrowhen 03-04-05, 04:58 AM	The REAL reason your DM doesn't want your character to steal isn't that stealing is EVIL, it's that stealing creates MORE WORK for him. For example: say your party stops at a small town to rest for the night on their way to the Dark Dungeons of Deja Vu. For your average lousy DM, a small town is nothing more than a tavern where you can rest and get plot hooks thrown at you and MAYBE a blacksmith. However, if your character decides to sneak off in the middle of the night and find someone or something to rob, suddenly your DM has to treat the town as what it is--a living, breathing community. Suddenly he has to answer all sorts of questions: What kinds of businesses are nearby? How many people are on the street after dark? Just how dark is it after dark? How big is the town watch? How often do they patrol? How well-equipped are they? What do they DO when they catch a thief red handed? Too many questions! Too much creativity required! What do I do? Wait, I've got it! "Stealing is evil. Play a fighter." The alignment system sucked thirty years ago and it hasn't improved any with age. There are times when I'm convinced that the only purpose alignment serves is to give lousy DMs an excuse to say "Nuh uh! Your character can't do that!" when a player tries something said lousy DM wasn't prepared for.
Mordmorgan the Mad 03-04-05, 05:19 AM	DM: "What do you call robbing people of all their stuff?" Ummm...A get-rich-quick scheme that might actually work? I bet your DM wouldn't get mad at you for taking a black dragon's hoard right after you bashed it's head in with a mallet, now would he? Looking at that from the dragon's POV (or the dragon's mate's POV), that'd be murder and theft. Sure, stealing candy from babies is bad. Taking a boat-load of gold from folks too stupid to guard against theft properly? Not Lawful, but not necessarily Evil either. (Now burning down the ship with them in the cargo hold, even after they've all surrendered, that's evil.)
anders 03-04-05, 05:56 AM	The REAL reason your DM doesn't want your character to steal isn't that stealing is EVIL, it's that stealing creates MORE WORK for him. In my opinion stealing IS evil. Robbing a commoner of his hard earned money, robbing a blacksmith of his eqipment, a noble of his gold -- all that is evil. On the other hand, robbing an evil mage of his ring of world destruction is not evil. "But I'll still steal stuff once in a while..." Why on earth do you want to "steal stuff" once in a while. Provide your dm with some motive and he might look at it differently. (The character has always been cleptomaniac stealing small things from everyone -- not for the value of the things, but because he has this obsession to take whatever he sees. This is also bad for the party because his disease will eventually make him steal things from them.)
Knight_of_spades 03-04-05, 06:05 AM	Sure, stealing candy from babies is bad. Taking a boat-load of gold from folks too stupid to guard against theft properly? Not Lawful, but not necessarily Evil either. To blame the victim is evil, to steal to fill your own pockets is evil. I'm so tired of "creative" players who try to find excuses for the simple fact that they STEAL TO GET RICH! It does not matter if the owners had less then average int, it does not matter if there were no lock on the door. All that matter is the intention of the criminal.
Rowan_Whispercloak 03-04-05, 06:49 AM	OK here is where we are getting into trouble. Sure you all have your own ideas of what is right and wrong, but that doesn't mean that your beliefs, or mine for that matter are the absolute never-failing correct path. Not all cultures have the same norms and morals. As stated by most of the post, "stealing is evil". Here is where we get into problems. You believe that stealing is wrong, because your culture believes this, however what does your character and his/her culture believe. As stated then if the former is the solid unchanging view, then halfling culture is one of those hidden evils that must be stamped out in a holy crusade. But I will admit that stealing in party leads to less fun all around. Unfortunately EGD Eric you have to deal with the way your DM runs things, if you can not then you will have to find another group sad but true. To all you DMs who are on a power trip, settle down, this isn't a game where it you vs. the players. It is a game where you get to escape and be someone/something else. Be the hero that echos in the deepest memory of humanity. To players give the DMs a brake. They have a hard job, turning your ragtag montely crew of miscreants (sp) into hero and legends To everyone, just remember we play DND because we enjoy it. That enjoyment is all that is really important in the end isn't it.
Cold Napalm 03-04-05, 07:16 AM	Okay I have a degree in anthropology and believe when I say stealing is wrong in ALL cultural mores. There are cultures where you can kill somebody and take their stuff just fine but to just steal it is wrong. So yeah from an absolute point of view, it could be argues that stealing is MORE evil then murder...just not in our society...or that of what most D&D games are based off from. Anyways, sounds like a bloody aweful DM...I'd ditch him and find a new game or offer to take over as DM and show him how it's actually done.
anders 03-04-05, 07:26 AM	... Anyways, sounds like a bloody aweful DM ... Based upon this (which is the only knowledge we have of the dm in question) DM: Its evil, so you'd eventually turn evil... Failing that you'd get the party in trouble by stealing something... or cause an inter-party argument, which isn't fun...its annoying... "Evil characters in a good party are annoying" Me: "I'm not going to be evil" DM: "What do you call robbing people of all their stuff?" I guess that makes me a lousy DM as well, because I have the same views as the DM in question... I guess my idea of a good DM is a bit different from yours.
Thorak 03-04-05, 07:27 AM	In my opinion stealing IS evil. Robbing a commoner of his hard earned money, robbing a blacksmith of his eqipment, a noble of his gold -- all that is evil. On the other hand, robbing an evil mage of his ring of world destruction is not evil. You are, like his DM and others, confusing "evil" with "chaotic". Since we live in a society that equally reviles both, this isn't surprising. To quote the PHB, evil is "hurting, oppressing, and killing others." Theft doesn't always do this. Heck, look at the examples of the alignments in the PHB. The CG archetype is "Soveliss, a rager who waylays the evil baron's tax collectors". He's stealing, and attacking people. And he's very explicitly Good. If a thief will kill whoever gets in their way, they're evil. It has nothing to do with thievery, and everything to do with "will kill whoever gets in their way". The sneak thief who only steals from those who can clearly afford it, and refuses to bring a weapon because he couldn't live with himself if he hurt anyone, isn't bloody evil. Heck, he could be Exalted. Why on earth do you want to "steal stuff" once in a while. Provide your dm with some motive and he might look at it differently. (The character has always been cleptomaniac stealing small things from everyone -- not for the value of the things, but because he has this obsession to take whatever he sees. This is also bad for the party because his disease will eventually make him steal things from them.) 1> Because he needs the funds to do good deeds, like saving the world. So he steals from those who can afford to help but don't have the morals to bother. 2> Because he steals from nasty people, because in mistreating others, they've shown they don't deserve what they have. You'd be justified in removing an oppressive noble through violence, so why wouldn't bankrupting them through theft be a better choice? 3> Because he disagrees with a highly constrained society, and thinks the various taxes are unfair, so he steals from tax collectors while trying not to hurt them, because they're just doing their jobs 4> Because somebody's going to steal things, because where there's a niche, people will fill it. And the thief would rather see someone like himself, with moral compunctions, filling the role than a nastier sort who doesn't think twice of killing. That's four, and all are perfectly compatible, two being derivative of the archetypal example of, Chaotic Good. Stealing is Chaotic. It's the reasons why and the other actions taken during that make it good or evil. A Lawful Evil character would find a thief disgusting, because they flagrantly break the rules they live by. As disgusting as a LG character would. Because it's contrary to their Lawful nature, it has nothing to do with good or evil.
anders 03-04-05, 08:08 AM	Torak: I agree, Robin hood most likely was chaotic good or something like that. You are, like his DM and others, confusing "evil" with "chaotic" No, i'm not. evil is "hurting" - you hurt someone when you steal their money. The money they are buying food with, buying birthday gifts, etc. Wouldt you say robbing Little jonny for his 1000gp he just got from some obscure mission to buy his familiy from slavery is evil? I could go on and on, but this is what random robbing does. You random rob innocent people and its stupid and it has evil consequenses. "Soveliss, a rager who waylays the evil baron's tax collectors" I agree, Robin hood. He is, however, NOT random robbing. He is doing this for a purpose, not for his personal gain, but because he wants to defeat the evil Tyran. The sneak thief who only steals from those who can clearly afford it, and refuses to bring a weapon because he couldn't live with himself if he hurt anyone, isn't bloody evil. See above. I clarly stated in my post that On the other hand, robbing an evil mage of his ring of world destruction is not evil. However, the original poster did not mention anything like this. He just "wanted to steal a little". 1> Because he needs the funds to do good deeds, like saving the world. So he steals from those who can afford to help but don't have the morals to bother. 2> Because he steals from nasty people, because in mistreating others, they've shown they don't deserve what they have. You'd be justified in removing an oppressive noble through violence, so why wouldn't bankrupting them through theft be a better choice? 3> Because he disagrees with a highly constrained society, and thinks the various taxes are unfair, so he steals from tax collectors while trying not to hurt them, because they're just doing their jobs 4> Because somebody's going to steal things, because where there's a niche, people will fill it. And the thief would rather see someone like himself, with moral compunctions, filling the role than a nastier sort who doesn't think twice of killing. Yes. -- these are 4 good examples. And i'm sure if he mentioned this to his DM instead of just saying "But I'll still steal stuff once in a while..." his DM would understand the motives of his character and agree to what he is doing. Stealing is Chaotic. And it can both be good and evil as I already stated in my previous post. It highly depends on the motives. The only motivation supported in the original post of this thread, however: "But I'll still steal stuff once in a while...". I might have misinterpered, but my understanding was that he would steal from random (innocent) dudes. (his dms quote: DM: "What do you call robbing people of all their stuff?") EGD Eric: If any of the reasons Torak gave for stealing makes sense to you or your character, tell the dm that and he might think differently. If you said basically what you've said in this thread i'd support your dm 100% in his decision.
Heahengel 03-04-05, 09:07 AM	Just because a character performs evil actions, it doesn't make them evil. I would have no problem with a good, or especially neutral, character performing evil actions on occasion. If a rogue generally worked for the good of king and country, but had a taste for the finer things in life, and so ripped off a few houses now and then, it doesn't mean he is evil. Alignments shouldn't be absolute. Evil behavior should be weighed against good behavior. In the case of neutral characters, I would expect them to perform some more shady actions once and a while. Few people have a problem when a neutral character does something good, so why would it be out of character for them to do something evil? Of course the severity of the action should be part of the consideration - if your character likes to torture people to death, he is probably evil. Also, I wouldn't say that the act of harming someone is necessarilly evil. How about a Lawful Neutral character whose main concern is to complete the mission that he is given at any cost - maybe he works for the king, and believes that his will is paramount. He would probably torture someone for information, if he felt he needed to, or use a fireball to assassinate someone who was dangerous to his nation (even if he had to kill a few bystanders), if it was the most efficient method. I wouldn't necessarily call this evil (you could argue that this guy is LE, but I think the important factor is that an LE character would be doing this for himself). As for this specific case, I can't say whether I agree with the DM without more info. If he is objecting to thieves as PCs in general, I would dissagree with him, but there could easily be something about the campaign that he is running that would justify him not wanting a thief. Maybe he wants a campaign where all the PCs really are completely noble. Or maybe one of the other players is a paladin, which really would mean that a thief would create group conflict. In these cases, I think the DM should be a bit more flexible - if the players don't want to play a true good vs. evil campaign, they shouldn't have to, and if two characters in a group won't work together, the players should have a chance to work it out between each other, but I can still see the DMs point - especially if there is a consensus among the other players.
Ut-Napishtim 03-04-05, 09:31 AM	Or maybe one of the other players is a paladin, which really would mean that a thief would create group conflict. I don't see it that way. Spot isn't a class skill for a Paladin, ergo if you have a good Rogue, a talented DM, and players whom aren't metagaming or out to get one-another I don't see why it would ever be a problem at all. There may be the occaisonal 'strategy' difference between the two, but that's hardly something players should be coming to blows with each other over.
Heahengel 03-04-05, 09:53 AM	A Paladin playing close to his vows would have to take issue with a thief if he noticed what was up (although this might depend on what deity he was worshipping). But as I said, I think the DM should let the players work something like that out between themselves if they can, and only make ruling like this if it was apparent that there would be a problem. Having the Paladin be oblivious would be a good solution, especially in a less serious campaign. Anyway, if the DM is up for it, I think having conflict inside the group can be great (as long as it stops short of PKing). My last character had some real problems with the party rogue, but that was mostly because he had 'accidentally' killed my wife without me knowing about it till later. It provided some great roleplaying, and our DM was great, in that he put up with a few characters spiraling into evil.
MrkGrismer 03-04-05, 10:04 AM	My reading of the core rules is that stealing (in general) is chaotic, not evil. As far as this particular issue goes, however, ask your DM if you can play a NG Rogue that would never ever steal from his friends (the party), but is not above a little 'creative entry' or 'liberation' of bad-guys stuff (slightly robin hoodish).
Bonzai 03-04-05, 10:16 AM	One of my two favorite characters that I play is a rogue4/wiz 5/invis blade 5/infiltrator 2. And guess what? He steals, I play him as a true neutral character. Back story; He was born a street urchin in a town near Luskan. He learned to steal to survive, and became exceptionally good as a catburgler. He was smart enough to know that his future as a thief was limited, and had dreams of a life of luxury and power as a wizard. Eventually he proved himself to a kindly wizard, and was accepted as an apprentice. Unfortunatly the wizard had another apprentice who was a haughty sun of a minor nobleman. His parents paid for his apprenticeship, and he resented the fact that a mere orphan and street thief was given the same opportunity as him. Eventually, the apprentice set up my character, and framed him for stealing something. With his past, he was an easy scapegoat and was forced to leave. Disillusioned he joined up with the first merchant caravan he found and left town. There he joined up with other adventurers. After some time he wound up in Calimport, and joined a theives guild. Now, he specializes in "Recovery". People pay his guild to "Recover" things, and he is in turn the man they hire for the job. And thats how he views it. It is a job. Two brothers are fighting over the rights of an heirloom, one can hire the guild, and He'll "Recover" it for him. Some merchant wants the client lists of a rival? My character can "recover" it for him. He doesn't randomly steal, he is hired to go after specific items (although he isn't against pocketing a few stray gp or gems along the way). He avoids killing, as he prides himself on being a thief, not an assasin. So, he is neither chaotic, nor evil. His stealing actually is a way to bring in story hooks, and should make the dm's life easier, not harder. I hate a DM with a closed mind. A comprimise should be made. Lol, but just once in game when the party is about to loot something yell, "Stop! It would be stealing, and thats just wrong"! :D
bookwurm 03-04-05, 10:24 AM	Personally, it sounds like your DM is trying to run your character for you. its your character, not his. if he cant handle running a game where his players get to pick what they want to play, he dont need to DM :twocents: excuse the sloppy grammer, i'm in a hurry :D
Phrennzy 03-04-05, 10:46 AM	"But I'll still steal stuff once in a while..." Red Alert! What a horribly ambiguous statement. Clarification is much needed: 1. What kind of things do you expect to be stealing? 2. Who do you plan on stealing from? 3. How often is "once in a while"? The answers to these questions would help me as DM decide on how to run the game with your PC choice - or whether I would be inclined to tone down your ideas. If you plan on stealing from the poor farmer or the blacksmith in some backwater town, that's just wrong. Mince words all you want, but it's wrong. The way the phrase "But I'll still steal stuff once in a while..." strikes me is just someone who plans on playing chaotic stupid. Now, that may not be the case, but that's how the statement strikes me - so I can totally understand the DM's perspective. Go into more detail about how and why you want to steal and maybe he'll be less harsh.
Bacon and Eggs 03-04-05, 10:56 AM	I play rogues. Not for their sneaky theif like abilities, but all of those sweet skill points and special abilities. To this date, my rogue characters have stolen exactly nothing. Sure you get the spoils of war after you slaughter something. I find it detracts from every single other player and DM at the table when a rogue/ninja type character wants to go off on their own and theif things. This is why I don't do it, or allow it to happen in games that I DM. I've gone through too many games where there is a 10 minute side bar each time to have Oliver and Company try to snag coins from the pockets of those in the crowds. Fun for one, boring for the rest. I don't mind stealing, but it has to advance the current plot. For example, sneaking the spell book away from the known BBEG mage would be an effective tactic. This is also why I don't allow for stereotyped kender. ... had this same debate 15 years ago too :mymy:
ShadowDragon8685 03-04-05, 11:01 AM	Why does everyone use Robbin Hood as a CG example? Robin of Loxley was NOT a CG rebel fighting Prince John. He was stealing from everyone he could to raise the money to ransom King James back from the turks, who demanded money for him, and Prince John said "Oh, nope. Sorry about that, but I don't think I shall. Let 'em rot." He didn't give two whits about robbing the rich to give to the poor. He was robbing everyone he could to get the money to restore his own King to the throne. And no, stealing is not Evil. It is Chaotic. Evil is when you steal from someone who cannot afford it. Evil stealing is taking a poor family's last coppers. Most theft is neutral. It happens to people who can soak the hit and keep going.
Knight_of_spades 03-04-05, 11:14 AM	Heck, look at the examples of the alignments in the PHB. The CG archetype is "Soveliss, a rager who waylays the evil baron's tax collectors". He's stealing, and attacking people. And he's very explicitly Good. No he is not stealing he is taking back the evil baron stole. Get a grip. You all _know_ what we are talking about here: the player in question wants to steal from common merchants and everyday npc's. If he kept his eyes on the reward he would get from stealing the "ring of world destruction" from the evil wizard there would be no trouble, if he kept his skills to remove recourses from the enemy encampment then there would be no trouble. Trouble is he is a thief: He is going to cruise around alone (taking up precious game time) picking the pockets of peasants, so that when he get caught he can kill some innocents, make an excuse about "self-defense" and frame the group. He just wants to create trouble nothing more. Why do you think playing a thief is that important to him anyway? Why do you think the Dm goes to the rather large step and refusing him to run a rouge.
Steelborn86 03-04-05, 11:25 AM	Well if your DM doesn't want you stealing stuff, play a kender rogue. You won't steal stuff, you just decide to borrow stuff that no one uses anymore. :P
ShadowDragon8685 03-04-05, 11:33 AM	So what if he wants to go around picking pockets? Just roll up his Sleight of Hand Vs. the average guard's Take 10 score on a Spot check. Chances are he's gonna win, and he gets to add what, 2d4 coppers to his total? Big whoop. If he wants to perform a Garrit job, that's his right as a player. Hell, he might even recruit the other party members. The ONLY time you have a problem is when he's stealing from the other party members. And make it PERFECTLY clear that if you can STEAL from party members, you can KILL party members. That'll curb his actions. No Rogue wants to get into a toe-to-toe barney with a barbarian.
EGD Eric 03-04-05, 11:56 AM	I disagree. I've been DMing for years, and as I've said on other threads the only thing players are garaunteed is the suff in the PHB. DM's that start messing with stuff in there should be wary of player backlash. Since you said 'Thief' I'm guessing you guys are playing 2E - you should really consider upgrading to 3.5. No, no we're playing 3.5. And no, he's got nothing against the rogue class, just the concept of a selfish character. Everyone in the group right now is either NG or LG. BTW, I've been the DM of this group for a while, and one session these new players showed up with their halfling thief characters. Before they met with the group, one of them turned the other invisible and the other ran into a caravan filling his pack with valuables (silk, etc..) from wagons. I had no problem with it. Later on during the same session the same halfling thief did a few days of pickpocketing, made some coin... then he got caught in some port town, but his friend showed up and saved him by casting "fear" on the human chasing him. I try not to be judgemental when DMing. I have one regular player who tied up the surviving kobolds after a fight, question them, and then dispatch them. Lawful good character. I didn't bat an eyelash. His background is that he's from some island/archipelago nation far far away, its a really dangerous place, where only the strong survive, yada, yada... so he's like: Good, lawful, follows some kind of code, but he's pragmatic at the same time. The contradictions are beautiful. The "stealing stuff once in a while" thing.. I didn't really elaborate, I mentioned though that my char would NEVER steal from his friends, for practical reasons (they're the kind of people you don't want to get angry) if not for ethical reasons (be they twisted and ambiguous ethics indeed: Stealing is just plain WRONG, but some people (in real life too), find ways of justifying one type of stealing, while condemning another kind. Heck, How many of us have software on our computers that we didn't pay for? :eek: But then when a new PC game comes out, a game I've been looking forward too, and someone offers to pirate it for me, I say hell no, that's wrong, I'd rather buy it. Hypocritical perhaps, but life is full of contradictions. I even threw in this stuff: (BTW, this is for a Swashbuckler char with 1 lvl of rogue: Swashbucklers are like fighers, but with less armor/feats, more skills) -maybe his mother's a widower, and he has lots of brothers & sisters? He could be doing it for them mostly. -Ok, if you want, my char is nice enough that he won't rob an already poor person blind. Only rob from from semi-rich people. (the fully rich one's security is too tight for my 1 level of rogue) A resounding NO... then again, we were both kind of tired when I asked this... I feel perfectly comfortable playing this guy as a good guy who won't steal. I've made him into a swashbuckler with a level of rogue (no, I don't get the huge skill bonus for first level). That's because everyone I play is always a character whose ethics match mine exactly. For once I wanted to play one who didn't, add a little flavour/balance to this party that's full of goodie two-shoes. But, even then, what's wrong with my first character idea? I wanted a full rogue who made a living from stealing. He discouraged that one because he couldn't think of a reason for me to join the party. :rolleyes: Most Dms wouldn't bat an eye at the classic "thief" character. Back in 2E, they automatically assumed you were a "thief", and DMs were like, yeah, here's your character. Want to join the overly-conspicuous thieves guild? Sure, why not? :P
Thoronmir 03-04-05, 12:13 PM	I'm making a new character with a DM who's only Dmed 1.4 sessionsI’ll side with the DM in this instance, but only because he’s a new DM (just "1.4 sessions"?). He’s expressed concern over how a PC who steals will fit in with the rest of the party. That’s a legitimate concern. As is his worry that any stealing by the party will lead to problems with NPCs. Actually, that part suggests that the DM at least has a clue about how to handle PC “misbehavior” … relying on in-game consequences rather than resorting to railroading. I don’t agree that stealing is per se Evil. But a new DM has a lot to learn. I can easily understand why he prefers to avoid the additional conflicts that may arise. It’s his prerogative. If he believes that other players will have negative reactions to a thief in their midst, he doesn’t want to risk inter-party squabbling. These are issues that can challenge experienced DMs. Give the guy some time to grow more comfortable in his job. I wanted to play a character that steals for a living.I don’t think the OP is necessarily playing 2nd ed … it sounds like he accurately described his character … a “thief” … which could be just about any class under 3.x (he made it clear he wants to play a PC who “steals” … that’s a “thief” regardless of his actual PC class).
MrkGrismer 03-04-05, 12:44 PM	I have no problem with a DM who disallows a character the would not fit in with the party. That is a good DM in my book. That said, however, I'd let the group vote on it.
Wizard 03-04-05, 04:40 PM	I agree with Mark on the DM's responsibility to enforce a certain measure of harmony within the party. But...I also doubt that the party will particularly care. And if they do...well, what sort of rogue would he be if he couldn't do things on the sly?
Lana "Silvertongue" 03-04-05, 05:18 PM	If 'Stealing' is too shady for your DM, try Gambling. Ease into it by asking what kind of 'games' are played at various towns after you've earned two or three levels (meaning if you start at level 1, wait till level 3 before asking) and in the meantime, Max out Bluff, Gather Information, Diplomacy and Sense Motive. If he questions you, point out improved feint or say that your the face who sells all the goods (You really need the Highest Charisma for this one). Go Bard! Pick up a few splatbooks and introduce him to chance games in slow increments. Races of had many games, as well as Complete series for duels (non-lethal) and mageduels (non-lethal) which provides for ways to incorporate your party. If you have a Ranged Fighter, have him wander the off time and challenge people to Archery (Skiprock, Bolt Et) contests, then be the one to rouse a crowd and start the betting, stating the odds and how much it costs to 'buy in'. This helps develop the group, earn you some coin and be a touch shady.... which they might figure out later, but if you pay them off a bit... IE, earn 30 gold, give him 5... or better yet tell him your paying for his room, a hot bath and meal... which sounds better than it is... but still earns you the right to your shady title. If he needs a explination for a character 'concept' simply tell him your a human ferengi.
Salla 03-04-05, 05:41 PM	Assuming that it's not too late ... try the Robin Hood approach. Rob from the robbers. It takes a thief to catch a thief. Scope out the merchants who are ripping off their clients, the nobles who are overtaxing their serfs, and go after them. Chaotic Good in a nutshell.
Callista 03-04-05, 07:13 PM	Okay I have a degree in anthropology and believe when I say stealing is wrong in ALL cultural mores. There are cultures where you can kill somebody and take their stuff just fine but to just steal it is wrong. So yeah from an absolute point of view, it could be argues that stealing is MORE evil then murder...just not in our society...or that of what most D&D games are based off from. Anyways, sounds like a bloody aweful DM...I'd ditch him and find a new game or offer to take over as DM and show him how it's actually done. Actually, what you've just proven is that most cultures think stealing is Chaotic. Let me explain: Evil: Something that hurts someone else. Chaotic: Something that goes against established social procedure/laws. Chaos and Evil are similar because both of them hold the individual to be more important than the whole of society. They're different because the Evil person believes they themselves are more important than the other person; the non-evil Chaotic person believes that individuals in general are more important than the society they make up; and that his own individual beliefs are more important than social customs or laws. Stealing, then, is Chaotic--going against social norms--though it can be either Good or Evil, or neither, as well. Robin Hood's style of thievery is Chaotic Good. He does what he does because he knows it will benefit other people; but he's hunted by organized society because what he's doing is CG in the jurisdiction of a LE government. Your basic street-kid pickpocket steals in a Chaotic Neutral way: He's sustaining his own life; and generally, people aren't going to be hurt in any great way if their pocket change is stolen. Chaotic Evil theft is what happens when someone steals something the victim desperately needs: Stealing food in time of famine; stealing the old farmer's life savings; stealing the soldier's weapon or the mage's spellbook while he's on a dangerous mission. I think a lot of confusion comes from the two-axis alignment system; and what's Chaotic is often mistaken for what is Evil; what's Lawful is often mistaken for what's Good. The DM in the original post seems to have misread the alignment section, believing that theft is "always evil". In my opinion, it's simply "sometimes evil, sometimes good, mostly Chaotic". Theft from party members CAN be a problem, though; as can theft that makes the Rogue richer than the fellow PCs. If the DM is worried about these things, tell him you're not going to do either of them, and he should be fine. If not... well, try a different sort of character. There are other character concepts out there which are just as fun as the shifty rogue.
ShadowDragon8685 03-04-05, 07:30 PM	Be a Rogue, and promise him you're not going to steal. And do it. Not a single instance of "Slieght of Hand" on your character sheet. But also no Disable Device. That'll jam the party up nicely. Then boost your Charisma and Inteligence. To the limits. You are going to be a Rat Bastard. Appraise, Bluff, Diplomacy, Forgery, Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Search, Sense Motive, Spot, Use Magic Device and Use Rope. 12. An 18 INT Rogue can easily manage that. A Human can with 16 INT, or you could pack in an extra skill with your 18 INT. The point is to be the most sickenlying effective gold-gatherer and sneaky rat-bastard you can be. Use your mad Forgery skills to withdraw money, use your Diplomacy and Appraise to buy low and sell high. In short, make awesome use of your powers to make money. And you're not stealing. :) And when the DM complains, tell him that you just wanted to pick some pockets, but NOOOOO, he had to bar you from it.
Cold Napalm 03-04-05, 07:38 PM	Humm callista...good point. Hehe okay stealing is more chaotic then murder.0 Anders, as for why I said BAD DM is not that the DM says stealing is evil (I personally believe so too and rule so in my games) but it's that he's telling a player no in a poor method of because I said so from the dialog...But if the DM shows up and has a different dialog, I might change my view to bad player. As for party harmony...hey some party conflicts is half the fun in most games I played.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 03-04-05, 07:46 PM	Here's the situation: I'm making a new character with a DM who's only Dmed 1.4 sessions . Here's the root of the problem: new DM. He probably don't want anything too funky (in his opinion) in his party as he's learning to DM. It's his right. You have to A): accept it B): don't play. After he's learned the ropes, you can probably convince him to let you play your concept... The REAL reason your DM doesn't want your character to steal isn't that stealing is EVIL, it's that stealing creates MORE WORK for him. More work for a new DM who don't think he can handle it=bad. Maybe he's worried of all the traps and stuff he,ll have to create, or he just don't want to solo play a thief whuile the party's bored (happens a lot). bottom line is, a DM's restrictions are golden. From the player's POV, the DM's arbitrarily disallowing his chosen class, yet nothing prevent him from making another PC. From a DM's perspective, the player is whinning because he can't have his toy...class, wich is gonna be troublesome for the DM.
feartheinvinceblehamster 03-04-05, 08:53 PM	Here's the situation: I'm making a new character with a DM who's only Dmed 1.4 sessions how do you DM .4 of a session?
Vriishnak 03-04-05, 09:15 PM	And when the DM complains, tell him that you just wanted to pick some pockets, but NOOOOO, he had to bar you from it. Oh, good thinking; he doesn't like the idea of a thief because it creates conflict, so you recommend something to make him wish he had just banned the player entirely. Something that accomplishes exactly the same thing in the same general way, no less. But hey, he didn't specifically say that he didn't want this kind of character either, right? :rolleyes: That's the sort of crap that would get a player booted from my table in no time flat.
ShadowDragon8685 03-04-05, 09:35 PM	Yeah, but you know... NaziDMs get me to walk. Banning non-Core is okay. Banning a perfectly Core concept is a no-no. So if you're going to bar me from my first concept, I'm going to make you regret it, and inflict the absoloute worst I can come up with on you. Whether that means going on down to the ole' CO boards and coming up with the most twinkazoid build I can to slaughterize my way through every conflict you come at us, or coming up with a Diploforger rogue who can sucker people into giving him what he wants and have the mark take you out to lunch after you screw 'em... Hehehe. And if you throw me, that's fine. You stopped being fun the moment you shot down the character I was already getting attached to. If you just eat and endure it, I may come to like this new character. If you throw me out, I get the satisfaction of having inflicted misery upon you for doing same to me. I'm a vindictive SOB like that. :)
Thorak 03-04-05, 09:50 PM	Torak: No, i'm not. evil is "hurting" - you hurt someone when you steal their money. The money they are buying food with, buying birthday gifts, etc. Wouldt you say robbing Little jonny for his 1000gp he just got from some obscure mission to buy his familiy from slavery is evil? I could go on and on, but this is what random robbing does. You random rob innocent people and its stupid and it has evil consequenses. See, now you're introducing a weighted example to force Stealing to be evil. If you're choosing to steal from those who will be hurt by your actions, yes, that's Evil. Because of the hurting, not the stealing. To turn it on it's ear, what if I stole $1000 from Bill Gates? That'll hurt him financially about as much as little pinch. Are people who pinch other people evil? Or how about people who yell at other people and hurt their feelings? There's a certain degree of hurt that's assumed by the alignment system. If it's a hurt that doesn't significantly affect them, then it's not Evil. It's not nice, but it's not Evil. I agree, Robin hood. He is, however, NOT random robbing. He is doing this for a purpose, not for his personal gain, but because he wants to defeat the evil Tyran. Again, you bring up random robbing. Obviously, a thief with moral issues would be picking and choosing targets so he doesn't hurt someone accidentally. If you're robbing anyone at random, you're evil, but it's not because of the theft, it's the lack of consideration for the effect of it. I clarly stated in my post that On the other hand, robbing an evil mage of his ring of world destruction is not evil. However, the original poster did not mention anything like this. He just "wanted to steal a little". Okay, so how about he steals the world's largest ruby from the Crown Jewels, not to sell it, but because he knows it was acquired hundreds of years ago under questionable circumstances, and he would like to make a name for himself. Is that evil? It's certainly chaotic, but I don't think anyone's going to be significantly hurt directly by the theft. And it can both be good and evil as I already stated in my previous post. It highly depends on the motives. The only motivation supported in the original post of this thread, however: "But I'll still steal stuff once in a while...". I might have misinterpered, but my understanding was that he would steal from random (innocent) dudes. (his dms quote: DM: "What do you call robbing people of all their stuff?") He said he'd steal stuff once in a while. I didn't see anything implying it would necessarily be random. Though it could have been meant that way, I don't see anything implying it.[/QUOTE] No he is not stealing he is taking back the evil baron stole. The example says tax collectors. Taxes are the entirely lawful monies due to the baron. The baron stole nothing. Get a grip. You all _know_ what we are talking about here: the player in question wants to steal from common merchants and everyday npc's. If he kept his eyes on the reward he would get from stealing the "ring of world destruction" from the evil wizard there would be no trouble, if he kept his skills to remove recourses from the enemy encampment then there would be no trouble. Trouble is he is a thief: He is going to cruise around alone (taking up precious game time) picking the pockets of peasants, so that when he get caught he can kill some innocents, make an excuse about "self-defense" and frame the group. He just wants to create trouble nothing more. Why do you think playing a thief is that important to him anyway? Why do you think the Dm goes to the rather large step and refusing him to run a rouge. Funny, I took the "occasionally steal stuff" to mean "if I see something I really want and whoever has it doesn't deserve it, I'll take it." Hardly knocking off innocent merchants and peasants and forcing them to starve.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 03-04-05, 09:59 PM	Yeah, but you know... NaziDMs get me to walk. Banning non-Core is okay. Banning a perfectly Core concept is a no-no. nope. I once Dmed a world where there was no elves. Does that make me bad? no. Am I a nazi DM for refusing a player to play the lone surviving elf? nope. If something doesn't fit in my campain, I won't allow it, period. So if you're going to bar me from my first concept, I'm going to make you regret it, and inflict the absoloute worst I can come up with on you. Whether that means going on down to the ole' CO boards and coming up with the most twinkazoid build I can to slaughterize my way through every conflict you come at us, or coming up with a Diploforger rogue who can sucker people into giving him what he wants and have the mark take you out to lunch after you screw 'em... Hehehe. And if you throw me, that's fine. You stopped being fun the moment you shot down the character I was already getting attached to. If you just eat and endure it, I may come to like this new character. If you throw me out, I get the satisfaction of having inflicted misery upon you for doing same to me. Remind me of my little brother when he wanted a toy and we wouldn't buy it... Throwing a tantrum if you can't do things your way is ground for a loss of respect. Petty revenge later in the game show a lack of maturity and will get you permanently booted. There's exactly 246,784,563,351 concepts that can be done using the PHB only (I had to pick a number...). If ONE is disallowed, choose from the 246,784,563,350 remaining ones. If 100,000 are not allowed, pick from the remaining 246,784,463,351.
ShadowDragon8685 03-04-05, 10:33 PM	I have my TI-89 in my hand, and I'm in an ornery mood. Let's test that theory of yours, shall we? There are nine alignments. There are eleven Core classes. That's 99 alignment-class combinations. Now, let's say for any given class-alignment combination, you can come up with, ooooh, an average of twenty ways to play it, if pressed hard. 9*20*11 = 1,980 There are one thousand, nine hundred and eighty unique ways to play Core. Let's not argue semantics and add the number of weapons or spell schools in there. That's just niggling tiny details. 1,980 is a hefty number. But... But, let's say this DM is banning all Evil. 6*20*11. The number comes down to 1,320. Pretty big, eh? Now, since the DM seems dead-set against this person playing a Rogue and it's many combinants, we'll set it down to 10 classes. 6*20*10 = 1,200. Starting to look a lot smaller. Now, let's for the sake of argument, since the DM seems to be leaning that way, also exclude Chaotic Neutral from the list of alignments allowed. 5*20*10. Down to a thousand. Since the DM complained about introducing problematic characters, let's also toss off True Neutral, who are capable of turning on their party to uphold balance. 4*20*10 = 800. And remember, we pulled a number of unique concepts out of my rear, so let's try and make it more realistic, shall we? Hmmm... Eight seems good. If pressed, I could come up with eight unique concepts for combinants of ten classes and four alignments. 320. Now, remember. There are STRICT class alignment restrictions. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that our player is not interested in breaking alignment or multiclass restrictions. Bard: You cannot be Lawful. That leaves you with only two alignments. 320 - 16 Barbarian: same thing. 320 - 16 - 16 Monk: MUST be Lawful. Same thing. 320 - 16 - 16 - 16 Paladin: MUST be Chaotic Good. 320 - (16*3) - 24 DRUID. Can only be Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral. 320 - (16*4) - 24 214 remaining concepts there. A very FAAAR cry from your stupid number. That not that many concepts. Maybe he dosen't LIKE any of his 214 remaining potential concepts. And we don't know anything else. Maybe the group dosen't want another meaty shield, which would cut down all his martial choices. What if they don't want a Druid in specific, or they already have an Arcane/Divine caster?
Nom 03-04-05, 11:55 PM	Let's take a different perspective: Perhaps the DM doesn't want to have to deal with someone whose stated character goal is to engage in non-heroic behaviour that could lead to in-party disagreement and get the party in trouble with authorities? A player who wants to "steal on the side" probably thinks it would be "cool" and hasn't considered what will happen (to his character, the party, and the plot) when he either (a) gets caught or (b) gets in trouble with organised crime. Perhaps the new DM just wants to run traditional "adventures" and doesn't want to have to deal with anti-social extra curricular activities by the party during downtime? I'm not saying that people shouldn't play thieves, but that I can understand totally if a new DM doesn't want to deal with it. And if you're going to play a thief, do it properly with an experienced DM, not as an extra way of messing up the story during downtime.
Vatras 03-04-05, 11:55 PM	My two cents: Many a DM, including me, dread thieving characters. Not because they have to be chaotic, evil, unbalanced, very rich or in prison...it is the damn work you get to do to adjudicate thievery. You need to determine what people carry, what their skill levels are, chances of being observed, other things in pockets which are not money, what keys does someone possess, what jewelry (if any) and how much is the whole thing worth, do they have magic items sometimes, and if so, which ones? And so forth, and so on... I did it once for our thief long time ago in 1st Edition. I created a pick pocket table for contents of pockets, on which hang 8 or 9 subtables, and NPC tables to determine who is around ("How many people do I see and what do they look like?"). The whole stuff took me weeks to complete and after all was said and done he stopped pickpocketing because he decided its immoral after all...
ehrin 03-05-05, 01:10 AM	Having been a victim of theft several times in my life, I can say that it doesn't matter "if i could afford the loss" or not, someone stole from me. Claiming that it was my last piece of bread or just one of a million loaves is not valid: How do you know what a person would have done with what you stole? You steal my CD from my truck. Heck, I have a hundred of them. WHat's one more? Well, that one CD was the only one my autistic daughter would listen to on the way to her doctor's appointment. WIthout that CD, she screamed and cried and distracted me while driving, which caused an accident, which..... ad naseum. Bottom line is, you stole something from someone else that you had no rights to. That is a hurting and potentially, oppresive action. That ACTION was evil. Maybe just barely, maybe just a little, but still, on the good/evil axis, it was evil. Does that make you evil? No. One action does not an alignment make. But, if you continue performing those actions, can you become evil in alignment? Yes. Good/Evil, Chaos/Law: they are linear systems. Any action MUST fall somewhere on the line, somewhere on BOTH lines, just like a chemical must fall somewhere on the pH scale. Is stealing Good? probably not. Is it neutral? In the animal kingdom, yes. If it isn't good and isn't neutral, then it must be evil. At the same time, stealing also falls somewhere on the Law/chaos continuum. I agree with those who say it is more chaotic than lawful.
Vadth 03-05-05, 01:36 AM	Well, I had something to add but ehrin pretty much sum up my feelings on stealing as well. As a DM I would never allow a good character steal without a very very good reason (and I haven't heard very many in this thread). Also the Robin Hood archtype has been brought up a few times yet the examples are nothing like him. The Robin Hood saying "he steals from the rich and gives to the poor", NOT "steals from the rich and keep it."
saethone 03-05-05, 01:43 AM	im kinda mixed on this on one side, the dm is new, and needs to be eased into it..a theif in the party would make things very complicated for him being a new dm on the other side, you are right..you are probably perfectly capable of avoiding party conflicts etc while still stealing in the end its just something you need to work out as friends and decide whats better for the group - a disgruntled player or a bogged down dm?
ShadowDragon8685 03-05-05, 01:46 AM	ehrin, I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you're flat-out wrong. It sucks to get stolen from. But you know what? Petty theft is just that; petty. It's CN. Sure, it made you feel bad. I'll bet the loving wife of the BBEG who gets her husband killed feels bad. Does that mean the PCs are indirectly commiting an Evil act when they Smite his butt up? No, it dosen't. What happened to you was the rawer form of Chaos, but it was not Evil. Stealing your CD? That's petty crap. Just get another one of the same copy. You're out what, ten bucks? And your strawman about cause-and-effect reactions is just that. A strawman. Be glad the person didn't hotwire your truck. Stealing something that life-critical to someone's life? That would be a somewhat Evil act. But only somewhat, because a thief can reasonably expect you to have insurance, which will get you back on your wheels in short order. If you haven't, well... Not his fault, and not something he can reasonably take into account. I'll tell you where stealing like this falls. It falls squarely on 25, 0. If we visualize the alignments to be a cartesian grid, with 0, 0 being the direct centre of True Neutral, then stealing your CD was an act that fell precisely in the middle of Chaotic neutral.
Planar Wanderer 03-05-05, 05:05 AM	Why does everyone use Robbin Hood as a CG example? Robin of Loxley was NOT a CG rebel fighting Prince John. He was stealing from everyone he could to raise the money to ransom King James back from the turks, who demanded money for him, and Prince John said "Oh, nope. Sorry about that, but I don't think I shall. Let 'em rot." He didn't give two whits about robbing the rich to give to the poor. He was robbing everyone he could to get the money to restore his own King to the throne. I really ought to leave this alone as I have a habit of making a fool of myself when I try things like this, but the problem here is that when people use Robin Hood as an example they mean Robin Hood as the legends made him, the character of folklore, NOT the real basis for him, one is an appropriate example, the other isn't. I think the problem arises in situations like this because people try to impose real life morality on D&D, this doesn't work properly without a lot of thought, since the alignment system is (IMO) something of an abstraction built to allow "robin hood" (of folklore) characters, king Arthur characters etc. to adventure together .
GreyGriffin 03-05-05, 06:37 AM	I have to side with the DMs here and the other people who say that your DM is entirely justified in putting the veto down on a thieving character. The DM is perfectly within his rights to disallow a character concept to ease his transition into the group, and to maintain party coherence. Remember, it's the DM's game too. He's the one shouldered with the responsibility of the most work-intensive part of the experience, and the players should cut him some slack. (The DM is often called upon to orchestrate vast, intricate, world-encompassing plots; or deep, detailed dungeon crawls; and then is accused of rail-roading the characters. Or he plays fast and loose, letting the PCs have their rein, and then is accused of not being well-prepared.) Inserting a PC with a different moral spectrum and a "hobby" that not only causes roleplaying issues but requires a large amount of preparation (or wild improvisation) on the DM's part can be asking too much, expecially for an inexperienced DM. And ShadowDragon8685, you're the most dispicable brand of player that can crawl from the deepest, darkest depths of the hobby. Deliberately destroying a player's enjoyment of the game (yes, the DM is a player, too) is a brutal abuse of the implicit trust between players. I hope you never come within ten miles of my table.
Glibness 03-05-05, 07:03 AM	Every person thinks of stealing somewhat different then others. A Palading might say it's Evil, a Rogue might say it's a habit. Try to be creative about "stealing", Steal money and give most of it away to charity. Be the ******* that squeezes the last penny out of the Baron who has a problem to be solved and be extremely generous to the patron of the local bar and it's visitors to make loads of friends. It's fun to gain money a bit unrighteously, but even more fun to be the extremely nice guy who doesn't think twice to give his easily gained riches away b'cause he's got a big heart! Good luck with it.
ehrin 03-05-05, 10:12 AM	Shadowdragon: If I am wrong, then you are claiming that stealing is a good act. I cannot believe that. I cannot believe that taking something that does not belong to you is a good thing. Your arguement is that as long as it was "petty", it was good. I disagree, and I challenge those who believe that to tell me "who assigns the value?" Me, or the thief? Two men break into my truck. Each one takes a CD from my console. One CD was a music mix of my favorite choral music. THe other was my lifetime body of chemical work, culminating in the discovery of a cure for cancer, colds, and world hunger. One CD has a value of ten cents, the other is priceless. DId one man commit a different crime than the other? According to your arguement, one of them is good, and only took a worthless, petty item. THe other is evil, and has taken the most valuable item in the world. You claim that taking a CD is petty, but taking a truck is an action that is is life critical. WHy? Haven't you heard of public transportation? Walking? Also, by your own admission, shouldn't you have insurance to cover the loss of your life critical truck? You will get the check for it in a month or two, and can buy yourself a new one, so by your own arguement, what was the harm? You claim that theft of the CD would "suck". Okay, why would it suck? WHat makes it suck? I would say that if stealing that CD were a good thing, it wouldn't suck... you would feel good about it. "Whew, that CD is finally gone!" You would feel better when you were stolen from than before. But you admit yourself that being stolen from would suck, so I challenge you this: tell me why it would suck, if no harm whatsoever was done to you. Because harm was done, even if it were petty harm. And harming others is a benchmark of evil things. THe harm is this: someone stole something from you that did not belong to them. If stealing is, as you claim, a neutral action, then why do you lock your doors when you leave home? Stealing is evil. Petty evil, at times, but stealing is more evil than not stealing, because it causes harm to someone else.
Thorak 03-05-05, 11:58 AM	THe harm is this: someone stole something from you that did not belong to them. If stealing is, as you claim, a neutral action, then why do you lock your doors when you leave home? Stealing is evil. Petty evil, at times, but stealing is more evil than not stealing, because it causes harm to someone else. You lock your doors because you realize there are people out there who don't respect society's rules on ownership. What is stealing? Taking something that doesn't belong to you. What's belonging? Something defined by legal codes. You can't steal something nobody owns. And ownership isn't something innate, it's something set out by the laws of society. Sure, stealing can hurt others. So can a knife. Does this mean that a knife is evil? No bloody way. It's what you do with the knife, or the act of stealing, that aligns it as either good or evil. Stealing bread from a starving child, evil. Because your action will deliberately hurt the child. Stealing bread from a market stall because you're starving: Neutral. Because the baker can likely afford to lose a loaf, so you're not hurting him in any way. Stealing the evil baron's taxes to give them back to the people: Good. Because you are using the theft to fight against evil, and help others. It has nothing to do with the act of stealing, and everything to do with the surrounding moral setting. Like a knife. It can be used to stab someone: Evil. It can be used to cut a steak: Neutral. Or it can be used to cut loose slaves so they can escape: Good.
fallabel 03-05-05, 12:44 PM	Stealing the evil baron's taxes to give them back to the people: Good. Because you are using the theft to fight against evil, and help others. Until the evil Baron kills his tax collectors for failing in their duty.
weasel fierce 03-05-05, 01:19 PM	A: 2nd edition doesnt state that a thief has to be evil, simply that he cannot be Lawfull Good. B: DM has the ultimate decision on what you can, and cannot play C: That being said, playing a thief is not inherently evil. It is likely to be chaotic however, but a thief may well be good at heart, but simply not consider pilfering a little money from those that have, to be an act of evil. As long as he isnt mugging peasants and stealing from orphans, I'd say a thief can very well be good alligned.
Demon Lightfoot 03-05-05, 02:00 PM	As a DM, I love thieves; I can't imagine a game without one or three. As a player, I love 'em even more; and I mean thieves, not yer namby-pamby knock-kneed photophobic Casper Milquetoast skillmonkey "rogues", but nitty-gritty down-and-dirty, eat-yer-entrails, take-yer-out-the-back-an-break-yer-friggin-bollocks thieves, Skippy. Does stealing hurt people? Oh my God, I'd certainly hope so. Does that make it evil? Hell no. Fun, yes. Stupid, sometimes. Evil, no.
VirgilCaine 03-05-05, 02:03 PM	The REAL reason your DM doesn't want your character to steal isn't that stealing is EVIL, it's that stealing creates MORE WORK for him. Too many questions! Too much creativity required! What do I do? There are times when I'm convinced that the only purpose alignment serves is to give lousy DMs an excuse to say "Nuh uh! Your character can't do that!" when a player tries something said lousy DM wasn't prepared for. Exactly! I don't like to waste precious game time with in-character moral bickering or deal with a single character going all Grand Theft Auto on me so I have to do more work figuring out how he would get caught or stopped. Now, I do treat communities as living breathing settlements, and loathe the "Zelda town"--where the only NPCs and buildings are there are plot hooks. But I like to have the players accomplish something and not argue like amateur philosophers or soap opera stars.
danielinthewolvesden 03-05-05, 02:47 PM	Stealing (or skimming) from the Party also often gets into inter-group problems. As a newbie DM, he's right not to want to "go there". This is a good DM, and he made the right choice. He realized that he is inexperienced, and that theft is something that takes an experienced DM, and takes a lot of work. It's a wise DM that knows his own limitations. It also tends to give that player a lot of "spotlight time" which is the real reason why many want to do it. Yes, with a mature party, and an experienced DM- a little theft 'from them that deserve it" can be fun, and not nessesarily the darkest of Evil, either.
weasel fierce 03-05-05, 02:50 PM	THeres also the other element that many players seem to think that playing a thief well, means stealing from the plate armoured sociopath in the party that you just watched butcher 16 ogres in a dungeon.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 03-05-05, 02:56 PM	I have my TI-89 in my hand, and I'm in an ornery mood. Let's test that theory of yours, shall we? There are nine alignments. There are eleven Core classes. That's 99 alignment-class combinations. Now, let's say for any given class-alignment combination, you can come up with, ooooh, an average of twenty ways to play it, if pressed hard. not very imaginative, are we? Even without going into such strange things as character concepts (don't worry, I'll keep it simple), the feat selection means a whole lot more than 20 possioble permutations. A very FAAAR cry from your stupid number. That not that many concepts. Maybe he dosen't LIKE any of his 214 remaining potential concepts. And we don't know anything else. Maybe the group dosen't want another meaty shield, which would cut down all his martial choices. What if they don't want a Druid in specific, or they already have an Arcane/Divine caster? I'm gonna speak in short sentences. I picked a number. It was an exagerated number. The point was not about the precise number. If you equate character concept with party role, too bad for you (sorry, long phrase). Point is, there's still a lot more concepts to be done. Or the option of walking away.
weasel fierce 03-05-05, 03:11 PM	Two characters that are largely identical in rules can still be completely different in roleplaying A rather memorable game I played in, a long time ago, had every character be a paladin (with different kits, this was 2nd edition AD&D), but each character had very different personalities, approaches and ideas. Made the game just as different and interesting, as a group where everyone must be the special child. A player should not blame the DM for his or her inability to roleplay
EGD Eric 03-05-05, 03:48 PM	Yeah, I totally think stealing is WRONG. Its wrong, wrong, wrong!!!! Its bad... people steal satelite signals, etc... I know people who simply don't pay for video games or movies AT ALL anymore, and I think that that's WRONG. BTW, this game we're playing is really generic. I made the world, some parts of the maps, I even had some exotic country thrown in by one of my players. We then decided that we'd share the Dming between me and this current (new) DM. He's using "my" so far generic world, one that's full of thieves, cuthroats, pirates, etc.. A thief FITS perfectly into the campaign I'm just mentioning this because someone said it might be a matter of setting: I'll tell you this right now: it isn't. He would have been perfectly fine with me playing a "rogue", or a thief that used to be a total bastard but isn't anymore. As a DM, I love thieves; I can't imagine a game without one or three. As a player, I love 'em even more; and I mean thieves, not yer namby-pamby knock-kneed photophobic Casper Milquetoast skillmonkey "rogues", but nitty-gritty down-and-dirty, eat-yer-entrails, take-yer-out-the-back-an-break-yer-friggin-bollocks thieves, Skippy. Complete agreement there. Like I said, in this same campaign, while I was Dming (and I will again someday, probably) some players showed up and did some thieving. I thought it made things interesting. People allways talk about split-up groups, or a player going off and doing his own thing once in a while as a bad thing: I, as a DM, have started experiencing that, and so far, I like it! Someone here talked about figuring out what people have on them, etc.. that tha'd be hard. Wasn't hard for me, cuz I know when to wing it. The party was wandering around from port to port once, and the thief wanted to do some pickpocketing. So I roleplayed some encounters, but at one point, they arrived in another port city and I wanted the game to move on, so I just had him roll one check, and said (based on the roll): "Through a few days of pickpocketing, you rack up X GP". There was one encounter where the two halflings (one of them with mostly levels in wizard) encountered some rich dude playing a flute to a woman. The wizard halfling secretly caused his flute to not play on certain notes, while he was checking his pipe, the other halfling (with an invisibility spell) walked up and pickpocketed him, taking some coin and a gem. I didn't need a table for that. I just love it when players do stuff like this. Anyone who thinks they need tables for stuff like this is thinking too hard. I've seen alot of posts saying I should just play my character for spite, and man... its tempting, but I won't. I appreciate the posts though... if he gets too controlling, maybe I will. Seriously, how the hell would he stop me during game? If I say: "during our spare time, I do this" What's he gonna do? Make my alignment switch to evil? Oh no! That said, I won't do that, I'm going to play the swashbuckler (ex)pirate with the huge burden of guilt which he hides behind a mask of bravado. (don't forget the constant womanizing: iggidy, iggiday... Oh... yeah!) Those of you who say that I'm super attached to ONE character concept and am whining because I can't play THAT are wrong. The only reason I started this thread was because I just wanted to see what other people would think about this. I can't talk to my fellow players, or else I'd give away my character, I want it to be a surprise.
Cold Napalm 03-05-05, 03:50 PM	Humm stealing = evil and chaotic to me...I'm leaning more towards choatic after callista's post...but I still say it's at least a little evil...with the exception of say somebody starving to death stealing something to eat for him and his family...which I would say is neutral and a bit chaotic. Ehrin, I think your confusing choatic with evil. SD is saying that stealing isn't evil, it's just choatic and he certainly isn't saying it's good. Anyways our society hates choas almost as much as evil...if not more. In fact I'd say our society is a LN one. One that is more interested in keeping the law then actually doing something that will actually help anyone. Hence why the police is by law not required to help you when you call 911 and say your being robbed. You think this is a joke? Nope, the appallet(sp?) courts upheld a ruling that the police is there for society and not an individual when a women sued the police for not coming when she called to say she was being robbed. Oh and you can't shoot somebody for stealing from you because that might endanger society...just call the police...and they don't even have to help you. We are so not a good society it's not even funny. We hate choas...why else would speeding be as bad as or worse then petty theft (speeding over 100 mph 800 dollar + fine, petty theft $271 AND you don't even have to pay back the victim?!?)? Petty theft is more evil, less choas then speeding that's why.
ShadowDragon8685 03-05-05, 04:14 PM	Ehrin, please read my posts more carefully before you slaughter me. I said that stealing the CD was precisely not evil. It falls exactly on the centreline where there is no malice or evil involved. It is also precisely not good. It falls precisely on the centreline where there is no charity or good involved.
ehrin 03-05-05, 04:19 PM	Just so I understand those views opposite mine: stealing a loaf of bread from a hungry man is evil. stealing a loaf of bread from a baker is not evil. stealing a loaf of bread from another thief is good. I agree on two of the three points: Stealing from the hungry man is evil (or hungry baby, woman, etc.). Stealing from another thief is good (and in my view, since the item being "stolen" does not rightfully belong to the person, i could agree that it might be an act of good). My problem is calling the stealing of a loaf of bread from the baker not evil... that baker spends his money buying flour. He hauls wood to heat his ovens. He knows he has to make 200 loaves of bread each day to pay for his bakery, raw materials, staff, taxes, tithes, etc. The 201st loaf is his profit, the money that goes to feed his children and keep them from starving. So, he bakes 201 loaves of bread, and a thief comes by each day and steals one loaf of bread. Hey, who does it hurt? the baker has 200 others, so it isn't evil, right? The thief steals his loaf, and the baker's children starve. But, no one was hurt or harmed, because the baker has plenty of other loaves. He can "afford" to lose one, right?
Cold Napalm 03-05-05, 04:23 PM	I'd say the stealing from a theif is evil too...hey he stole that fair and square. Stealing from a baker...evil. It's just those aren't THAT evil (and in some people's view no evil and all choas) and more choas...which we all learned is also bad for society and has a way to least inconvince people in said society.
ehrin 03-05-05, 06:45 PM	And i do see your points Shadow Dragon (and thorak). But, i suspect we must agree to disagree... If i have a CD, and you steal it, i think you crossed the boundary of neutrality. Taking something from me that is rightfully mine isn't a neutral action. Leaving it alone, it seems to me, is the neutral action. And, I do totally agree that taking/stealing IS a chaotic action. Taking something (without recourse from the courts, laws, legal systems, etc.) from an unrighteous owner, something not theirs, taking back what was illegally gained, stolen, etc. is likely Chaotic and Good. Taking what is yours or what you believe is rightfully yours is Chaotic, and likely Neutral. Taking whatever you feel like from anyone else, knowing that it isn't yours, is Chaotic, and evil. But, differing opinions are what makes horse races!
Lana "Silvertongue" 03-05-05, 06:55 PM	Considering I didn't think the line of this post was to debate if theft is evil or not, which it is True Nuetral for those who continue the arguement... it was the idea of developing a shady character. Theft isn't the only way to create shady characters. Be a brothel owner, your considered pretty shady. Gambling is considered shady. Being of a quiet disposition and asking lots of questions is considered shady in some parts of the world. Blackmarket dealing is considered shady. Selling goods to less than honorable people for blown up prices is shady... the concept does not have to die simply on the theft issue. Theft, as he was suggesting it, isn't evil. Its not premeditated. I have played a rogue who was a street urchin. She was Chaotic good and stole to survive. Alignment relies more on the needs of the many over the few. If he was stealing to support something other than himself, like some poor family... by the way of alignment he is not considered evil. The act itself isn't evil because he does not want to inflict direct harm on another but let me tell you begging on the street doesn't get you very far. The victim may always consider him evil, but alignment is not discerned by what people think of each other. A crime, yes. Evil, no. Each act has to be weighed on how the character goes about it. If he is doing it to get even with so and so... that might be considered evil. Its deffinatly chaotic. But theft is honestly nuetral.
EGD Eric 03-05-05, 07:04 PM	Bah, if/when I DM again, this "alignment" BS has got to go. Do we really need it? Or do we just think we do because we've had it for so long? Its so restrictive, especially with this DM (its forgivable because he's new though). If someone wants to play a character with "moral ambiguities", a character that's evil in a way, but good in another way; just a character with his own world view. No evil person actually thinks he's evil, right? In fact, some REALLY evil people think they're doing good. If you take an evil alignment, the party won't allow you in, because they'll just detect alignment you. Yeah, I know there's spells to hide it, but then all they need to do (as a precaution) is to cast dispel magic first. (Yeah, I know there's a chance that won't work either, its all about caster levels). All those caveats aside, you get where I'm going here, right? If you take a neutral alignment, then start doing those "not good" acts, you become evil, and the DM takes a fit because he's one of those DMs that doesn't allow evil characters. I've actually found it restrictive as a DM as well. In my favourite fantasy book series: "Sword of Truth", the evil Emperor Jagang is a villain you love to hate: He's just terrible. But alot of people think what he's doing is for the greater good, that he's this great spiritual leader. I'd like to have a villain like this in my world, but they're hard to justify. Here's what happens in D&D: One of Jagang's priests secretly cast's detect alignment on him, and learns that he's evil! Oh, how about that? I'm evil too! I guess I should have realised that, considering that when I cast summon monster I always get stuff like mephits, etc.. never any celestials! Plus I always cast protection from good when fighting the knights of heironeous... Oh yeah and there's the fact that my patron deity is called FizzerSnasher, lord of murder...
weasel fierce 03-05-05, 07:31 PM	Alignment was dumb 30some years ago, and to this day, its still dumb. I can see a law / chaos sort of thing, if your game world has a strong cosmic element of such, as in Moorcock's writings, or the Warhammer world. But for most play, alignment is a rule that was ill conceived (and according to Gygax, overemphasized) from the day it was written
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 03-06-05, 01:25 AM	Alignment was dumb 30some years ago, and to this day, its still dumb. I can see a law / chaos sort of thing, if your game world has a strong cosmic element of such, as in Moorcock's writings, or the Warhammer world. But for most play, alignment is a rule that was ill conceived (and according to Gygax, overemphasized) from the day it was written Agreed. I can't class most people I know in a single alignement. Maybe in X with X tendancies and ultimatly X, but that's it. I never use it much. Except for paladins. It's kinda mandatory with D&D's paladin (wich I don't like as it is, but that's a subject for another thread... as is alignement... Oops :D) /rant
EGD Eric 03-06-05, 02:09 AM	So what do you guys do about alignment in your games? I can see myself getting alot of flak from my players if I just totally got rid of the alignment system (seeing as there's 2 DMs sharing a world, I dunno...). It wouldn't unbalance the game much would it? I can imagine some spells becoming useless, like detect alignment, and the paladin's detect evil ability... nope, that'd still be good. If you were tracking a demon... or someone who had done tons of evil stuff, and the stench of evil was on him (Dm's discretion). I'd keep chaos vs. law in there, so any law/chaos affected spells would stay the same. Stuff like "protection from evil" would still be good, but just against undead/outsiders, etc.. And heck, that's all that spell should be used for anyway, IMO. Yeah, I know, this thread's gone off the track and I'm helped derail it. But its a natural transition to it eh? Dm's often have knee-jerk reactions to certain alignments, myself included. I remember a few years ago, a player (the one who's Dming now, in fact) had chosen NE as his alignment. His char was already made, and I could have sworn he had said NG when he first made him, but anyway... When I found out, I argued with him for while saying that "evil characters are totally pointless to play". "He's basically breaking his alignment by not murdering the party during their sleep and taking all their stuff, and living comfortably off of that for the rest of his life". (BTW, I let him keep the alignment, and dropped the matter) I realise now that that was an oversimplified way of looking at it, but I had read from the PHB (2nd edition) and some websites that evil characters shouldn't be allowed in a campaign. (come to think of it, the economic system could be partially to blame: Who's gonna keep adventuring if 1-2 adventure's worth of loot is enough to last you a lifetime? Not many). Its the same when someone says: "I'm gonna be chaotic neutral". Right away they'll assume you just want to disrupt the game with stupidity. And with good reason - most times I've seen chaotic neutral, I've seen stuff like: *player rolls dice* I attack the nearest person. Rest of party: "Woohoo! Finally an excuse to kill this guy!" I've only seen ONE player actually play chaotic neutral in a good way- entertaining - but not at the expense of other players.
ehrin 03-06-05, 10:38 AM	I have played several CN characters in my career. I just play them as "me first" type survivors... not stupidly selfish, but realizing what needs to be done to keep them alive and prospering. They did a few little evil things when it needed to be done, and did a few good things that also benefited them in the long run. Very much a sense of "live and let live". Above all else, they had a sense of independence, and self preservation. They would extend their sense of "every man for himself" to their party, if it made sense for their survival. They had a high sense of personal honor, and kept to their word. THey didn't trust the laws and rules of others, but expected the personal words of others to be kept.
Thorak 03-06-05, 11:31 AM	Until the evil Baron kills his tax collectors for failing in their duty. The actions of other people have absolutely no bearing on what your alignment is based on your own actions. Especially since the tax collectors are supporting the evil Baron's efforts, and thus are likely Evil and not helping the issue. Just so I understand those views opposite mine: stealing a loaf of bread from a hungry man is evil. stealing a loaf of bread from a baker is not evil. stealing a loaf of bread from another thief is good. I agree on two of the three points: Stealing from the hungry man is evil (or hungry baby, woman, etc.). Stealing from another thief is good (and in my view, since the item being "stolen" does not rightfully belong to the person, i could agree that it might be an act of good). My problem is calling the stealing of a loaf of bread from the baker not evil... that baker spends his money buying flour. He hauls wood to heat his ovens. He knows he has to make 200 loaves of bread each day to pay for his bakery, raw materials, staff, taxes, tithes, etc. The 201st loaf is his profit, the money that goes to feed his children and keep them from starving. So, he bakes 201 loaves of bread, and a thief comes by each day and steals one loaf of bread. Hey, who does it hurt? the baker has 200 others, so it isn't evil, right? The thief steals his loaf, and the baker's children starve. But, no one was hurt or harmed, because the baker has plenty of other loaves. He can "afford" to lose one, right? That's altering the situation to fit your views, by making the baker essentially a "hungry man". Let's say the baker needs to sell 200 loaves to offset costs, and another 50 to pay his bills and buy food for the family. Now, let's say he makes 300 loaves. In this case, stealing one loaf won't hurt the baker in any significant way, it reduces his overall net profit by 1/50th. If he needs to sell 201 loaves to get by and only makes 201 loaves a day, he's being dangerously stupid.
SammasterT 03-06-05, 12:10 PM	I'm not about to get into some philosophical arguement about morality -- prefering to point out the handless men milling about and the corpses swining from the wolfheadtree over yonder -- but I do think that a fair bit of DnD involves thwarting the defenses of, and plundering old tombs, and such things. given the defienses of many of these places, one might get the idea that the creator wnated his/her property left alone.
ehrin 03-06-05, 06:41 PM	My problem with accepting your view, Thorak, is that the baker may not be able to make 300 loaves... he may not have that much money, for raw materials, wood, staff, etc.. There are plenty of businesses who survive on bare minimal profit, and the loss of just a few assets can bankrupt them. But, if he does, that's great. Then, 50 thieves come along, each stealing a loaf, and he is back to being denied making his living. Each thief takes only one loaf, and each one knows the baker has 299 others (or so). The rational proposed that stealing from someone who has "lots" is okay is a shoplifter's excuse. Steal from the store, they have lots of stock. The problem is, the theft must be made up somehow, and it is made up by raising prices, cutting stock, lowering wages, firing employees, etc.. There is no free lunch: the thing you steal comes from somewhere, and it impacts someone.
Cold Napalm 03-06-05, 07:14 PM	Yesh and it's usually the poor smuck at the bottom since anyone on top sure as hell don't wanna take responsibility for it. I remember a towers records my friend worked at...it had no working detectors so was a favorite of shoplifters. He told managment several times that this is why they kept getting stuff stolen. When the store was audited, they blamed empoyees and he got fired...go the game of NOT ME. Thieft hurts somebody period...which is why I place it evil...just not very evil. I think people who slow down to watch an accident is MORE evil then a shoplifter. They are staring and enjoying the suffering and misfortune of another human being. So I guess all relative.
Thorak 03-06-05, 11:23 PM	My problem with accepting your view, Thorak, is that the baker may not be able to make 300 loaves... he may not have that much money, for raw materials, wood, staff, etc.. There are plenty of businesses who survive on bare minimal profit, and the loss of just a few assets can bankrupt them. But, if he does, that's great. Then, 50 thieves come along, each stealing a loaf, and he is back to being denied making his living. Each thief takes only one loaf, and each one knows the baker has 299 others (or so). The rational proposed that stealing from someone who has "lots" is okay is a shoplifter's excuse. Steal from the store, they have lots of stock. The problem is, the theft must be made up somehow, and it is made up by raising prices, cutting stock, lowering wages, firing employees, etc.. There is no free lunch: the thing you steal comes from somewhere, and it impacts someone. Smart shopowners factor typical theft into their daily costs. They have to, because people will steal from them. That's a fact of life. My point was that any shopkeep knows that he has to at least have the potential to make more than the bare minimum necessary, because he will have bad days. So he has to have good days to make up. If a baker needs to sell 270 loaves to get by, he'll make 300 or more, so if he has a slow day and only sells 250, that's offset by the day he has a good day and sells 290. And that he'll lose 1-2 loaves a day to thieves is already factored into the cost of business. You're having to go to some silly extremes to try and prove your point. Yes, stealing does hurt someone somehow. So does breaking off a relationship with a lover. Does that mean breaking up with someone is evil? How about pinching someone? Or how about borrowing money and then forgetting to pay them back? Heck, killing is also listed as part of evil. This doesn't mean that any PC that kills anything, or anyone who eats meat, is thus automatically evil. The things the PHB mentions are evil if those are, or are part of, the intent. If you intentionally hurt someone, if you intentionally kill them for no reason other than to kill them. And if you steal something with the intent or knowledge that it will make someone suffer unduly, then yes, that's evil. If you have every reason to suspect the baker can afford to lose a loaf without going bankrupt, it's not evil to steal it so you don't starve yourself.
ehrin 03-07-05, 08:50 AM	I will stay with my silly extremes to continue this point... You say the baker has an obligation to make the extra loaves that he knows some thieves are going to steal. So he does. But, one more thief comes that day, steals one more loaf of bread than was factored into his loss point, and we are back to square one: he does not have enough made to cover his costs, and thus, suffers. Seeking more understanding; in your final line, you say it wouldn't be evil to steal from someone who had more, if you were starving. Would it be evil to steal from them if you weren't starving? if you just wanted to resell the item, and make a profit off it? If you just liked what they owned, and wanted it for your collection? If you weren't hungry, but the desert in the window looked good?
nyysjan 03-07-05, 09:48 AM	stealing is not evil but stealing something that someone needs is evil baker needs that bread to make a living hungry man needs that bread to survive but does king really need a hundred golden plates and thats where the difference comes from
ShadowDragon8685 03-07-05, 09:50 AM	Strawman: 1: An argument created for the sole purpose of being knocked down. 2: See ehrin. This is stupid, Ehrin. Bakers aren't going to be operating on razor-thing "one loaf is bust or boom" margins. He's going to be making surpluss, LOTS of surpluss. One or two loaves pinched per day is nothing to him.
nyysjan 03-07-05, 10:11 AM	Strawman: 1: An argument created for the sole purpose of being knocked down. 2: See ehrin. This is stupid, Ehrin. Bakers aren't going to be operating on razor-thing "one loaf is bust or boom" margins. He's going to be making surpluss, LOTS of surpluss. One or two loaves pinched per day is nothing to him. but if everyone thought that then everyone would take a couple loaves and the baker would starve
Thorak 03-07-05, 10:42 AM	but if everyone thought that then everyone would take a couple loaves and the baker would starve No, no they wouldn't. Go out after midnight some night, and watch people drive. They'll stop dead at a red light, and wait for it to turn green. Even when there isn't another car in sight. It doesn't hurt anyone for them to break the law. They still don't. The reason? Most people only break laws when they have a good reason to, if then. And most people don't have reason to steal a loaf of bread. And ehriin; what ShadowDragon said. Start using realistic examples, and I'll respond to them. You keep changing the situation in ways that simply would not exist in real life just because you can make it fit your point when you twist it that way. As SD said, that's a straw man argument. And it's not that the baker is obligated to make the few extra loaves. It's that, knowing people, he knows a couple will be stolen. Modern stores set aside a percentage of their monthly income precisely to defray the cost of shoplifting. Because they know it happens, and that they'll never stop it. That's the cost of doing business. Claiming it's weird or some such that the baker has to do this is inane, as inane as it would be to say he doesn't need an oven to bake the bread, or fuel to feed it. Theft is simply one of the costs of business.
MrkGrismer 03-07-05, 12:44 PM	And it's not that the baker is obligated to make the few extra loaves. It's that, knowing people, he knows a couple will be stolen. Modern stores set aside a percentage of their monthly income precisely to defray the cost of shoplifting. Because they know it happens, and that they'll never stop it. That's the cost of doing business. Claiming it's weird or some such that the baker has to do this is inane, as inane as it would be to say he doesn't need an oven to bake the bread, or fuel to feed it. Theft is simply one of the costs of business. Way back when I was in retail (admittedly almost 20 years ago), "shrink" was estimated at two cents on the dollar (retail price). That included both employee and non-employee theft.
Shini Neko Ni 03-07-05, 01:10 PM	Yeah, but you know... NaziDMs get me to walk. Banning non-Core is okay. Banning a perfectly Core concept is a no-no. So if you're going to bar me from my first concept, I'm going to make you regret it, and inflict the absoloute worst I can come up with on you. Whether that means going on down to the ole' CO boards and coming up with the most twinkazoid build I can to slaughterize my way through every conflict you come at us, or coming up with a Diploforger rogue who can sucker people into giving him what he wants and have the mark take you out to lunch after you screw 'em... Hehehe. And if you throw me, that's fine. You stopped being fun the moment you shot down the character I was already getting attached to. If you just eat and endure it, I may come to like this new character. If you throw me out, I get the satisfaction of having inflicted misery upon you for doing same to me. I'm a vindictive SOB like that. :) Man...I'm lucky that I don't have a player like you in any of my games. If that happened to me while I was Dming I would most likely give up with that game x_x. I guess I am just a lucky DM I have only had one problem with a theif. And really it was mainly my fualt for being (and still being) a bad DM. He was trying to steal with party members i finaly sat down with him told him to stop he said that I was just being...well A Nazi DM I guess is the nice way to say it. After a while of this I finaly just kicked him out of my group. My only other experence of it is when the party was broke at low level. Only two members of the party could get money between missions one was the Bard the other was the Rogue. One performed and the other went around stealing a few coppers from those that looked like they had too many. I allowed it mainly becuase i make them spend money on eating and what not and being in a large city and minus a nature based party members they used the coppers the Rogue got to eat while they waited for the Bard to pull in some gold so they would be able to get money for the road ahead. That part of the game was a lot of fun for me to DM. I enjoyed it and well I admit that im not really a good DM but sometimes the best things in D&D come out of something not scripted or planned. However going back on topic you should talk to your DM about how you want to play your character in detail not just that you sometimes steal stuff. However at this point im beating a dead horse so I shall stop. :)
Cold Napalm 03-07-05, 01:53 PM	No, no they wouldn't. Go out after midnight some night, and watch people drive. They'll stop dead at a red light, and wait for it to turn green. Even when there isn't another car in sight. It doesn't hurt anyone for them to break the law. They still don't. The reason? Most people only break laws when they have a good reason to, if then. And most people don't have reason to steal a loaf of bread. And ehriin; what ShadowDragon said. Start using realistic examples, and I'll respond to them. You keep changing the situation in ways that simply would not exist in real life just because you can make it fit your point when you twist it that way. As SD said, that's a straw man argument. And it's not that the baker is obligated to make the few extra loaves. It's that, knowing people, he knows a couple will be stolen. Modern stores set aside a percentage of their monthly income precisely to defray the cost of shoplifting. Because they know it happens, and that they'll never stop it. That's the cost of doing business. Claiming it's weird or some such that the baker has to do this is inane, as inane as it would be to say he doesn't need an oven to bake the bread, or fuel to feed it. Theft is simply one of the costs of business. Umm where do you live?!? Because around here we runs those red lights...hell we run the during the day time when there are cars coming because if you don't hit anyone nobody gets hurt right? Despite the fact that the other guys has to hit his brakes to NOT get hurt.
nyysjan 03-07-05, 02:13 PM	No, no they wouldn't. Go out after midnight some night, and watch people drive. They'll stop dead at a red light, and wait for it to turn green. Even when there isn't another car in sight. It doesn't hurt anyone for them to break the law. They still don't. The reason? Most people only break laws when they have a good reason to, if then. And most people don't have reason to steal a loaf of bread. just where do you live in my experience many people will brake laws and rules just because they are there and that driving analogy doesn't work sure some people wont drive against the red lights and then some drunken teenagers come racing 70mph just for the fun of it if you happen to be crossing the street at that point your toast
Thorak 03-07-05, 02:14 PM	Umm where do you live?!? Because around here we runs those red lights...hell we run the during the day time when there are cars coming because if you don't hit anyone nobody gets hurt right? Despite the fact that the other guys has to hit his brakes to NOT get hurt. Apparently, I live in the civilized world. Who knew, I thought it was the back of beyond. And it's hardly just where I live. I've traveled a fair bit, and this is true pretty much everywhere I've been; the majority of drivers will obey traffic lights even when it's late and it's clear nobody's coming. And by "traveled a fair bit" I mean "most of Canada, most of the Northeastern US, Britain, and the European Mediterranean". All told, 8 countries. So where is it that you live that people don't obey the traffic laws?
nyysjan 03-07-05, 02:18 PM	Apparently, I live in the civilized world. Who knew, I thought it was the back of beyond. And it's hardly just where I live. I've traveled a fair bit, and this is true pretty much everywhere I've been; the majority of drivers will obey traffic lights even when it's late and it's clear nobody's coming. And by "traveled a fair bit" I mean "most of Canada, most of the Northeastern US, Britain, and the European Mediterranean". All told, 8 countries. So where is it that you live that people don't obey the traffic laws? well i don't travel that much but i do watch the news and majority does follow the traffic laws it's the minority that doesn't that goes arround killing themselves and others
mercurial67 03-07-05, 03:23 PM	evil is "hurting" - you hurt someone when you steal their money. The money they are buying food with, buying birthday gifts, etc. Wouldt you say robbing Little jonny for his 1000gp he just got from some obscure mission to buy his familiy from slavery is evil? I could go on and on, but this is what random robbing does. You random rob innocent people and its stupid and it has evil consequenses.No, stealing someone's money does not hurt them. Stealing someone's money takes something away from them, it makes life more difficult for them, but it does not cause a physical hurt to them. Another example the SRD gives is Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. If you know little Jonny just got 1000gp to free his family and you deliberatly target him to get the 1000gp, then THAT is evil. If you steal 1000gp from some guy, that is not evil. If that guy happened to be planning to use the 1000gp to free his family, that does not suddenly make the act evil. Evil implies you are trying to cause people pain, suffering, or even death. It is evil if you are preying on their misfortunes. It is neutral if you don't know their situation.
mercurial67 03-07-05, 03:41 PM	Shadowdragon: If I am wrong, then you are claiming that stealing is a good act.??? How do you reason this? He (and I am as well) claiming stealing is not an evil act. Not evil does not equal good. Also, read what Thorak wrote. Laws are what defines ownership rules. Stealing something breaks those rules and is a chaotic act.
ehrin 03-07-05, 03:49 PM	i understand, and vanquish the battle to the victors. Stealing does no harm, and is a neutral act.
mercurial67 03-07-05, 03:55 PM	Just so I understand those views opposite mine: stealing a loaf of bread from a hungry man is evil. stealing a loaf of bread from a baker is not evil. stealing a loaf of bread from another thief is good.Nope, stealing a loaf of bread is chaotic. Stealing a loaf of bread from someone you know will starve otherwise is evil. Stealing a loaf of bread from a baker (or anyone in general) is not evil and it is not good either, so it is considered neutral. Stealing a loaf of bread to give to the previously mentioned starving man is good. Remember good & evil are based around altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings or hurting, oppressing, and killing others. A lot of the actions in modern day life which we consider bad are not evil, they are just not lawfull. Try turning it around and taking a look at it. If you walked into a town where the elders passed a law stating no one owned anything and it was perfectly within your rights to take anything from anyone, would stealing be evil? It would be if you knew taking from them would cause them harm as in the previously mentioned act of stealing from the person starving. Nothing has changed in the amount of good or evil being done.
McBAMF 03-07-05, 07:08 PM	Many good points have been brought up but I don't think anyone has really gotten to the "big picture" around the ramafications that all stealing is evil. For example, your party kills a hostile group of bandits. The fact that they are evil or good doesn't matter. What does a party usually do when you have defeated your foe? You loot them. What is looting? Looting is stealing. Someone might say that you can't steal from a dead group of bandits but you can. Grave robbing comes to mind even though they aren't really properly barried. Their families might have payed for their armor. Therefore, you are taking from little children. The bandits might have been funded by a organization who bought the loot you are now taking. That means you are taking from that organization and therefore you are evil. By this definition everyone who as ever looted anything in a dungeon or got anything from defeating a dragon has had an evil alignment. Paladins are evil for looting an evil necromancer. Clerics are just as evil as everyone else. Obviously this definition "stealing is evil" in the D&D world would not work. Adventurers would have to take average jobs to gain gold and what not. Though my definition of stealing is much different than others it still holds truth and should be considered by any DM who wants it implement "stealing is evil."
Thorak 03-07-05, 08:05 PM	Many good points have been brought up but I don't think anyone has really gotten to the "big picture" around the ramafications that all stealing is evil. For example, your party kills a hostile group of bandits. The fact that they are evil or good doesn't matter. What does a party usually do when you have defeated your foe? You loot them. What is looting? Looting is stealing. Someone might say that you can't steal from a dead group of bandits but you can. Grave robbing comes to mind even though they aren't really properly barried. Their families might have payed for their armor. Therefore, you are taking from little children. The bandits might have been funded by a organization who bought the loot you are now taking. That means you are taking from that organization and therefore you are evil. By this definition everyone who as ever looted anything in a dungeon or got anything from defeating a dragon has had an evil alignment. Paladins are evil for looting an evil necromancer. Clerics are just as evil as everyone else. Obviously this definition "stealing is evil" in the D&D world would not work. Adventurers would have to take average jobs to gain gold and what not. Though my definition of stealing is much different than others it still holds truth and should be considered by any DM who wants it implement "stealing is evil." It was widely accepted in many cultures of about the same level of development as the D&D worlds (European Medieval, "Feudal" Japan, etc), that if you defeated an enemy, you were entitled to their gear. Not all their belongings, those are family goods, but whatever they had with them. So, when you kill the bandits and take the loot, you're not graverobbing (which is taking stuff that has been part of the funereal ceremonies and were buried with the body), nor are you stealing. You're taking your entitled spoils of combat.
The Wasp 03-07-05, 10:55 PM	Stealing is generally evil. Robbing the baker is evil - you are deliberately harming an innocent man. Now, assuming he's a rich baker, you may not be hurting him very much, but you are still hurting him. On the cartesian scale of evil, it's a -1/25. Pretty simple logic: if an act is totally neutral, then doing it one thousand times must also be neutral. If stealing one loaf from the baker is neutral, so is stealing one thousand loaves. Furthermore saying it's not my fault if X didn't have car insurance is the height o evil. You are the one causing that person great harm, and the fact is, you don't actually care whether or not you are harming that person. Even stealing $1000 dollars from Bill Gates is evil. Maybe -.01/25 on the cartesian scale of evil, but still evil. Sure its about equivalent to pinching someone - but I maintain that pinching someone you don't know is kind of evil as well. Pinching / theft is only nonevil in two situations: when somebody truly does not mind if you do it, or if they deserve it.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 03-08-05, 12:42 AM	Stealing is generally evil. Robbing the baker is evil - you are deliberately harming an innocent man. Now, assuming he's a rich baker, you may not be hurting him very much, but you are still hurting him. On the cartesian scale of evil, it's a -1/25. Pretty simple logic: if an act is totally neutral, then doing it one thousand times must also be neutral. If stealing one loaf from the baker is neutral, so is stealing one thousand loaves. Furthermore saying it's not my fault if X didn't have car insurance is the height o evil. You are the one causing that person great harm, and the fact is, you don't actually care whether or not you are harming that person. Even stealing $1000 dollars from Bill Gates is evil. Maybe -.01/25 on the cartesian scale of evil, but still evil. Sure its about equivalent to pinching someone - but I maintain that pinching someone you don't know is kind of evil as well. Pinching / theft is only nonevil in two situations: when somebody truly does not mind if you do it, or if they deserve it. I agree. It's evil, but a trivial evil, as with pinching someone. Pinching someone is inflicting pain on somebody (at it's basic). Yet, the problem is that you have to judge the actions by their intentions. If you're pinching someone to wake him so he's not gonna miss his bus, it's an evil (of the trivial "level") act done for a good reason. I'd say it balances. Same as with stealing a ham to feed your family. It's an evil act (an act inflicting harm upon another) done for good reasons. The degree of harm inflicted upon the victim is proportional to the victim's financial status, making it range from a trivial evil (stealing a ham from bill Gates) to the despicable (stealing the ham that was food for a family of 6 for the whole winter). So, I'd say stealing is evil in and of itself, but your motivations and the circumstances can make it a good act for the purpose of alignements (and ethics).
Thorak 03-08-05, 09:14 AM	Stealing is generally evil. Robbing the baker is evil - you are deliberately harming an innocent man. Now, assuming he's a rich baker, you may not be hurting him very much, but you are still hurting him. On the cartesian scale of evil, it's a -1/25. There is no cartesian scale. It is either evil or it is not. And in this case, it isn't evil. Because it doesn't hurt the baker. Sure, it doesn't help him, but he factors theft into his books anyway, so it's an expected loss. Pretty simple logic: if an act is totally neutral, then doing it one thousand times must also be neutral. If stealing one loaf from the baker is neutral, so is stealing one thousand loaves. Where on earth do you get this idea from? By that justification, if an act is good, then doing it 2 billion times must also be good. So let's take tossing a gold piece at a bum. That's a good act. Toss 2 billion gold at him, and he gets crushed. Not good. Furthermore saying it's not my fault if X didn't have car insurance is the height o evil. You are the one causing that person great harm, and the fact is, you don't actually care whether or not you are harming that person. Stealing does not equal harm. Especially when the item stolen isn't necessary to survive. And a car isn't necessary. It's a convenience. Really, by that logic a cop taking away your license is evil, because he's hurting your ability to drive. It's ridiculous. Even stealing $1000 dollars from Bill Gates is evil. Maybe -.01/25 on the cartesian scale of evil, but still evil. Sure its about equivalent to pinching someone - but I maintain that pinching someone you don't know is kind of evil as well. Pinching / theft is only nonevil in two situations: when somebody truly does not mind if you do it, or if they deserve it. Did losing $1000 hurt Bill? No. It's not evil. You are equating loss with hurt, and it's a fallacious statement. If the alignment system worked as you claim, then absolutely everyone in the world is evil. Because they're eating bread when it could have been given to someone who is starving. If you want an absolutely brilliant example of how horrendously wrong-minded your theory is, I reccomend the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind. Your views are the same as Emperor Jagang's, and his society is a pit of absolute horror and suffering.
Cold Napalm 03-08-05, 04:29 PM	Thorak...ahh...a canadian...no wonder. Let's see...I visited korea, japan, NJ and NY. I LIVED in texas and california. In all of those areas, we drive as mentioned above...you live in canada where you don't even have to lock your doors...we...don't.
Nithendil 03-08-05, 04:50 PM	Really, by that logic a cop taking away your license is evil, because he's hurting your ability to drive. It's ridiculous. It would be if it was unprovoked. Stealing does not equal harm. Especially when the item stolen isn't necessary to survive. And a car isn't necessary. It's a convenience. Ok, so if I break into your home, kick you out (a carboard box works just fine for survival [well, maybe not in canada], and this may be a bit difficult as to not "harm" you, but making you unconscious should work just fine), take your car (once again something you don't need for survival, you can take the bus or walk), drain your bank account of all but $10 (this is just fine for food for the week), this is essentially neutral, as you arn't really harmed? Hell, for all I know you have two houses, two cars, insurance, a second bank account. Legally aquired property=rights (you have a right to your legally aquired property, unless you do something illegal or stupid), hence taking property unprovoked is a violation of rights, a violation of rights is evil, hence taking property is evil. [not sure if this was already shot down, I forgot what was in pages 1-4].
kliate 03-08-05, 04:59 PM	you live in canada where you don't even have to lock your doors...we...don't. I'm also in Canada, and my pet beaver likes to keep the doors to our igloo unlocked :nonono: Okay, here's the breakdown: Is stealing Ethical? By conventional utilitarian ethics..maybe - if the harm of one individual is exceeded by the benefit of many. By Kantean ethics..."Thou shalt not steal" means "Thou shalt not steal" - by that definition, it's unethical The fact is that the various ethical measures, whether qualitative or quantitative, have been in conflict over issues such as this for years. Suppose that the thief is a poor man with an entire village depending on his exploits in order to survive - a la Robin Hood. Is he being ethical? That matter is up in the air. Now, was Robin Hood evil? He caused pain to one lord in order to benefit the many. D&D might put him at Chaotic Good due to his moral decision to aid the many overcoming another moral alternative of staying within the law. Life, and the quality thereof, of the poor was of greater importance to him than law. Now consider the image of a tyrant oppressor that enslaves his entire kingdom and leaves them to live out painful lives in his service. LAW might be on his side, but GOODNESS certainly isn't - there's an archtypal example of a Lawful Evil character. Now, in a perfect world we wouldn't have ethical dilemmas about stealing, would we? Nonetheless, the world of D&D isn't perfect, and neither is the one in which we live. The conflict that arises both internal and external to the character is what drives the story. Besides, who would want to play a campaign that starts and ends with "Once upon a time, you all lived happily ever after"?
Twofingers 03-08-05, 07:36 PM	first of all i play a rogue, it is my ultimate class and i play him as chaotic neutral by 3.5 standards in the ph. the way i see it there are 2 kinds of stealing, you can steel from your party but that is bad, when you get caught you nolonger have a party and depending on the party you may be dead. or ,,,,, you can be a scout, scout out the rooms, the party cant see what you are doin, if you find a treasure, take what you want, give the rest to the party, you dont have to tell the party what you took, they were not with you. Chaotic neutral by the ph = Free Spirit, living by your wits, you live on a whim, just becuase you travel with some one doesnt mean you will kill them, just means you need that person or persons at the moment (i.e the adventure). i dont under stand why peeps think that chaotic is so uncontrollable? even chaotic evil is not like that, at least not in my view. Twofingers, hafling rogue may your purse be ever full, and my hands be ever quick corpses dont need money anyways.
HypnoticMonk 03-08-05, 07:37 PM	Stealing is wrong... and 99+% of D&D characters have done so. Proof? How many of us have raided a castle/stronghold/temple/dungeon where people/creatures live? ( "Hmmmm, ok we killed off the guards in their barracks. Let's search the room. We found 250 gp? Good deal!!" [never considering that one of those guards might have been of good alignment who took the only job available to him and he was saving to have his grandmother's curse removed] or "We search the altar... We found 1500gp? Wow..." [thereby taking some money meant to fix up some local farms affected by a recent flood(yes evil priests need to eat too)] ) So yes, we have all "stolen". Sometimes we have stolen from innocents or even good people. Most of us have even killed some of those we have stolen from. We have even been driven to kill solely by the enticement of treasure.("Look at all that gold! Ok, anyone got an idea how we can defeat that dragon? ) Ultimately,my point is that this is a game. Some moral dilemmas can make it interesting, but don't forget that the society that we adventure in is Not the same one that we currently live in. Scratch the surface too deep and you might not like it when you Really think of the possible logical consequences of your actions. (Writing this post reminds me of the dialogue from the Kevin Smith movie Clerks where they talk about the difference between the Death Stars in Star Wars and Return of the Jedi. In the first movie, only Imperial Troops were killed; but in Return, most of who got killed were independant contractors/construction workers/average joes. Yes, the Death Star needed to be destroyed, but...)
quintus 03-08-05, 09:00 PM	Holy cow people... Remember that we've got 2 dimensional alignment system here. Several have pointed this out, but it seems like folks just don't get it. The first dimension (Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic) has mostly to do with whether or not you rigorously adhere to the rule of law. You can't routinely steal and be lawful... Stealing would definitely sway you towards chaotic on this spectrum. The second dimension (Good, Neutral, Evil) has more to do with motives and intention rather than adhering to law. Doing things to help others sways towards good. Doing things to hurt others sways towards evil. A steady diet of theft is clearly chaotic, but it isn't necessarily evil. Once again, people... ROBIN HOOD - the paragon of the chaotic good alignment. He steals, but he is *not* evil... His motivation is good and pure. This is not new stuff. This is not difficult stuff.
Thorak 03-08-05, 09:17 PM	Legally aquired property=rights (you have a right to your legally aquired property, unless you do something illegal or stupid), hence taking property unprovoked is a violation of rights, a violation of rights is evil, hence taking property is evil. [not sure if this was already shot down, I forgot what was in pages 1-4]. I'm quoting this, but this is an open post to all those who are arguing that stealing is evil. Your arguments are essentially, and in some cases explicitly, that stealing is wrong. Wrong does not mean Evil. Wrong means "against your alignment". There's plenty a Lawful Good character would do that a Chaotic Good would see as "wrong". That doesn't mean the actions are bloody evil. There are two axes to alignment, kindly open your eyes to the shades of grey, instead of insisting everything is black and white. On a more specific note, Nithendil, if you're going to claim that stealing absolutely everything somebody owns, which necessarily removes most of that person's means of support and survival, is on par with stealing a loaf of bread, you've got bigger issues with morality than anyone here can help with. Yes, the D&D alignment assumes you can comprehend a minimum of ethical debate. If you insist on black and white morality, go play a CRPG where everything is coded one way or the other. D&D alignment doesn't work that way.
Knight_of_spades 03-08-05, 09:22 PM	Oh for the love of dice! Stealing is evil in the dnd game! Book of vile darkness page 7. I don’t care if some of you who read this dislike being reminded that stealing that candy or cd or whatever from a mall is EVIL. Get over it! People do evil crap all the time. Petty theft is one of them. When it comes to dnd a clear cut approach has been chosen by the game developers. You know why? Because whiny punks who tries to justify every little transgression they have done or wanted to do. We all know the difference between taking away recourses from the enemy, we all know that stealing the gadget of world control from the evil wizard is not evil and we all know stealing pack of smokes is. For the love of dice people! It is not necessary to drench yourself in the blood of innocents to do something evil! People who steal just to fill their own pockets or because they are just tempted to steal it... Then it's evil :P Anybody can make up some longwinded speech to make it seem that petty theft is neutral, but it's not. It is not possible reach a higher moral plane that gives you the right to steal when you feel for it. There is no culture you can belong to that makes theft "okay", there is no uniform, no skin colour, no race, no religion and no organization anywhere in the world that makes stealing neutral. The notion that it would be like that is an air castle designed to ease your conscience nothing more. Stop making these excuses. The excuses are what make it evil.
Zom 03-08-05, 09:44 PM	edit: (this is from Nithendil, firefox messes up cookies at my school.) Your arguments are essentially, and in some cases explicitly, that stealing is wrong. Wrong does not mean Evil. Wrong means "against your alignment". from dictionary.com [cutting out irrelevant parts] e·vil ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vl) Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant. wrong ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rông, rng) Immorally or unjustly So yes, wrong, in a sense, is synonymous with evil. Odd, I did not see anything about alignment in the definition of wrong... There's plenty a Lawful Good character would do that a Chaotic Good would see as "wrong". That doesn't mean the actions are bloody evil. To the LG person they very well may be. Compare this perhaps, in the US, to the LG lawabiding conservative christian vs the CG liberal homosexual. In this case, only the cosmos themselves, or the DM, knows the answer. There are two axes to alignment, kindly open your eyes to the shades of grey, instead of insisting everything is black and white. You yourself said their was no [...] scale. Make up your mind. On a more specific note, Nithendil, if you're going to claim that stealing absolutely everything somebody owns, which necessarily removes most of that person's means of support and survival, is on par with stealing a loaf of bread, you've got bigger issues with morality than anyone here can help with. Both are evil, one is understandable, and arguably more neutral than evil, but still more on the evil side of the spectrum of neutral than the good side. Unless, I suppose, someone [or the government in question] is communist, but that's a different topic. For the sake of this argument I will assume that people have the inalienable right to own property.
MrkGrismer 03-08-05, 11:40 PM	Oh for the love of dice! Stealing is evil in the dnd game! Book of vile darkness page 7. :banghead: I should leave it at that, but: Read over the following sections to get ideas for villainous plots, schemes, motivations, and personalities. Note, that it does not say, "the following is evil", but let's continue on: Any child can tell you that stealing is wrong. Villains, however, often see theft as the best way to acquire what they want. Evil people pay only for things they cannot take. This is where I have a big problem with the BoVD, and yes I hold Monte Cook personally responsible since his name is on the cover. Because it expounds upon what "evil people" are willing to do it equates these things with evil: Lying, Cheating, Theft, Betrayal, Murder, Vengence, Using Others for Personal Gain, Greed, Bullying and cowing innocents, bringing despair, and tempting others. Good Grief! Chaotic become meaningless! Of course, because of what I quoted in the first part it is apparent that the intention was to equate these things with "villains", but because of poor choice of words it instead equates them with evil. Personally I think the 'morality' sections of the BoVD (and BoED), while perhaps written with good intentions, does not reflect core D&D. There was a series of articles in Dragon magazine way back (I'm talking pre-issue 30 here, I believe) that did a much better job of elaborating on Good vs. Evil, and how Evil is not Stupid (and it's companion article on how Good is not Stupid). There is some useful stuff in the books, but the idea that cheating at cards is evil is just as much hogwash as the idea that poisons are always evil, except for these poison which are identical to the evil poisons except they only harm evil things (and the evil poisons harm anything). Good fricking grief. [/rant] :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Thorak 03-08-05, 11:56 PM	from dictionary.com [cutting out irrelevant parts] e·vil ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vl) Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant. wrong ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rông, rng) Immorally or unjustly So yes, wrong, in a sense, is synonymous with evil. Odd, I did not see anything about alignment in the definition of wrong... Yes, wrong can be synonymous with evil. Take a look at the other bit. Unjustly. Dictionary.com; 1. Violating principles of justice or fairness; unfair: “monstrously unjust and socially harmful” (Anna Garlin Spencer). 2. Archaic. Faithless; dishonest. Both seem pretty clearly to be about lawfulness. It being wrong doesn't mean it's evil. It could just be unlawful. To a LG character, both might seem equally "wrong". To a CG character, only the evil seems wrong, the unlawful stuff seems pretty much OK. To the LG person they very well may be. Compare this perhaps, in the US, to the LG lawabiding conservative christian vs the CG liberal homosexual. In this case, only the cosmos themselves, or the DM, knows the answer. And yet, you guys are essentially claiming that, because you (to put yourself in the LG position, not making assertions on your actual beliefs) believe homosexuality is wrong, gay people are evil. See the problem yet? You yourself said their was no [...] scale. Make up your mind. I said there was no cartesian scale. You can't say X action is +2 Evil. You can say X action is morally gray, but lighter than it is dark. Picture alignment like two colour scales. One white to black, the other blue to red. White is Good, Blue is lawful, making Black Evil, and Red Chaotic. NG characters don't care how red or blue an action is, they just want it to be as bright as possible. LG characters want it to be a brilliant blue, and any tinge of red or darkness is "bad". CG characters want it bright red. True Neutrals want a nice darkish purple. And the evils want it dark dark dark, with a tinge of whatever color they prefer. Wrongness is relative. Good-Evil and Chaotic-Lawful are absolute. Stealing is clearly wrong to a Lawful Good person, but would it be wrong to a Chaotic Good? Not if we look at the example of Robin Hood, who "steals from the rich to give to the poor." He still steals, and yet he's Good. Therefore, Stealing is "wrong" because it's not Lawful. If you can do something and it be Good, the action is not Evil. The motives behind it may be, which will make the specific instance evil, but the act itself in general is not. Both are evil, one is understandable, and arguably more neutral than evil, but still more on the evil side of the spectrum of neutral than the good side. Unless, I suppose, someone [or the government in question] is communist, but that's a different topic. For the sake of this argument I will assume that people have the inalienable right to own property. Kindly don't assume that anyone has an inalienable right to anything. That's putting the argument into a Lawful perspective, colouring it in your favour. And, incidentally, try exerting your right to own property when you default on your car loan and the repo guys are taking it away. It's not an inalienable right. No "human rights" are. Heck, we supposedly have a right to life. Tell that to death-row convicts. I'm sure they'll be amused at the concept of an inalienable right to something that is being denied them by the government. Inalienable human rights are a fiction. If they can be broached for any reason, they aren't inalienable, nor are they rights. They are priveleges, and ones you can forfeit. If you think people have inalienable human rights, I assume you think it's wrong to ever tread on those rights at any time for any reason. That's what makes them "rights". Which means you cannot possibly condone war for any reason whatsoever, or the death penalty, or killing in self defense, or any of a thousand things that are assumed to be at least allowable if not completely OK. Heck, you provide your own counterexample. Ignoring the corrupt instances the world has actually seen, in a perfectly communist society you don't have any right to own property. Is communism, then, inherently evil in and of itself? You'll find that a hard sell, I think.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 03-08-05, 11:57 PM	1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a man of evil reputation> 2 a archaic : INFERIOR b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE <an evil odor> c : DISAGREEABLE <woke late and in an evil temper> 3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS <the evil institution of slavery> b : marked by misfortune : UNLUCKY 1a): morally reprehensible. most people agree that stealing is normaly moraly reprehensible. Even in the best circumstances (stealing from a rich merchant to feed your starving family), the act is moraly reprehensible, but done for actions that are easily excused as being good reason. 2b): causing discomfort or repulsion. Stealing from someone is gonna deprive said victim of ownership/use of the stolen object. This is a discomfort, no matter how slight. 3a): Most people would find that being stolen from is offensive. Stealing is an evil act by itself, yet the reasons behind the act can make it a good act (in society's eye). As for the personnal justification, it's a moot point, because almost everybody's gonna think he's stealing for "right" reasons (no food, unfair that I can't have that, etc.). It's called rationalisation. My conclusion: Both sides of the argument are correct. It all depend on wich ethical "scale" (not sure of the appropriate english word) you use. Conventional utilitarian ethics: Stealing is not inherently evil, it depend on the circonstances. Kantean ethics: Stealing is wrong. (as someone posted before). It's not a question of misunderstanding ethical debates, it's a disgreement on wich ethic to use.
weasel fierce 03-09-05, 12:27 AM	Im sure someone else has already posted it, but... the alignments were never supposed to be more than a rough guideline to assist in roleplaying....
Nithendil 03-09-05, 12:33 AM	Yes, wrong both encompasses law/chaos and good/evil. Kindly don't assume that anyone has an inalienable right to anything. That's putting the argument into a Lawful perspective, colouring it in your favour. They are priveleges, and ones you can forfeit. Rights cannot be granted, you are correct, those are priveleges, not rights. We're talking about two different things. Government grants privlages, you are born with rights. The government may disagree that you have rights, but that doesn't matter, you own your rights, and you can always (perhaps with some difficulty) try to go somewhere where they are more acceptable. I'm not sure what they do in Canada, but here in the US, an innocent person does have an inalienable right (and privlage) to property. Rights are both on the law/chaos and good/evil scale. Rights are inherently good. The government may seize something, but they must compensate you for it (unless you are found guilty of something, and that is a whole other issue). It would be both chaotic (as it is against US laws) and evil (as it is a violation of rights) if they were to seize property fully paid for without compensation from an innocent person. And, incidentally, try exerting your right to own property when you default on your car loan and the repo guys are taking it away. You don't own the car, the bank does. Unless you've paid the bank off, then it would be wrong for them to repo it. It's not an inalienable right. No "human rights" are. Heck, we supposedly have a right to life. Tell that to death-row convicts. I'm sure they'll be amused at the concept of an inalienable right to something that is being denied them by the government. Rights are inalienable, however, your government may disagree, which makes most government evil (albiet necessary) IMO. Your right is still there, it is just continously violated. See the problem yet? The problem is alignment depends on your point of reference. If you think people have inalienable human rights, I assume you think it's wrong to ever tread on those rights at any time for any reason. That's what makes them "rights". Which means you cannot possibly condone war for any reason whatsoever, or the death penalty, or killing in self defense, or any of a thousand things that are assumed to be at least allowable if not completely OK. Not for any reason. I think this would best be carried out via PM if you would like to continue the discussion, because IMO you are adding extra variables. Is communism, then, inherently evil in and of itself? You'll find that a hard sell, I think. It was wrong :rolleyes: of me to involve politics in this, as I'm sure it is against the CoC, but I would say yes (for communism as implemented). If you don't own any property, most rights are squandered (if they dont agree with your speech, and the government owns the media, you can be silenced. And speech is the basis for how all rights flourish).
Nithendil 03-09-05, 12:36 AM	Im sure someone else has already posted it, but... the alignments were never supposed to be more than a rough guideline to assist in roleplaying.... With this I agree, however, alignment discussion threads are as much of a staple to these boards as "1001 ways" threads. The end result, in every one, is that basically what the DM says goes.
Thorak 03-09-05, 07:41 AM	Rights are inalienable, however, your government may disagree, which makes most government evil (albiet necessary) IMO. Your right is still there, it is just continously violated. Okay, so going back to property, are you saying that a convicted serial killer has a right to own an assault rifle? That's property, after all. If you think there should be limitations or restrictions on rights, they're not inalienable. It was wrong :rolleyes: of me to involve politics in this, as I'm sure it is against the CoC, but I would say yes (for communism as implemented). If you don't own any property, most rights are squandered (if they dont agree with your speech, and the government owns the media, you can be silenced. And speech is the basis for how all rights flourish). This is the last I'll say on this, because we are treading on the edges of the CoC. I did clarify that I meant a pure form of communism, not the corrupted forms that have been implemented in the past. Not that any actual society is going to be pure, a pure democracy would make every decision through a public vote, for instance. Pure forms aren't really workable. But we can use them for intellectual discussion. As for the greater issue; ethics are irrelevant. By D&D standards, some of them will be lawful. And those will find stealing just as unethical as sadistic murder. Any system of ethics, in fact, will be lawful in large part, that's the whole purpose of a system. Go back to Robin Hood, and the CG archetype in the PHB, though. They're both stealing. Explicitly. And they're both Good. Explicitly. The two aren't antagonistic notions. It's my opinion that too many people think they're CG at heart, when really they're NG or LG. So when anything seems "wrong", because they don't think they themselves are lawful, it must be evil. The problem is, if you think most of society's rules make good sense and are necessary for civilization, you're probably Lawful. If you think a balance between them and individual freedom is needed, you're probably neutral. It's if you place freedom entirely before laws that you're Chaotic. Also, can we drop this notion of "permissible" evils? That, and the concept of the "greater good", are not ways that evil things become allowable. They are justifications for being Evil. Murdering one person to save 10,000 is an Evil act. Because you murderered someone. If you feel no guilt, then you're an Evil person. If you do, then you're probably Good, but resorted to Evil for some reason; alignment's not a straightjacket. But an Evil act never becomes Good, for any reason whatsoever. At best, you're justifying acting Evilly.
Nithendil 03-09-05, 10:14 AM	Okay, so going back to property, are you saying that a convicted serial killer has a right to own an assault rifle? Please, I mentioned innocence....no-one is going to argue a convicted serial-killer has a right to own an assault rifle...let's bring things a bit away from the extreme....but you are correct, once you are found guilty inalienable goes out the window, but within the context of innocence I will assume rights are inalienable. Go back to Robin Hood, and the CG archetype in the PHB, though. They're both stealing. Explicitly. And they're both Good. Explicitly. The two aren't antagonistic notions. Yes, but if I remember correctly he is stealing from the government, which is something totally different (as through taxes the government is already stealing from the people). If you believe innocent hard working innovative individuals deserve the money they make, and if robin hood stole just from some simple rich person, then I would say his action was evil. Murdering one person to save 10,000 is an Evil act. Because you murderered someone. Yes, evil, but perhaps understandable.
Knight_of_spades 03-09-05, 10:24 AM	Chaotic become meaningless! No it does not! Chaotic is a semi abstract principle about freedom and randomness. It is not an excuse for being evil. It is not an excuse for messing with the other players (chaotic is individualistic not anti-social). It is not an excuse for stealing (a chaotic might not love paying taxes, but he does not steal for others who have done nothing against him or those he love.), cheating (chaotic have their own code of honor centered around individualism and self reliance) or lying (a chaotic only lies to those he sees as enemies or without honor which returns us to the evil wizard argument) Hiding behind "chaotic" is evil. Stealing can be both lawful evil, neutral evil and chaotic evil. The evil baron can over tax the poor peasants, the party member can pick the pockets of his fellow party member and the orc can yell "give me treasure!" into a commoners face. If the intent is to fill your own pocket then your character is evil. Let us remember what we are talking about here, a rouge who wants to run around the town square picking the pockets of peasants. The dnd alignment system is made to clearly distinguish those who steal to fill their pockets (evil) from those who steal because they have to (everybody else). And it is made that way to make life difficult for whiny rules lawyers. This is not real life, it is a game where the distinction between good and evil is if not always easy to see at least it is present. There is no way in hell you can steal to fill your own pockets and still remain neutral! Forget it! Oh and Mrkgrismer.. Theft is listed under evil acts on page 7 in the book of vile darkness. Why bother lie about something half the board can check out for themselves?
Thorak 03-09-05, 10:53 AM	Please, I mentioned innocence....no-one is going to argue a convicted serial-killer has a right to own an assault rifle...let's bring things a bit away from the extreme....but you are correct, once you are found guilty inalienable goes out the window, but within the context of innocence I will assume rights are inalienable. Ah, so by "inalienable" you mean "contingent on other factors". Dictionary.com; "adj 1: incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" 2: not subject to forfeiture; "an unforfeitable right" " If they're inalienable, you can't forfeit them for any reason. If you agree that serial killers don't have the right to own assault rifles, you are saying that the right to property is not inalienable. Yes, but if I remember correctly he is stealing from the government, which is something totally different (as through taxes the government is already stealing from the people). If you believe innocent hard working innovative individuals deserve the money they make, and if robin hood stole just from some simple rich person, then I would say his action was evil. Oh. Dear. Lord. After all this "stealing is stealing, and it's all evil", you're now going to say "It's OK, because it's stealing from the government?" Normally, when you take actions against the government, that's a bigger deal. They've got words like "treason" for things like that. It's hardly more condonable. And if you think taxes are the government stealing anything, you seriously need to take a political science, or history, or economics course. To have a government, there must be taxes. That's what pays for all the stuff you want government to have. Without taxes, there would be no army, no police, no road maintenance, no laws, no authorities, etc, etc. Even if the taxes are unfair, it's not theft. Because the government is in the complete legal right. Theft is a legal issue. I really don't understand how you can sit there saying stealing a loaf of bread is evil, while tossing off treason and sedition like they're perfectly fine. By every reason stealing is bad, the others are worse.
Nithendil 03-09-05, 11:04 AM	Oh. Dear. Lord. After all this "stealing is stealing, and it's all evil", you're now going to say "It's OK, because it's stealing from the government?" Normally, when you take actions against the government, that's a bigger deal. They've got words like "treason" for things like that. It's hardly more condonable. And if you think taxes are the government stealing anything, you seriously need to take a political science, or history, or economics course. To have a government, there must be taxes. That's what pays for all the stuff you want government to have. Without taxes, there would be no army, no police, no road maintenance, no laws, no authorities, etc, etc. Even if the taxes are unfair, it's not theft. Because the government is in the complete legal right. Theft is a legal issue. I really don't understand how you can sit there saying stealing a loaf of bread is evil, while tossing off treason and sedition like they're perfectly fine. By every reason stealing is bad, the others are worse. Context. It is perfectly reasonable for a choatic character to view taxes as both unjust and evil. How else would robin hood be good? Or are you saying that he is, indeed, evil? Was it not ok then for the king to tax the peasants out of existence? And wow. If you don't pay your taxes in Canada and they charge you with treason, that's messed up IMO. If they're inalienable, you can't forfeit them for any reason. If you agree that serial killers don't have the right to own assault rifles, you are saying that the right to property is not inalienable. An innocent person has inanienable rights. Once you change one condition you change the other. A criminal does not have inalienable rights (edit: at least in regards to property).
MrkGrismer 03-09-05, 12:47 PM	Oh and Mrkgrismer.. Theft is listed under evil acts on page 7 in the book of vile darkness. Why bother lie about something half the board can check out for themselves? I didn't say it wasn't. I guess we are going to have to debate this at length: Lying is not necessary an evil act, though it is a tool that can easily be used for evil ends. But yet it is listed under "evil acts" on page 7. killing an evil creature to stop it from doing further harm is not an evil act But yet it is listed under "evil acts" on page 7. An act of vengence does not have to be evil But yet it is listed under "evil acts" on page 8. BoVD is labeled as Mature Content, perhaps this is because the author(s) expected the reader to be mature enough to know that the section on "evil acts" was intended to be ideas for villainous plots, schemes, motivations, and personalities. and not rules making lying, cheating at cards, and theft into vile evilness.
Thorak 03-09-05, 01:11 PM	Context. It is perfectly reasonable for a choatic character to view taxes as both unjust and evil. How else would robin hood be good? Or are you saying that he is, indeed, evil? Was it not ok then for the king to tax the peasants out of existence? And wow. If you don't pay your taxes in Canada and they charge you with treason, that's messed up IMO. You're mixing your own miswordings with my terms. It's perfectly reasonable for a chaotic character to view taxes as both unjust and wrong. If he uses the word "evil", he isn't using it the same way the word is used in D&D alignment. Wrong /= Evil. As for not paying taxes; that was two separate points. What Robin Hood was doing was seditious, and it was treason. There is no doubt whatsoever on that point. He was pardoned for his crimes when the King returned, because the King knew his actions weren't against the crown, but against Prince John alone. But they were still crimes. I can make the distinction because I can see that illegal things aren't necessarily evil, so treason and sedition aren't necessarily evil, like in the case of Robin Hood. My point was that I don't understand how you can make the same kind of justification, while asserting that stealing is evil. It's hypocritical, either illegal things are evil, or they're not. Make up your mind. An innocent person has inanienable rights. Once you change one condition you change the other. A criminal does not have inalienable rights (edit: at least in regards to property). Look up "inalienable" in the dictionary, please. If you put a qualifier on a right, it ceases to be inalienable. And innocence or guilt is a qualifier. You want an inalienable right in North American society? The right not to be discriminated against due to your race. It doesn't matter what you do, if you're treated poorly just because you're black, that's wrong. Even if you're a death row inmate who's killed hundreds. Property isn't an inalienable right.
Nithendil 03-09-05, 02:21 PM	I can simply say that the so called serial killer loses his privlage to keep weapons, but still has the right to property. Note I never said all property. Even the criminal retains his right to keep most of his property while in jail, such as real estate (with the exception of drug seizures). But his privlage to own certain property (ie guns) is revoked. Look up "inalienable" in the dictionary, please I did. Prove this statement wrong: An innocent person has inanienable rights. Even for a criminal, the government may not allow you the privlage of owning certain property, but you still have the right to own property. You're mixing your own miswordings with my terms. It's perfectly reasonable for a chaotic character to view taxes as both unjust and wrong. If he uses the word "evil", he isn't using it the same way the word is used in D&D alignment. In this case, wrong is synonymous with evil, as it is both unjust, and theft (from the view of certain chaotic individuals). Evil, in D&D terms implies "oppression" and to the choatic individual, taxes could fit that bill. It's hypocritical, either illegal things are evil, or they're not. If you insist on black and white morality, go play a CRPG where everything is coded one way or the other :bored: Property isn't an inalienable right. I'm sorry you feel that way, but I will continue to exercise my right to own property. Who allows you to own property, since you do not have an inalienable right to own property? Or do you own no property at all? Does your government decide what you do or do not own?
Maerdash 03-09-05, 02:26 PM	ok this is sad, yes stealing is wrong from a legal stand point and in some cases from a moral stand point, but you cant say that a chaotic good character who steals from evil guys only is a good guy stealing is either evil or its not, personally i rule it by motivation, are you stealing from commoners who earn 1sp a day (not that anyone would) so you can get a little cash or are you stealing for (cliche) a noble reason (to you) such as all nobles are sorry good for nothing pigs who keep the common peoples well deserved wealth from them. To me as a dm neither of these is a good act, but neither of them is an evil act either. Chaotic? Yes but evil? give me us break
Nithendil 03-09-05, 02:31 PM	are you stealing from commoners who earn 1sp a day (not that anyone would) so you can get a little cash or are you stealing for (cliche) a noble reason (to you) such as all nobles are sorry good for nothing pigs who keep the common peoples well deserved wealth from them So, to clarify, you think stealing from a hard working noble, (we'll assume) who has done nothing wrong but work hard to earn his money, has nothing to do with good or evil?
Knight_of_spades 03-09-05, 03:04 PM	I didn't say it wasn't. I guess we are going to have to debate this at length: BoVD is labeled as Mature Content, perhaps this is because the author(s) expected the reader to be mature enough to know that the section on "evil acts" was intended to be and not rules making lying, cheating at cards, and theft into vile evilness. Hey it was you who said that theft was not listed as evil in the bovd. For all your other "points" about lying and cheating at cards, well I don't know why you bother. You were wrong about theft not being listed as an evil act and that is that. You can off course create for yourself an "alternative" set of moral beliefs so that you don't have to think but please don't try to force this political correct "everything is okay" line down the throats of the dnd players. It is just a game, it does not hurt it to have a clear distinction of what you are "allowed" to steal. In fact it helps.
Knight_of_spades 03-09-05, 03:19 PM	, personally i rule it by motivation, And so you should. No more "if you dont break the leg of those you steal from then you are not evil" crap.
Scipio 03-09-05, 03:44 PM	I have played several CN characters in my career. I just play them as "me first" type survivors... not stupidly selfish, but realizing what needs to be done to keep them alive and prospering. They did a few little evil things when it needed to be done, and did a few good things that also benefited them in the long run. Very much a sense of "live and let live". Above all else, they had a sense of independence, and self preservation. They would extend their sense of "every man for himself" to their party, if it made sense for their survival. They had a high sense of personal honor, and kept to their word. THey didn't trust the laws and rules of others, but expected the personal words of others to be kept. This is one of the best examples ive seen of true CN. The only other way I've seen it played that wasn't stupid was not the random method most use, but rather more reactionary. He did whatever he thought of first, in regards to the situation at hand.
MrkGrismer 03-09-05, 06:18 PM	Hey it was you who said that theft was not listed as evil in the bovd. No, as a matter of fact I did not. Note, that it does not say, "the following is evil", but let's continue on: If you are incapable of understanding that the above is not the same thing as saying that theft is not listed under "evil deeds" then that is your own problem. Everything listed under "evil deeds" isn't even presented as being evil within the section. For all your other "points" about lying and cheating at cards, well I don't know why you bother. You were wrong about theft not being listed as an evil act and that is that. Since I never said that, how can I be wrong about it? Or do you have a problem with reading comprehension? You can off course create for yourself an "alternative" set of moral beliefs so that you don't have to think but please don't try to force this political correct "everything is okay" line down the throats of the dnd players. Well aren't you just the kettle calling everything black? BoVD is not core D&D, it is an optional book for those capable of putting two-and-two together and arriving at a reasonable conclusion. So please don't try to force this politically correct "everything that could possibly cause harm to anything is evil" line down the throats of dnd players. It is just a game, it does not hurt it to have a clear distinction of what you are "allowed" to steal. In fact it helps. By your apparent reading of the BoVD, a non-evil character is not "allowed" to steal anything. In fact, if we were to accept that everything listed under "evil deeds" in the BoVD were, in fact unexcusably evil deeds then all adventurers would have to be evil. Since they must lie, cheat, steal, betray, and murder as part of the game.
mercurial67 03-09-05, 07:07 PM	So many people feel the need to use their own definition of evil instead of the game definition of evil. According to the SRD Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.It also says “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.Stealing from someone does not debase or destroy innocent life. We are not talking about "oh woe is me, I have less money than I used to & have been harmed". Having less stuff does not cause actual harm.Ok, so if I break into your home, kick you out (a carboard box works just fine for survival [well, maybe not in canada], and this may be a bit difficult as to not "harm" you, but making you unconscious should work just fine), take your car (once again something you don't need for survival, you can take the bus or walk), drain your bank account of all but $10 (this is just fine for food for the week), this is essentially neutral, as you arn't really harmed?In the previous quote, NO ONE WAS HARMED, OPPRESSED, OR KILLED. Having all your stuff taken away and all your money taken away does not cause any harm, you just don't have that stuff/money anymore! The fact you don't have shelter & don't have food is irrelevant to the fact you had everything taken away from you. Stealing in and of itself is not evil. You have to look at the residual effects. If you go around taking from others where you know it will cause real hurt, then you are destroying life for profit. If you go around taking from others because you enjoy causing them distress, then you are debasing life for fun. If you go around taking from people because they have and you don't have, that is neither debasing nor destroying life, that is just you being greedy and is not evil.
Thorak 03-09-05, 07:26 PM	I can simply say that the so called serial killer loses his privlage to keep weapons, but still has the right to property. Note I never said all property. Even the criminal retains his right to keep most of his property while in jail, such as real estate (with the exception of drug seizures). But his privlage to own certain property (ie guns) is revoked. I did. Prove this statement wrong: [statement re-inserted for clarity] "An innocent person has inanienable rights." Inalienable, as I already cited, means unforfeitable. Becoming guilty would forfeit the rights. Ergo, the rights are not inalienable. I shouldn't have had to repeat that. Even for a criminal, the government may not allow you the privlage of owning certain property, but you still have the right to own property. Again, if you're placing limitations on it, it's not an inalienable human right. That's like claiming that it's OK to execute black people for any crime, because they're lost the right to not be discriminated against based on race. In this case, wrong is synonymous with evil, as it is both unjust, and theft (from the view of certain chaotic individuals). Evil, in D&D terms implies "oppression" and to the choatic individual, taxes could fit that bill. And? Taxes can be used for evil. That has absolutely nothing to do with their being taxes, it has to do with their being used to oppress or hurt people. Claiming that taxes are evil is like claiming that a sword is evil, just because it could be used to hurt someone. And even if taxes are being used for evil purposes, they aren't in any way theft, because the crown is legally entitled to the taxes it levies. Even evil taxes. It's not fair or just, but it's perfectly lawful. :bored: Ahh, the "I can't come up with a decent argument, so I'll imply that these are silly and hope nobody notices that Thorak's got a point" style of arguing. I'm sorry you feel that way, but I will continue to exercise my right to own property. Who allows you to own property, since you do not have an inalienable right to own property? Or do you own no property at all? Does your government decide what you do or do not own? Yes. The government does decide what I do or do not own. Try to buy a house without getting the government document, the deed, that says you own it. Or a car, and the registration required. The government doesn't bother with smaller things, because that would create more work than would be of any use. But the government does define who owns what. Heck, look at divorce cases. Where the courts of law decides who, out of each partner, owns what out of their previously mutual property. If the courts decide the wife gets everything, then the husband is screwed. Some inalienable right to the property he bought, huh?
Nithendil 03-09-05, 08:29 PM	Ok, starting over... Rights are inalienable because they cannot be granted. Privileges are granted. If you are alone on a desert island, who gives you the right to own property? Yourself, not government. Government can only take away privileges, or suppress rights. Even our own country (US), at times a violator of human rights, recognizes inalienable rights in its history. Such as the declaration of independence (albeit it does not mention property): ...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. and our constitution hence grants the privilege (as it has no power to grant rights, as they are inalienable. It only has the power to limit government [hence language such as shall not be violated): The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. -- Amendment IV, US Constitution We have two things. Rights vs privileges. Rights These you always keep, as they are inalienable and you are born with them. They cannot be taken away. Nor can they be granted. The government may say otherwise, but that does not matter. You can always (with some difficulty) switch governments. The law as written does not matter, you as an individual have certain rights [hence the creation of global human rights commissions]. I would argue this is the part that falls in the good/evil spectrum. Privileges Privileges are advantages that are granted or taken away. The government may or may not grant you the privilege of something. I would argue that this is the part that falls in the law/chaos spectrum. ---- Now, we must temporarily stop here. If we cannot agree to even this much then there is no point for us to continue arguing, and I cease, because if means that you do not believe in rights, but only privileges that the government will or will not allow. I, for one, resist being classified as a sheep whose rights only exist because of government, as for me this is not true. If we are to continue, with the foundation that individuals do have rights, the question becomes: is property one of those rights? If it is inalienable at his point doesn’t matter, for the sake of moving on. Most governments grant the privilege of owning certain property, which for the sake of discussion we will assume is a right and ignore inalienable. If this is true, and that right is violated unprovoked, I argue that it is: un•just ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-jst) adj. Violating principles of justice or fairness; unfair: “monstrously unjust and socially harmful” (Anna Garlin Spencer). Archaic. Faithless; dishonest. as it is illegal, and: im•mor•al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-môrl, -mr-) adj. Contrary to established moral principles. as it is against (most) societies established moral principals (thou shalt not steal, etc) and hence: e•vil n. 1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness. 2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil. 3. An evil force, power, or personification. 4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice. as it is immoral. The truth is it all depends on your reference, hence the circular alignment debates. The DM God of Judgement may view things one way, the campaign society another, the victim a different view, and the provoker yet another. (edit: and for the CG robin hood archtype I would argue that he never even really stole anything, he simply took back what was theirs to begin with).
Knight_of_spades 03-09-05, 09:09 PM	No, as a matter of fact I did not. Quote: Originally Posted by MrkGrismer Note, that it does not say, "the following is evil", but let's continue on: Yes you did. You said that it said that the following is not evil even when it is listed under the “evil things” section. If you are incapable of understanding that the above is not the same thing as saying that theft is not listed under "evil deeds" then that is your own problem. Well the problem that you create is that you try to imply that stealing is not under the “evil things” section Everything listed under "evil deeds" isn't even presented as being evil within the section. This is what I am talking about the constant wishy-washiness. Are you really that stupid that it has things has to be repeated in every sentence? Are you a rules lawyer or what? Since I never said that, how can I be wrong about it? Or do you have a problem with reading comprehension? No, I have a problem with shallow looser babble. Well aren't you just the kettle calling everything black? BoVD is not core D&D, it is an optional book for those capable of putting two-and-two together and arriving at a reasonable conclusion. So please don't try to force this politically correct "everything that could possibly cause harm to anything is evil" line down the throats of dnd players. Now you just try to my side of the case in a bad light by pretending that I am against everything that can be used for evil. I’m not against swords.. I am not saying that taking the “gizmo of world crushing” is evil. I am saying that stealing from peasants on the town square for no other reason than to fill your own pockets is evil! That is what I am saying! That is what we are talking about here! Nothing else! By your apparent reading of the BoVD, a non-evil character is not "allowed" to steal anything. In fact, if we were to accept that everything listed under "evil deeds" in the BoVD were, in fact unexcusably evil deeds then all adventurers would have to be evil. Since they must lie, cheat, steal, betray, and murder as part of the game. They don’t have to lie they don’t have to steal, they certainly don’t have to betray and killing in self defense is not murder.
Thorak 03-09-05, 09:17 PM	Ok, starting over... Rights are inalienable because they cannot be granted. Privileges are granted. If you are alone on a desert island, who gives you the right to own property? Yourself, not government. Government can only take away privileges, or suppress rights. Even our own country (US), at times a violator of human rights, recognizes inalienable rights in its history. Such as the declaration of independence (albeit it does not mention property): That's not what 'inalienable' means. Look it up in a dictionary. I've already cited a definition at you. and our constitution hence grants the privilege (as it has no power to grant rights, as they are inalienable. It only has the power to limit government [hence language such as shall not be violated): You still don't understand what that word means. Stop using it until you do. And, as an amusing note, I'd like to point out that the death sentence is in breach of the Constitution. Considering it's removing someone's unalienable right to Life. Well, either that, or the founding fathers didn't understand what the word meant, either. We have two things. Rights vs privileges. Rights These you always keep, as they are inalienable and you are born with them. They cannot be taken away. Nor can they be granted. The government may say otherwise, but that does not matter. You can always (with some difficulty) switch governments. The law as written does not matter, you as an individual have certain rights [hence the creation of global human rights commissions]. I would argue this is the part that falls in the good/evil spectrum. Privileges Privileges are advantages that are granted or taken away. The government may or may not grant you the privilege of something. I would argue that this is the part that falls in the law/chaos spectrum. Rights can't be taken away? You have the right to life. Somebody shoots you. Your right has been taken away. The right to liberty. You're put in prison. The right to happiness. The love of your life cheats on you and breaks your heart. They bloody well can be taken away. Now, we must temporarily stop here. If we cannot agree to even this much then there is no point for us to continue arguing, and I cease, because if means that you do not believe in rights, but only privileges that the government will or will not allow. I, for one, resist being classified as a sheep whose rights only exist because of government, as for me this is not true. Your personal opinion regarding rights is absolutely irrelevant if society disagrees with you. Shouting that you have a right to liberty won't do you a darn lick of good if you're living in a police state. I have to ask; what good are rights if government doesn't enforce them? They are entirely a legal construction. If we are to continue, with the foundation that individuals do have rights, the question becomes: is property one of those rights? If it is inalienable at his point doesn’t matter, for the sake of moving on. Most governments grant the privilege of owning certain property, which for the sake of discussion we will assume is a right and ignore inalienable. If this is true, and that right is violated unprovoked, I argue that it is: as it is illegal, and: as it is against (most) societies established moral principals (thou shalt not steal, etc) and hence: as it is immoral. This works right up until you use a dictionary definition for evil, rather than the D&D definition. We're not discussing some esoteric form of evil, but the fairly sharply defined term used in D&D. The truth is it all depends on your reference, hence the circular alignment debates. The DM God of Judgement may view things one way, the campaign society another, the victim a different view, and the provoker yet another. (edit: and for the CG robin hood archtype I would argue that he never even really stole anything, he simply took back what was theirs to begin with). That edit is nothing but a justification for theft. I could say "I never stole, I just took away what that corporate bigwig took from his shareholders by making a big profit." Does that mean that I didn't steal? No bloody way. Robin hood stole. From the rich, to give to the poor. But he stole. The stories are pretty darn clear. And I repeat; if you're going to talk about "inalienable" anything, look the word up before using it again.
Knight_of_spades 03-09-05, 09:24 PM	So many people feel the need to use their own definition of evil instead of the game definition of evil. According to the SRD It also says Stealing from someone does not debase or destroy innocent life. But it does it is a form of oppression. One of the most effective forms of oppression, the srd clearly state that oppression is evil. In fact I can not think of anything more in common with all the forms different systems of oppression than stealing the oppressed belongings. Stealing in and of itself is not evil. You have to look at the residual effects. So why do all of you crime groupies chose to ignore the residual effects? Why do you insist shoving responsibility upon the victim? The only thing that matters for something to be good and evil is the intention of the thief! Nothing else!
MrkGrismer 03-09-05, 10:34 PM	Yes you did. You said that it said that the following is not evil even when it is listed under the “evil things” section. No I did not. Note, that it does not say, "the following is evil", but let's continue on: The only way my above statement would be untrue is if it did, indeed, say "the following is evil", but it does not. Well the problem that you create is that you try to imply that stealing is not under the “evil things” section Please consult a dictionary on the difference between imply and infer. You will find that I did not imply that stealing is not listed under the "evil things" section. Nor did I imply that theft is not listed under the "evil deeds" section (since there is no "evil things" section). What you inferred by you incapability to comprehend the written word is your own problem. This is what I am talking about the constant wishy-washiness. Are you really that stupid that it has things has to be repeated in every sentence? Are you a rules lawyer or what? #1) Coc violation. #2) Some of the things that are under the "evil deeds" section specifically spell out that they are not evil in every circumstance. So your statement would seem to apply more to you then to me. Do things have to be repeated in every sentence for you to understand that they are not always evil? #3) You are the one claiming that BoVD states that stealing is unequivably evil in each and every circumstance. Are you a rules lawyer or what? No, I have a problem with shallow looser babble. CoC violation number 2. Now you just try to my side of the case in a bad light by pretending that I am against everything that can be used for evil. I’m not against swords.. I am not saying that taking the “gizmo of world crushing” is evil. I am saying that stealing from peasants on the town square for no other reason than to fill your own pockets is evil! That is what I am saying! That is what we are talking about here! Nothing else! Wait a minute! You are the one expounding upon how the BoVD says that stealing is always evil. Now you are saying that it is evil when it is stealing from peasants for no other reason than to fill your own pockets? Why does it matter if they are peasants? Why does it matter if it is to fill one's own pockets or not? Come on! According to you the BoVD says that it is alwayws evil! Are you backing down from that statement now? They don’t have to lie they don’t have to steal, they certainly don’t have to betray and killing in self defense is not murder. Everytime a wizard casts an illusion spell they are lying. That includes spells like displacement. Everytime a divination spell is cast a secret is betrayed. Anytime an adventurer loots ruins, tombs or dungeons they are stealing. And anytime an adventurer attacks first (wins initiative) they are not killing in self defense.
Nithendil 03-09-05, 11:10 PM	That's not what 'inalienable' means. Look it up in a dictionary. I've already cited a definition at you. To continue to beat a dead horse, take out every "inalienable" in my post above, and it remains nearly the same. Stop using it until you do. Perhaps we can have a civil discussion without issuing commands? websters: Main Entry: in·alien·able Pronunciation: (")i-'nAl-y&-n&-b&l, -'nA-lE-&-n&- Function: adjective Etymology: probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable alienable : incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights> - in·alien·abil·i·ty /-"nAl-y&-n&-'bi-l&-tE, -"nA-lE-&-n&-/ noun - in·alien·ably /-'nAl-y&-n&-blE, -'nA-lE-&-n&-/ adverb Inalienable rights is in the very definition of the word! Main Entry: alien·able Pronunciation: 'Al-y&-n&-b&l, 'A-lE-&-n&- Function: adjective : transferable to another's ownership - alien·abil·i·ty /'Al-y&-n&-'bi-l&-tE, "A-lE-&-n&-/ noun Check. You cannot grant rights. Main Entry: 1sur·ren·der Pronunciation: s&-'ren-d&r Function: verb Inflected Form(s): -dered; sur·ren·der·ing /-d(&-)ri[ng]/ Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French surrendre, from sur- + rendre to give back, yield -- more at RENDER transitive senses 1 a : to yield to the power, control, or possession of another upon compulsion or demand <surrendered the fort> b : to give up completely or agree to forgo especially in favor of another 2 a : to give (oneself) up into the power of another especially as a prisoner b : to give (oneself) over to something (as an influence) intransitive senses : to give oneself up into the power of another : YIELD synonym see RELINQUISH Check, although government violates this right, it still remains (ie you still have it, even though they may think otherwise and take it from you). Main Entry: 1trans·fer Pronunciation: tran(t)s-'f&r, 'tran(t)s-" Function: verb Inflected Form(s): trans·ferred; trans·fer·ring Etymology: Middle English transferren, from Latin transferre, from trans- + ferre to carry -- more at BEAR transitive senses 1 a : to convey from one person, place, or situation to another : TRANSPORT b : to cause to pass from one to another : TRANSMIT c : TRANSFORM, CHANGE 2 : to make over the possession or control of : CONVEY 3 : to print or otherwise copy from one surface to another by contact intransitive senses 1 : to move to a different place, region, or situation; especially : to withdraw from one educational institution to enroll at another 2 : to change from one vehicle or transportation line to another - trans·fer·abil·i·ty /(")tran(t)s-"f&r-&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun - trans·fer·able also trans·fer·ra·ble /tran(t)s-'f&r-&-b&l/ adjective - trans·fer·al /-&l/ noun - trans·fer·rer /-&r/ noun Check, the government cannot pass rights onto you. Only privileges. And, as an amusing note, I'd like to point out that the death sentence is in breach of the Constitution. Considering it's removing someone's unalienable right to Life. I have no arguement with this, it's quite an ineffective deterrment anyways IMO. Well, either that, or the founding fathers didn't understand what the word meant, either. Or our current incarnation of the government doesnt really care. Rights can't be taken away? You have the right to life. Somebody shoots you. Your right has been taken away. We'll, death is the loophole for everything. You still have (well, had) the right to life, it just has been violated. You're put in prison. Yes, a privilege that is taken away, although you do still have certain liberties within prison. The right to happiness. Who said this? The right to "pursuit of Happiness." Your personal opinion regarding rights is absolutely irrelevant if society disagrees with you. Shouting that you have a right to liberty won't do you a darn lick of good if you're living in a police state. Very true, hence the creation of ineffective human rights comissions. It doesnt mean the right is not there, it just means they are continously violated. This works right up until you use a dictionary definition for evil, rather than the D&D definition. We're not discussing some esoteric form of evil, but the fairly sharply defined term used in D&D. True, however, the D&D definition of evil is scant and lacking, leading to all these "alignment" threads. Note however in the definition of neutral, not once is there an action that violated others (except perhaps inferred in the "balance" type of neutral). I have to ask; what good are rights if government doesn't enforce them? They are entirely a legal construction. Not at all, I am perfectly capable of enforcing my own rights. I may get in troube for doing it, but that is something to consider. I can't always expect the government to be there looking out for me. That edit is nothing but a justification for theft. I could say "I never stole, I just took away what that corporate bigwig took from his shareholders by making a big profit." Does that mean that I didn't steal? No bloody way. Not at all. If you steal from me, and I take it back, is my action still theft? I would argue you never owned it in the first place. And I repeat; if you're going to talk about "inalienable" anything, look the word up before using it again. I suggest you do as well, as posted above. I have a feeling this thread is going to be locked, so if you wish to continue this discussion and it is, feel free to PM me.
Nithendil 03-09-05, 11:37 PM	To add to my post, it is perhaps, I suppose, a mistake to define alienable rights. I suppose it is more of a historical ethics term than a dictionary term, arriving from Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) derived from John Locke’s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke) natural rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights) – which encompasses life, liberty, and estate (property).
Heahengel 03-10-05, 05:13 AM	Although it may not be the best idea, I am going to add my own opinions to this debate. First, I will discuss the base alignment of stealing within the alignment system of D&D, and then I will throw in my opinion on the debate about rights (in a second post). I see stealing as being, by itself (before considering motives/the target) to be a CN action. I don't see many people disagreeing that it is chaotic, so I will mostly talk about it being neutral, and not evil. (on the other hand, I could see a lawful character stealing for the government). Looking at the PHB alone: 1. Olidammara, the god of rogues, is CN. The PHB doesn't describe its gods very well, but I'm sure that he supports thievery (if someone could quote some other Greyhawk source on him, I would be thankful). Similarly, on table 6-1 on page 104, the PHB says that a rogues standard alignment is CN (I would say that stealing is an archtypal rogue action). Also CN is described as being free of society's restrictions (this hooks into the property rights argument later). 2. Evil is associated with harming or opressing people, but also with selfishness (while good is associated with selflessness). Therefore, I see stealing for your own benefit as at least slightly evil, because it is selfish. 3. Robin Hood (or the example PHB CG PC), the standard example of CG, was definitely stealing from the government. Taxes are Lawful. However, they may be good, or in this case, evil. He was not stealing for his own personal gain, and in fact could be said to be stealing to help others (selfless), so this is CG. 4. I don't think this is still in debate, but I would like to repeat that it is perfectly reasonable for a neutral, or possibly even a good, character to regularly steal for his own benefit (an evil action, according to me), because some/most neutral characters are apathetic about good and evil. Looking at the BVD: 1. Read the first example of the section "Intent and Context." Zophas had no reasonable expectation that his action would cause harm, and so his action was not evil (note that if his action was selfish, it would be evil anyway). To bring in a modern example: If I illegaly install a copy of MS Windows on a friend's computer, I would say this is not necessarily an evil action. I am talking about intelectual property theft only, not physically stealing a Windows CD (this is to make the example clearer). Even assuming that my friend would have bought Windows if I had not done this (what would this action be if the choice was free Windows or Lynux?), the cost to Microsoft, of this action alone, is so miniscule that no one will be harmed (The fact that if everyone did this they would be harmed is a separate issue - to me this is not a good act specifically because this is true, but it is not an evil act - it is a morally apathetic/neutral act). There is no reasonable expectation that anyone will be harmed by this, one, action. Also, I can see the argument that many people see MS as evil (LE or NE depending on who you ask), so then this might be considered in line for a CG 'rebel' character. 2. I agree with MrkGrismer that even though "Theft" is listed in the section "Evil Acts," it is not necessarily evil. If you read the subject paragraph of the section, it says that the section is looking at typical evil acts to define/describe evil, not looking at evil to define/describe evil acts. So the acts listed there are acts typical of evil people, not necessarily evil in and of themselves (which explains why lying is listed, even though it explicitly says that lies aren't necessarily evil, and the PHB implies pretty heavily that they are CN). For example, "Murder" is also listed there, but on page 6 the BVD says that it is a good/neutral act (specifically non-evil) to poison a town's well if everyone in the town is evil (or even if the PC only believes this). It also says that this is generally a bad idea, because the PC might have a reasonable expectation that not everyone is evil, but this is a separate issue. Also, under the Theft section, it says that an evil character "needs a reason not to steal," which implies that it is reasonable for a neutral or good character to steal if there was a reson for it.
Heahengel 03-10-05, 05:43 AM	As for arguments about inalienable rights, like the right to property, the idea that humans have inherent rights is not agreed on by everybody. You bring up John Locke, one of the influential thinkers behind this idea. But even he says that there is a bound on one's right to property: Second Treatise of Government, Section 31 The same law of nature, that does by this means give us property, does also bound that property too. . . . But how far has he given it us? To enjoy. As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life . . . Second Treatise of Government, Section 51 A man had a right to all he could employ his labour upon, so he had no temptation to labour for more than he could make use of. So this might allow for stealing from people hording wealth (rich merchants). Also, he argues that the purpose of society is to garuntee property rights. Therefore property rights = lawful according to Locke (at least based on this, I don't claim to know everything about him - I haven't read the Second Treatise in a while). Personally, I prefer Hobbes to Locke (or at least a version of him, his state of nature is too extreme for me). People, like animals, do not have inherent rights (I understand that ssome people will disagree with me that animals do not have inalianable rights, but I would hope that anyone who argues with me about this is at least a vegitarian). The purpose of government/society is to grant its members whatever rights it is possible for said society to grant (for example, if things get dire enough, your right to not have to kill people might not be supportable, any then you would be drafted (I don't think I'm crazy, but I'm sure some would disagree - note, I am generally liberal, in the modern sense of the term)).
MrkGrismer 03-10-05, 07:37 AM	Heahengel, I agree with the majority of your post, however I have a slight disagreement with one thing: Evil is associated with harming or opressing people, but also with selfishness (while good is associated with selflessness). Therefore, I see stealing for your own benefit as at least slightly evil, because it is selfish. While I agree with this in part, I have to say that I think selfishness is only evil when it involves choosing self when the person knows doing so will harm another. If done when there is little reasonable choice (one must die, better him then me) then I think it is still neutral, but when there is a reasonable choice that would not bring harm to another then it crosses into evil. Or at least rides the border. Of course, this is only my opinion based on the reading that the rules seem to equate helping with good, harming with evil, and not getting involved with neutral.
Heahengel 03-10-05, 08:13 AM	Selfish = evil wasn't explicitly said, but I was inferring it from the descriptions of LE and NE. NE is described as "out for herself, pure and simple," and the difference between LN and LE seems to be that fact that LE manipulates the law for his own interest or works within the law, but takes as much as possible, while LN just follows the law. I guess this is something that I am not sure of. Personally, I like to leave open harming things to other alignments. There are perfectly Good reasons to kill something (in D&D I mean). I guess I feel that alignment should be based on motivation rather than action. Maybe I like darker campaigns? I tried to avoid letting that into my post above too much. I was trying to argue purely from what is said in the books, rather than from any altered viewpoint of alignment.
Thorak 03-10-05, 10:45 AM	To continue to beat a dead horse, take out every "inalienable" in my post above, and it remains nearly the same. Perhaps we can have a civil discussion without issuing commands? The moment you actually listen to what I have had to repeat several times, yes. websters: Inalienable rights is in the very definition of the word! Right. I never said there weren't inalienable rights. Just that certain ones you were mentioning weren't, and that you were misusing the word. Check. You cannot grant rights. That said "transferable to another's ownership". I don't see how that has anything to do with a government granting rights. They're not giving you rights that they had before. There's no transference of anything. It's a creation of legal support. Check, although government violates this right, it still remains (ie you still have it, even though they may think otherwise and take it from you). If the government doesn't recognize it, what purpose does this "right" serve? Besides, yes, an inalienable right cannot be surrendered. Check, the government cannot pass rights onto you. Only privileges. They can't pass rights on to you, no. Because that would mean they had it and you didn't, and now you have it and they don't. That's what a transfer is, something goes from A to B. They can create rights, though, where no right existed before. I really don't see how "transfer" applies to this use of "inalienable". And I note you skipped the most damning of all the meanings you quoted. So I'll cover it. Alienated, from the Merriam-Webster online; "1 : to make unfriendly, hostile, or indifferent where attachment formerly existed 2 : to convey or transfer (as property or a right) usually by a specific act rather than the due course of law 3 : to cause to be withdrawn or diverted" Note, especially, #3. "Inalienable" means it cannot be withdrawn or diverted. If I have the right to life, nobody, nowhere, ever, has the right to withdraw or divert that right for any reason. And yet, the death penalty exists in the US, which supposedly provides it's citizens with an inalienable right to life. Similarly, if I have an inalienable right to property, you can't cause that right to be withdrawn from me for any reason. Even if I'm a serial killer, and the property in question is my assault rifle and ammo. I'll repeat it again; read the definition, the whole definition. Or our current incarnation of the government doesnt really care. I do admit, I think this is more likely. I have a lot of respect for your founding fathers and what they stood for, and I'm pretty sure they knew what they meant, even if other later people don't. But I won't go any further, because political debate is against the CoC and there's no reason. We'll, death is the loophole for everything. You still have (well, had) the right to life, it just has been violated. That wasn't a good example on my part, because the person in question goes outside the law. Someone on death row is a better one. Though I have to ask, again, what's the point of having rights, if nothing enforces them? If the government doesn't acknowledge them, what states that you have them? Yes, a privilege that is taken away, although you do still have certain liberties within prison. I don't recall the Constitution saying "the right to certain liberties". It seemed pretty unqualified. Who said this? The right to "pursuit of Happiness." Noted. I'm sure it would make prisoners happy to be free. So why is it illegal for them to pursue that happiness by tunneling to freedom? Especially when imprisonment violates their right to Liberty to begin with? Very true, hence the creation of ineffective human rights comissions. It doesnt mean the right is not there, it just means they are continously violated. Which raises the question of whether they even exist, except as a nebulous moral code. True, however, the D&D definition of evil is scant and lacking, leading to all these "alignment" threads. Note however in the definition of neutral, not once is there an action that violated others (except perhaps inferred in the "balance" type of neutral). "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, or killing others." PHB, page 104 "A creature's general general moral and personal attitudes are represented by it's alignment: ..." PHB, page 103 So, having an evil alignment means you see nothing morally wrong about hurting, oppressing, or killing others to get what you want. If you do have moral qualms about these things, and so pick your targets of thievery from those who won't be hurt by the loss, then you're not Evil. Nor is the theft. The definition isn't lacking, it just doesn't cover everything you want it to cover. Not at all, I am perfectly capable of enforcing my own rights. I may get in troube for doing it, but that is something to consider. I can't always expect the government to be there looking out for me. Uh huh, but what do the rights matter, then? You're reducing inalienable human rights to the equivalent of a modern-day Ten Commandments. Things you really should live by but which the real world typically doesn't. Not that this is a bad thing, but when people talk about human rights, they usually mean something with a bit more "oomph". Not at all. If you steal from me, and I take it back, is my action still theft? I would argue you never owned it in the first place. You're still equating unfair taxation with stealing. I suggest you do as well, as posted above. Read what I responded, especially about the part of "inalienable" you didn't look at.
Knight_of_spades 03-10-05, 11:05 AM	No I did not. The only way my above statement would be untrue is if it did, indeed, say "the following is evil", but it does not. You say you did not, then you say it again in the next paragraph! WTF?? Please consult a dictionary on the difference between imply and infer. You will find that I did not imply that stealing is not listed under the "evil things" section. Nor did I imply that theft is not listed under the "evil deeds" section (since there is no "evil things" section). What you inferred by you incapability to comprehend the written word is your own problem. May I suggest you yourself read a little in the dictionary about implying? You see what I say is that all of the arguments in your posts are designed to imply that stealing for no reason than to fill your own pockets are not evil. You do this because you are a crime groupie. #1) Coc violation. #2) Some of the things that are under the "evil deeds" section specifically spell out that they are not evil in every circumstance. So your statement would seem to apply more to you then to me. Do things have to be repeated in every sentence for you to understand that they are not always evil? #3) You are the one claiming that BoVD states that stealing is unequivably evil in each and every circumstance. Are you a rules lawyer or what? Hey you started the insults not I. No, I claim that stealing from peasants to fill your own pockets is evil, just as I have told you a couple of times already. It is you who drag in all the other examples! It is you who ignore me saying that stealing the “gizmo of world destruction” from the evil wizard is not evil. You pick and choose between my arguments in an (rather lame) attempt to make it look like I say that stealing the “gizmo of world destruction” is evil. You ignore my attempt to keep the discussion about the player who wants to steal from the peasants on the market. You do this to make it look like stealing to fill your own pocket is not evil. You use every trick in the book, from cheap insults to dragging in arguments from all over the place to make it look that I said something I did not say. I can not imagine why this is so important to you to except maybe you are trying to push some kind of ayn randian agenda about enlightened selfishness or something. CoC violation number 2. Wait a minute! You are the one expounding upon how the BoVD says that stealing is always evil. Now you are saying that it is evil when it is stealing from peasants for no other reason than to fill your own pockets? Why does it matter if they are peasants? Why does it matter if it is to fill one's own pockets or not? Come on! According to you the BoVD says that it is alwayws evil! Are you backing down from that statement now? Yeah sure I’m backing down by saying that stealing to fill your own pockets are evil. Everytime a wizard casts an illusion spell they are lying. That includes spells like displacement. Everytime a divination spell is cast a secret is betrayed. Anytime an adventurer loots ruins, tombs or dungeons they are stealing. And anytime an adventurer attacks first (wins initiative) they are not killing in self defense. Every time an illusionist is doing what?? Who cares? Stealing to fill your own pockets are evil. That is what we are talking about. Your are reaching now.
MrkGrismer 03-10-05, 11:25 AM	Selfish = evil wasn't explicitly said, but I was inferring it from the descriptions of LE and NE. NE is described as "out for herself, pure and simple," and the difference between LN and LE seems to be that fact that LE manipulates the law for his own interest or works within the law, but takes as much as possible, while LN just follows the law. I guess this is something that I am not sure of. Personally, I like to leave open harming things to other alignments. There are perfectly Good reasons to kill something (in D&D I mean). I guess I feel that alignment should be based on motivation rather than action. Maybe I like darker campaigns? I tried to avoid letting that into my post above too much. I was trying to argue purely from what is said in the books, rather than from any altered viewpoint of alignment. I agree that "out for herself, pure and simple" is evil selfishness, but what I am trying to say here is "out for herself, but attempts not to do others harm" is neutral selfishness.
MrkGrismer 03-10-05, 11:54 AM	Oh for the love of dice! Stealing is evil in the dnd game! Book of vile darkness page 7. I don’t care if some of you who read this dislike being reminded that stealing that candy or cd or whatever from a mall is EVIL. Get over it! People do evil crap all the time. Petty theft is one of them. When it comes to dnd a clear cut approach has been chosen by the game developers. You know why? Because whiny punks who tries to justify every little transgression they have done or wanted to do. We all know the difference between taking away recourses from the enemy, we all know that stealing the gadget of world control from the evil wizard is not evil and we all know stealing pack of smokes is. For the love of dice people! It is not necessary to drench yourself in the blood of innocents to do something evil! People who steal just to fill their own pockets or because they are just tempted to steal it... Then it's evil :P Anybody can make up some longwinded speech to make it seem that petty theft is neutral, but it's not. It is not possible reach a higher moral plane that gives you the right to steal when you feel for it. There is no culture you can belong to that makes theft "okay", there is no uniform, no skin colour, no race, no religion and no organization anywhere in the world that makes stealing neutral. The notion that it would be like that is an air castle designed to ease your conscience nothing more. Stop making these excuses. The excuses are what make it evil. You are saying that petty theft is evil. Petty theft is not just stealing from peasants (that would be peasant theft, perhaps). Petty theft is, pretty much by definition, stealing something that is of no real consequence. You say you did not, then you say it again in the next paragraph! WTF?? I see, you really are having difficulty with reading comprehension. I will elaborate. When I said: This is where I have a big problem with the BoVD, and yes I hold Monte Cook personally responsible since his name is on the cover. Because it expounds upon what "evil people" are willing to do it equates these things with evil: Lying, Cheating, Theft, Betrayal, Murder, Vengence, Using Others for Personal Gain, Greed, Bullying and cowing innocents, bringing despair, and tempting others. Good Grief! Chaotic become meaningless! Of course, because of what I quoted in the first part it is apparent that the intention was to equate these things with "villains", but because of poor choice of words it instead equates them with evil. It should be apparent that what I am saying is that because of poor phraseing, it is easy for certain readers to think that the book is equating everything that is under the "evil deeds" heading with those things being unequivically evil. But only when the entire morality section is ready with more of an eye towards full comprehension and full context it become apparent that those things are really only evil when done with "evil intent." May I suggest you yourself read a little in the dictionary about implying? You see what I say is that all of the arguments in your posts are designed to imply that stealing for no reason than to fill your own pockets are not evil. You do this because you are a crime groupie. Again, just because that is what you choose to infer from my post does not mean that it is implied in the post. In order for it to be implied it would have to be the only real, logical, conclusion to be reached. This is not the case. My posts are in response to your above post that states that "I don’t care if some of you who read this dislike being reminded that stealing that candy or cd or whatever from a mall is EVIL." I am sorry to say that Petty Theft is not evil in the context of D&D, it is merely chaotic. It only becomes evil if it is done with the intention or knowledge that it is going to cause real harm (not just inconvenience). Or, as the BoVD puts it "evil intent." Hey you started the insults not I. What? You mean you took the statement that the BoED was intended for people with the maturity to put two-and-two together as an insult? Why is that? No, I claim that stealing from peasants to fill your own pockets is evil, just as I have told you a couple of times already. It is you who drag in all the other examples! See first quote above. You are the one who brought in the petty theft examples. It is you who ignore me saying that stealing the “gizmo of world destruction” from the evil wizard is not evil. You pick and choose between my arguments in an (rather lame) attempt to make it look like I say that stealing the “gizmo of world destruction” is evil. You ignore my attempt to keep the discussion about the player who wants to steal from the peasants on the market. You do this to make it look like stealing to fill your own pocket is not evil. You use every trick in the book, from cheap insults to dragging in arguments from all over the place to make it look that I said something I did not say. Your "gizmo of world destruction" statement is irrelevant, because this thread is about petty theft, not about merely stealing from peasants to fill ones own pocket. Also included in petty theft, and the major point within this thread is stealing from an entity that is well capable of absorbing the loss (a rich noble, a shop, microsoft). Which would be merely chaotic, unless it was done with "evil intent", that is with the intent to do real harm. I can not imagine why this is so important to you to except maybe you are trying to push some kind of ayn randian agenda about enlightened selfishness or something. ?? Ayn Randian ?? No entry found for Ayn Randian. Did you mean Ayn Rand? Suggestions: Ayn Rand Amerindian Araneidan In and an In-and-in Every time an illusionist is doing what?? Who cares? Stealing to fill your own pockets are evil. That is what we are talking about. Your are reaching now. Okay, so your position now is that stealing to fill your own pockets is evil? I am still going to have to disagree with that. As far as D&D goes it is merely chaotic, as long as it is done without "evil intent."
Heahengel 03-10-05, 12:35 PM	Oh, and just incase, I had meant to put a disclaimer by my 'Microsoft' example: I have a perfectly legal copy of windows, and I do not illegaly download music, so I am not trying to justify my own actions. I generally think about myself as Lawful, but I do like my D&D characters to be a bit dark (at least recently). Edit: Ayn Rand is an author ("Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead"). I haven't read either, but from what I know she is a Libertarian arguing for non-regulated capitalism. I doubt she argues for stealing (although some people might debate that such an economic system creates mass theft). The concept of enlightened self interest has been around for a long time, but I don't think anyone has ever taken it seriously as an argument for stealing.
Nithendil 03-10-05, 12:55 PM	Like I said, inalienable, as a historical ethics term, might not have been the best term to use. It is important to recognize that it is basically synonymous with natural rights, ie rights that you are born with, regardless of government. I never said there weren't inalienable rights Yes you did: Inalienable human rights are a fiction. The moment you actually listen to what I have had to repeat several times, yes. Honestly I'm not sure what you are saying. You state that either illegal things are evil, or they are not, but that alignment is not black in white. I mention the pursuit of happiness and you bring up a divorce?!? (clearing confusing pursuit with actual happiness) You claim that inalienable rights don't exist because the bank can repo the car you don't even own (the bank does), you claim that if inalienable rights can be "broached for any reason, they aren't inalienable", ignoring that nowhere in the definition does it state that they can not be violated (only not surrendered, you still retain the right to own property). Nowhere in this definition does it say all property, but you keep on mentioning serial killers (serial killers can still own property), you claim "If you think there should be limitations or restrictions on rights, they're not inalienable." but nowhere in the definition that either you or I mentioned states that inalienable is without limits. You claim that if any property at all is forfeitable, than all property cannot be inalienable, but as you said, the world is not black or white. Waiving one instance does not mean the whole abandonment of the right. You keep bringing up the death penalty, but I already answered that the (US) government doesn't necessarily respect rights (ie the patriot act). That said "transferable to another's ownership". I don't see how that has anything to do with a government granting rights. They're not giving you rights that they had before. There's no transference of anything. It's a creation of legal support. The creation of legal support is the government granting certain privileges. Laws explicitly (hopefully) state what someone is or is not entitled to (in regards to legal support). If the government doesn't recognize it, what purpose does this "right" serve? Which raises the question of whether they even exist, except as a nebulous moral code. Uh huh, but what do the rights matter, then? To embody you to change your government so you can exercise your rights. The first step is recognizing you have rights in the first place. You do not exist to serve your government, it exists to serve you. They can't pass rights on to you, no. Because that would mean they had it and you didn't, and now you have it and they don't. Exactly, which is why the government can only create privileges; you are born with rights (hence inalienable or natural). They can create rights, though, where no right existed before. I really don't see how "transfer" applies to this use of "inalienable". They can create all they want but they can’t make them applicable to you unless they grant them to you. Note, especially, #3. "Inalienable" means it cannot be withdrawn or diverted. If I have the right to life, nobody, nowhere, ever, has the right to withdraw or divert that right for any reason. And yet, the death penalty exists in the US, which supposedly provides it's citizens with an inalienable right to life. We already covered this; I agree it is a hypocrisy. Similarly, if I have an inalienable right to property, you can't cause that right to be withdrawn from me for any reason. Even if I'm a serial killer, and the property in question is my assault rifle and ammo. I don't recall the Constitution saying "the right to certain liberties". It seemed pretty unqualified I'm sure it would make prisoners happy to be free. So why is it illegal for them to pursue that happiness by tunneling to freedom? Especially when imprisonment violates their right to Liberty to begin with? Correction, you do not have the privilege to all property. You simply have the right to obtain and own property. That right is not being taken away. You can still own property while in jail, so you still retain that right. However, you do not have the privilege to that certain property. Now, if an incarcerated person did not have the privilege of owning any property, then I would say the government is definitely violating his right to own property. Note the dichotomy between privileges and rights. Even if certain liberties or property are forfeited or violated the natural, inalienable right (if you believe in such things) to liberty and owning property remains. That right itself is not forfeited, you always keep it, even if it is in a continuous state of violation (such as perhaps death, or certain government laws). I will admit my argument is not quite clear or strong, but it has been a long long weak. "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, or killing others." PHB, page 104 "A creature's general general moral and personal attitudes are represented by it's alignment: ..." PHB, page 103 This is one of the most subjective definitions I have ever seen. Don’t get me wrong, I actually prefer it this way, as it allows the DM to decide what constitutes alignment in his world. If you do have moral qualms about these things, and so pick your targets of thievery from those who won't be hurt by the loss, then you're not Evil. Nor is the theft. I agree with this, but then we are back to the definition of hurt or oppression. How does the thief know the target will not be hurt? The billionaire, even though a measly $10 was stolen from him, might be emotionally distraught that someone violated his security. Note definition #2: hurt P Pronunciation Key (hûrt) v. hurt, hurt•ing, hurts v. tr. 1. To cause physical damage or pain to; injure. 2. To cause mental or emotional suffering to; distress. 3. To cause physical damage to; harm: The frost hurt the orange crop. 4. To be detrimental to; hinder or impair: The scandal hurt the candidate's chances for victory. Now, one can argue that the thief did not cause direct emotional harm to the sissy billionaire, but his action did result in the immediate ramification of. But I will agree if the billionaire couldn’t care less, no harm done. While my posts may appear hostile (that’s not necessarily true, I just have a real life charisma score of 6) I’m actually enjoying this discussion. You're still equating unfair taxation with stealing. To the chaotic person it just may be. You earn your money, you get to keep it. You don’t want the government to have any of it, but they think otherwise and take it (to that person is that not theft, at least according to the chaotic person?). Now, most of us realize that by living in a society we have to abide by laws and in order to have certain things (such as police) we need to pay taxes, but to the chaotic person that might not matter. They never stated they wanted certain government functions, perhaps they never use such functions, why should they have to pay for it? (remembering we’re talking extremes here, in this case, someone who doesn’t believe in governmental law.). I see stealing as being, by itself (before considering motives/the target) to be a CN action. I don't see many people disagreeing that it is chaotic, so I will mostly talk about it being neutral, and not evil. Except I don’t see anywhere in any of the descriptions of neutral where it mentions violating others (except inferred with TN “balancer” type character). It seems, within the D&D context, that neutral avoids doing evil in most cases, but just doesn’t really care about helping others or doing good: People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them Although in good it mentions dignity for sentient beings, so it can be argued that neutral ignores this, and theft may fall under this category. As for arguments about inalienable rights, like the right to property, the idea that humans have inherent rights is not agreed on by everybody. Very true. But I would argue it is perhaps the only way to instrument change (not necessary by 3rd parties, but preferably from within) to gain rights in a society that doesn’t necessarily want them. But this is opening another giant can of worms. It’s important to mention the context of inalienable rights, as it was one of the major influences of the anti-slavery movement, as their was little precedence for it (I don’t want to argue about religion, but at that time there was religious connotation in support of slavery, and a significant part of the US didn’t want to get rid of it). Inalienable rights brought up the fact that one cannot transfer the right to property (ie yourself), hence one cannot be a slave. [edit: my hobbessian ethics source was incorrect].
Thorak 03-10-05, 01:38 PM	Like I said, inalienable, as a historical ethics term, might not have been the best term to use. It is important to recognize that it is basically synonymous with natural rights, ie rights that you are born with, regardless of government. Yes, because it means rights you have that cannot be forfeited for any reason. My point was that some things which are called rights, like the right to property, are not inalienable in any sane society. Yes you did: Right. They exist, but they're fictitious. Like the Lord of the Rings. The books exist, but they're fictitious. Inalienable Human Rights are the Ten Commandments of the 20th century. They have no more validity or truth to them than any other moral code. Honestly I'm not sure what you are saying. You state that either illegal things are evil, or they are not, but that alignment is not black in white. I mention the pursuit of happiness and you bring up a divorce?!? (clearing confusing pursuit with actual happiness) You claim that inalienable rights don't exist because the bank can repo the car you don't even own (the bank does), you claim that if inalienable rights can be "broached for any reason, they aren't inalienable", ignoring that nowhere in the definition does it state that they can not be violated (only not surrendered, you still retain the right to own property). Nowhere in this definition does it say all property, but you keep on mentioning serial killers (serial killers can still own property), you claim "If you think there should be limitations or restrictions on rights, they're not inalienable." but nowhere in the definition that either you or I mentioned states that inalienable is without limits. You claim that if any property at all is forfeitable, than all property cannot be inalienable, but as you said, the world is not black or white. Waiving one instance does not mean the whole abandonment of the right. You keep bringing up the death penalty, but I already answered that the (US) government doesn't necessarily respect rights (ie the patriot act). Again. Inalienable means unforfeitable. Said so right in the definition you yourself quoted. That's not all it means, but that is a significant part of it. As for the rest, I find it rather amusing that you accuse me of hypocrisy, because I have made errors (which, incidentally, I have admitted, you're digging back a bit for those examples), while at the same time asserting that inalienable human rights are conditional, and that theft is absolutely Evil. So which is it, are things conditional, or are they absolute? If some property can be forfeited, why can't some stealing be not Evil? The creation of legal support is the government granting certain privileges. Laws explicitly (hopefully) state what someone is or is not entitled to (in regards to legal support). You distinguiished between rights and priveleges before, and now you're using priveleges when I was talking about rights. Which is it? To embody you to change your government so you can exercise your rights. The first step is recognizing you have rights in the first place. You do not exist to serve your government, it exists to serve you. That's an interesting philosophy. However, it has no more inherent validity than any other. I repeat; human rights are the areligious Ten Commandments. They are things people shouldn't do. There is nothing about them that is inherent perfect, nor are they to be seen as a given. Any more than the Ten Commandments are. Exactly, which is why the government can only create privileges; you are born with rights (hence inalienable or natural). Inalienable /= natural. As for the rest, I repeat. Ten Commandments. Modern Version. No inherent truth. They can create all they want but they can’t make them applicable to you unless they grant them to you. And? There's still no "transfer". They didn't have them, and then gave them to you. They were created out of nothing for you. That's creation, not transfer. It's the difference between me giving you $5, and $5 being created out of thin air. Correction, you do not have the privilege to all property. You simply have the right to obtain and own property. That right is not being taken away. You can still own property while in jail, so you still retain that right. However, you do not have the privilege to that certain property. Now, if an incarcerated person did not have the privilege of owning any property, then I would say the government is definitely violating his right to own property. Note the dichotomy between privileges and rights. Even if certain liberties or property are forfeited or violated the natural, inalienable right (if you believe in such things) to liberty and owning property remains. That right itself is not forfeited, you always keep it, even if it is in a continuous state of violation (such as perhaps death, or certain government laws). I will admit my argument is not quite clear or strong, but it has been a long long weak. Before I go on, that's an amusing Freudian slip on that last word, I assume you meant 'week'. I'm not trying to be insulting, it's honestly funny. As for the right for property; you said it can be restricted. Okay, what if a government revoked all rights anyone had to own property beyond a single Bic disposable pen. You can still own property. You've got that pen, don't you? Does that mean this is OK? If it's not, then the morality of things having nothing to do with the right to own property, but with something deeper. "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, or killing others." PHB, page 104 "A creature's general general moral and personal attitudes are represented by it's alignment: ..." PHB, page 103 This is one of the most subjective definitions I have ever seen. Don’t get me wrong, I actually prefer it this way, as it allows the DM to decide what constitutes alignment in his world. Subjective? Not really. If your moral attitudes include hurting, oppressing, and killing other people, you're Evil. That's pretty objective. As an example, if I'm a righteous Crusader for the cause of Good, and I track down and destroy any who might even consider working against the cause of Good, I'm a horribly evil man. Because my moral attitude includes killing people for the sole purpose of furthering my cause. D&D alignment has absolutely nothing to do with what you think you're doing, or the reasons for doing it. It has to do with the morals and attitudes that drive it. I agree with this, but then we are back to the definition of hurt or oppression. How does the thief know the target will not be hurt? The billionaire, even though a measly $10 was stolen from him, might be emotionally distraught that someone violated his security. Note definition #2: hurt P Pronunciation Key (hûrt) v. hurt, hurt•ing, hurts v. tr. 1. To cause physical damage or pain to; injure. 2. To cause mental or emotional suffering to; distress. 3. To cause physical damage to; harm: The frost hurt the orange crop. 4. To be detrimental to; hinder or impair: The scandal hurt the candidate's chances for victory. Now, one can argue that the thief did not cause direct emotional harm to the sissy billionaire, but his action did result in the immediate ramification of. But I will agree if the billionaire couldn’t care less, no harm done. While my posts may appear hostile (that’s not necessarily true, I just have a real life charisma score of 6) I’m actually enjoying this discussion. Before I continue, me too. I enjoy debate, that's 80% of the reason I post on here. I also don't believe in pulling punches because I might possibly offend someone. I know I come off strong, but it's not done in malice. Back to the point; morals and attitudes. It doen't matter if the target will be hurt or not. What matters is if the thief cares if the target will be hurt or not. If they feel guilty about it, they're Neutral or Good. If their moral code says it's OK to hurt others, they're Evil, and they won't feel guilty. If you are concerned about the effects of your actions on others, you're probably not Evil. To the chaotic person it just may be. You earn your money, you get to keep it. You don’t want the government to have any of it, but they think otherwise and take it (to that person is that not theft, at least according to the chaotic person?). Now, most of us realize that by living in a society we have to abide by laws and in order to have certain things (such as police) we need to pay taxes, but to the chaotic person that might not matter. They never stated they wanted certain government functions, perhaps they never use such functions, why should they have to pay for it? (remembering we’re talking extremes here, in this case, someone who doesn’t believe in governmental law.). It's one thing to see taxes as unfair, unjust, or needless. It's another to equate them with stealing. Governments have the legal right to tax. Theft is a crime. They aren't the same thing. Everything past this was Heahengel, not me, so I'll leave it to them.
Heahengel 03-10-05, 01:52 PM	I see stealing as being, by itself (before considering motives/the target) to be a CN action. I don't see many people disagreeing that it is chaotic, so I will mostly talk about it being neutral, and not evil. Except I don’t see anywhere in any of the descriptions of neutral where it mentions violating others (except inferred with TN “balancer” type character). It seems, within the D&D context, that neutral avoids doing evil in most cases, but just doesn’t really care about helping others or doing good: People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them Although in good it mentions dignity for sentient beings, so it can be argued that neutral ignores this, and theft may fall under this category. I would not agree that theft is the same thing as violating someone (I think stealing is wrong, but I agree with Thorak that I do so because I have a lawful outlook, rather than because I have a good outlook). We are probably not going to agree with each other here. However, remember that I am taking about the action of stealing before reference to the target. The morality of the action depends on who/what you are stealing from, and what you are stealing. For example, you could steal from the government (not pay taxes). This seems perfectly CN to me. The PHB never specifically says anything about the morality of stealing(*), so we have to infer this based on other things it says. No one is arguing that theft is good, and I am arguing that it is not evil, and therefore neutral (and also that it fits in with the characteristics of neutral). I think that theft fits pretty well with the description of a CN character. I did actually make a few arguments/comments (although I am not claiming that they are especially substantial, nor that I have 'proved' my point) to try to support my idea, I did not just say it and then pretend that this meant I was right. You quoted my preamble, but did not react at all to what I considered to be the body of the post. I'm not saying that you have to, but please don't beleive that you have refuted what I was trying to say without reacting to my actual argument. (*) Upon searching through various entries, the PHB makes one mention of theft: "the criminal who robs and murders to get what she wants is neutral evil." I'm suprised that no one has mentioned this because it is a pretty powerful argument against me/the people who agree with me (or more accurately, the people that I agree with). To head this off, my argument is that the defining trait of the NE character is his complete devotion to himself, rather than his methods. A separate, but important question: Do you agree that you could have a neutral (wrt good and evil) character who steals from people regularly for his personal gain? Edit: I agree with this, but then we are back to the definition of hurt or oppression. How does the thief know the target will not be hurt? The billionaire, even though a measly $10 was stolen from him, might be emotionally distraught that someone violated his security. Note definition #2: hurt P Pronunciation Key (hûrt) v. hurt, hurt•ing, hurts v. tr. 1. To cause physical damage or pain to; injure. 2. To cause mental or emotional suffering to; distress. 3. To cause physical damage to; harm: The frost hurt the orange crop. 4. To be detrimental to; hinder or impair: The scandal hurt the candidate's chances for victory. Now, one can argue that the thief did not cause direct emotional harm to the sissy billionaire, but his action did result in the immediate ramification of. But I will agree if the billionaire couldn’t care less, no harm done. I would argue that the thief has no reasonable expectation that a billionaire would care about $10 (of course, if a thief snuck into his house and stole a $10 bill from said billionaire's wallet, he might care that his security was breached, but that is different). While my posts may appear hostile (that’s not necessarily true, I just have a real life charisma score of 6) I’m actually enjoying this discussion. Me too. I wouldn't have posted if I didn't feel like a good debate. Its good to strech the mind every once and a while.
Pfisiar 03-10-05, 02:02 PM	I would also like to point out that theft is not considered wrong by all societies out there. Take for instance, the Plains Indian. The horse, being a vital aspect in their way of life, was exceptionally valuable. In that society, a person could gain stature by stealing horses from one's enemies! Why is stealing illegal then? In a capitilist society, stealing is a social control which keeps society working. The fact that most people don't blatently steal keeps the economy alive. And btw, if stealing is evil, then any person who has downloaded a song without permission from the artist is also evil. (And yes, from a legal standpoint, file sharing is a crime.) However, most people see that as a nuetral, if not good act. If you are stealing to cause harm, that's evil. If you are stealing because you want more stuff? That's nuetral. Nuetral is not caring whether someone gets hurt. At least that's one deffinition of it. Yes, nuetral can be played pretty shadily and immorally. You don't have to be "evil" to be immoral.
Nithendil 03-10-05, 02:50 PM	Yes, because it means rights you have that cannot be forfeited for any reason. My point was that some things which are called rights, like the right to property, are not inalienable in any sane society. But they are. Here in the US (if it is a sane society is for another discussion) property is inalienable. In all circumstances you have the right to own some type of property. Inalienable Human Rights are the Ten Commandments of the 20th century. They have no more validity or truth to them than any other moral code. True, but I would argue we do need some type of non-interfering moral code, and that inalienable rights are a much better code than the ten commandments, as the first 4 are more like commands that really don't have anything to do with morality. Again. Inalienable means unforfeitable. Said so right in the definition you yourself quoted. That's not all it means, but that is a significant part of it. I do not deny this. while at the same time asserting that inalienable human rights are conditional, and that theft is absolutely Evil. The act of theft is evil, but in the grand scheme of things it may do more good than harm. Like the kill one to save 10,000 scheme. So which is it, are things conditional, or are they absolute? If some property can be forfeited, why can't some stealing be not Evil? Absolute in theory, conditional in practice. I already argued that government cannot grant rights, and although othes may violate them and take your property away, you still own the right to own property. An abstract question. Who owns your body? The government? (for as you said, they decide what you own or not). Who decides if you own yourself or not? I would argue that in all circumstances I own my own body, and therefore the right to property must be inalienable. You distinguiished between rights and priveleges before, and now you're using priveleges when I was talking about rights. Which is it? I already argued government cannot grant rights, only privileges. So if they create something, it is a privilege. That's an interesting philosophy. However, it has no more inherent validity than any other. I do not deny this, but I would argue it must be true if one is to remain optimistic. I repeat; human rights are the areligious Ten Commandments. They are things people shouldn't do. There is nothing about them that is inherent perfect, nor are they to be seen as a given. Any more than the Ten Commandments are. As for the rest, I repeat. Ten Commandments. Modern Version. No inherent truth. This is interesting, and I do not think there is a way prove otherwise. However, one can fantasize about the foundations for a moral society, and any society (at least to the moral person) that is not moral, is not good. And I believe a significant portion (but not the majority) of world governments believe in a minimum of certain inalienable rights, in order to have a moral government. I assume this would be liberty (encompassing speach and religion), life, and property (so there is no slavery and no governmental control of media). These rights are inalienable, because if you are to remain optimistic, I would argue that people in these countries do have these inalienable rights, they are just continously violated by an oppressive government. Now one must be careful, because the above is the reasoning for more than one previous war, but it is something to consider (for declaration purposes I would consider a grassroots or underground educational movement, to advise people to consider their own rights, a better resolution than perhaps war, but whatever). Inalienable /= natural. It does in the context in the discussion of ethics. Inalienable rights is a direct incarnation of natural rights. And? There's still no "transfer". They didn't have them, and then gave them to you. They were created out of nothing for you. That's creation, not transfer. It's the difference between me giving you $5, and $5 being created out of thin air. Yes, created out of nothing for you. But to make them applicable to you they must be given to you. And well, US money is essentially created out of thin air (abstractly speaking, we no longer base it on any substance of actual worth) and put into circulation. Before I go on, that's an amusing Freudian slip on that last word, I assume you meant 'week'. I'm not trying to be insulting, it's honestly funny. Actually it is quite funny, as my original statement was going to be that my presentation of the dichotomy between privileges and rights was indeed weak. As for the right for property; you said it can be restricted. Okay, what if a government revoked all rights anyone had to own property beyond a single Bic disposable pen. You can still own property. You've got that pen, don't you? Does that mean this is OK? No, as it is an unreasonable restriction of the right to own property. I know it is an abstract concept, that one can own something even when everything else says otherwise, but the right is still there. It must remain so if one considers themselves to be the sole owner of their body, regardless of what government or anyone else thinks, what I consider the epitome of true liberty. If it's not, then the morality of things having nothing to do with the right to own property, but with something deeper. The right to own property is something deeper, as it encompasses the right to own yourself. Subjective? Not really. If your moral attitudes include hurting, oppressing, and killing other people, you're Evil. That's pretty objective. Hurting and oppression are subjective, according to any quantitive measure. One person's version of hurt and oppression will vary widely from another persons. As an example, if I'm a righteous Crusader for the cause of Good, and I track down and destroy any who might even consider working against the cause of Good, I'm a horribly evil man. Because my moral attitude includes killing people for the sole purpose of furthering my cause. D&D alignment has absolutely nothing to do with what you think you're doing, or the reasons for doing it. It has to do with the morals and attitudes that drive it. Back to the point; morals and attitudes. It doen't matter if the target will be hurt or not. What matters is if the thief cares if the target will be hurt or not. If they feel guilty about it, they're Neutral or Good. If their moral code says it's OK to hurt others, they're Evil, and they won't feel guilty. If you are concerned about the effects of your actions on others, you're probably not Evil. I diagree. What about the person who murders, feels incredibly guilty about it, but does so anyways out of addition? They're neutral or good? Sorry but I just don't buy that. Or once again, the kill 1 to save 10000 scheme. Someone may feel guilty about it, but the killing itself is still an evil action, even if they are concerned about it. It's one thing to see taxes as unfair, unjust, or needless. It's another to equate them with stealing. Governments have the legal right to tax. Theft is a crime. They aren't the same thing. The key point you're missing is that a choatic person may not agree that governments have a legal right to tax, so to them it is a crime (in the unjust sense).
Thorak 03-11-05, 08:11 AM	This won't be thorough, because I think we're both of us getting waaay too nitpicky for the argument to remain cohesive and coherent. So I'll just pick on a few key issues. The act of theft is evil, but in the grand scheme of things it may do more good than harm. Like the kill one to save 10,000 scheme. The act of theft is unlawful. You keep saying it's evil like you've proved that. AAn abstract question. Who owns your body? The government? (for as you said, they decide what you own or not). Who decides if you own yourself or not? I would argue that in all circumstances I own my own body, and therefore the right to property must be inalienable. Can you sell your body? If not, it's hardly something you own. And I'm not talking prostitution. I'm talking selling your kidneys. This is interesting, and I do not think there is a way prove otherwise. However, one can fantasize about the foundations for a moral society, and any society (at least to the moral person) that is not moral, is not good. And I believe a significant portion (but not the majority) of world governments believe in a minimum of certain inalienable rights, in order to have a moral government. I assume this would be liberty (encompassing speach and religion), life, and property (so there is no slavery and no governmental control of media). These rights are inalienable, because if you are to remain optimistic, I would argue that people in these countries do have these inalienable rights, they are just continously violated by an oppressive government. The problem with this is that, as much as we can talk about a 'moral society', my version and your version won't be the same. Because morals aren't universal or objective, they are subjective. Even something as simple as "killing is wrong". What if someone attacks you, and you're all that stands between them and your family? And all you have is a shotgun? Do you not shoot because killing is wrong, and thus through inaction let the psycho kill you and your family, or do you shoot and kill, and thus create a qualification to the moral? I would also say that strict following of a moral code is, again, a lawful trait. Chaotics would likely be more concerned with just doing what feels right, rather than figuring out a detailed code to live by. And if what feels right is stealing that money you don't think Prince John should have because he's a mean guy, so be it. Hurting and oppression are subjective, according to any quantitive measure. One person's version of hurt and oppression will vary widely from another persons. Exactly. Bringing me back to my point that it doesn't matter what the act actually does, it matters what the person thinks it will do, and how they feel about that. Especially how they feel about that, since you're not required to act according to your alignment consistently. A Good person, stealing from someone who they find out couldn't afford it, would feel horrendously guilty. A Neutral would feel a bit guilty. An Evil person wouldn't care, or might even enjoy it. It's not what you do, it's why and how you feel about how you do it. I diagree. What about the person who murders, feels incredibly guilty about it, but does so anyways out of addition? They're neutral or good? Sorry but I just don't buy that. Or once again, the kill 1 to save 10000 scheme. Someone may feel guilty about it, but the killing itself is still an evil action, even if they are concerned about it.[./quote] The person in the first is insane. There's a reason why our society acknowledges that people can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. If that plea works in court, the person is not guilty of the crime. If I'm insane, and kill 500 people, and they accept the plea, I am not technically a murderer. I was found not guilty of those crimes, even though my hands were the ones that did the deeds. If we get into insane people, alignment's going to get screwed up. As for the second; if you're going to assert that killing is always evil, we won't get anywhere. How do you explain Paladins? Their purpose is to kill, and yet they are the epitome of Good. Or Exalted characters. Even more so than paladins, they cannot act evilly without losing their abilities. And yet, only those who specifically take the Vow of Peace can't kill. [quote]The key point you're missing is that a choatic person may not agree that governments have a legal right to tax, so to them it is a crime (in the unjust sense). It can't be a crime to a chaotic. Crime is breaking of law. Chaotics don't care about the law. To a chaotic, it won't be a crime, it'll be a wrong.
Heahengel 03-11-05, 10:06 AM	An abstract question. Who owns your body? The government? (for as you said, they decide what you own or not). Who decides if you own yourself or not? I would argue that in all circumstances I own my own body, and therefore the right to property must be inalienable. This is a good example of where our political philosophies differ. I would say that most modern governments grant people the right to property, especially themselves, but with qualifications. For example, the US government gives me the right to own myself, as long as I reasonably follow the law (prison), and they do not have a pressing need for my body (drafting). Another good example of how I do not own myself, is that I am not allowed to kill myself, or give others dispensation to kill me (except in Oregon, I believe). Slavery is LE. It is a system based on order and law, therefore it is lawful, and it is evil - as it oppresses people (this however is my opinion, and I could theoretically see someone arguing that slavery is not evil). Now, drafting is an example of controlled slavery. It is also legal. I would then say that by itself, drafting is an evil action, but it is possible that it becomes necessary for good reasons. Then you again have the dabate of ends justifying means, etc. Let me just say that I consider this argument to be completely separate from my argument about stealing, and so please do not argue against this in an effort to discreadit the other (on the other hand, feel free to argue with me about/discuss this).
Thorak 03-11-05, 11:12 AM	As an aside, we once had a looong thread on whether slavery was evil, and I still stand by my argument that it isn't in and of itself, though it is incredibly easy to abuse in evil ways. A theoretically Good slave-holding society would, for instance, have criminals of certain crimes, especially white-collar nonviolent crimes, sold into slavery, typically to those against whom they committed the crime if they expressed interest, until such time that they either pay off the effects of their crime, or serve a sentence as a slave equivalent to the sentence they would spend in a prison. As a corollary, like pet owners in our own society, slaveholders would be legally bound to feed, clothe, and shelter their slaves to a certain minimum necessity similar to that of prison conditions, as a minimum, and they would be bound to refrain from abusive behaviour. The people are still slaves; they make no money, they are required to do what their owner says. But they are protected from the abuses which most people decry slavery as being evil for, and can expect to be freed at some point they know of that isn't based on the whims of their owner. Yes, this is a very strict law-based system. And no, I don't think it would work in our current society; there's too much disregard for laws, and too much potential for abuse. But as a theoretical construct, I don't see that it's inherently Evil. It's not the owning of another's body that people refer to as Evil, it's the abuses of that person taken because of that ownership that people constantly refer to. If you put theoretical slaves into the same kind of ownership relation pets have, it's not that bad. And no, I don't mean they need to eat dog kibble off the floor. Just because they are slaves doesn't mean you get to ignore certain basic rights given to all humans in that society.
Heahengel 03-11-05, 12:36 PM	I left that qualifier in because I thought you might make this kind of argument. Also, I guess, because I was trying to say that slavery was more obiously lawful than evil. Anyway, one problem with a hypothetical 'real' society like the one you describe, is that some rather interesting (and highly unethical) psychological studies have observed that humans who are put into arbitrary quality divisions (group one are the guards, group two are the prisoners), begin to believe that actual quality differences exist very fast, and then begin opressing the other group. As a theoretical construct it might work - I would have to think about it more.
Sushigaski 03-11-05, 01:39 PM	This entire discussion, specifically the "If you can STEAL from a party member, then you can KILL a party member" part, reminds me of an experience that I had in a recent campaign. To start off, we have a player in our RPG group who is a famous "problem" character. He has a tenancy to make destructive characters and railroad the PCs away from the DM's plotline, and thus whenever we let him play in a group with us, we usually start setting up "control Thomas" measures~ such as having the resident Powergamers (myself and a friend named Greg) make characters capable of "handling" problematic situations. Thomas has been a Player~Killer in the past, and in several instances he's killed the party rogue for stealing from him (Rouge vs. Fighter with two 18s doesn't end well). Anyway, we play in a campaign consisting of *nine* players (yeah, the DM thought she could prove to us that we could handle a group of *all* of our D&D buddies; She wasn't successful). So, we all create elaborate backgrounds, and the DM helps link several of us together. Thomas (the "problem PC") decides to make what my friends and I call a "panty-thief" character, which means a thief who steals from the party. With much creativity, he names the character "Black Mage" and spends his feats on Weapon Proficiency: Greatclub and Monkey-Grip. Being named "Black Mage" is the extent of his character background. I make a Desert-Half Elf Ranger, and, by some sort of luck of the gods, I roll the following stats: 18, 18, 17, 16, 14, 10. My background involved being a part of a warrior clan of elves, with a human father, and a strict moral code. They were the kind of "cut his hand's off at the wrist to punish him for stealing" type of people, and I really enjoyed playing the character. I was assigned to protect another PC, who was the Elven Princess, so I was a bodyguard. I put my 18s in STR and WIS, and I upped my Spot and Listen to *insane* levels, partly because that's what a bodyguard does, but mostly because, during character creation, Thomas was constantly telling everyone about how he intended to rob myself and Kris (who was playing the Elven Princess) blind. So, first day of the campaign, first session, we're at the Dwarven election, which is basically a drunken singing contest. I'm just keeping an eye on things, watching some people on the rooftops who appear to be holdilng bows, and keeping the princess out of trouble. Unsurprisingly, "Black Mage" decides to try his hand at stealing from the rich looking elf princess. I catch him in the act, win initiative, and warn him to back off before he does something he'll regret (I have my Masterwork Composite +4 Greatbow pointed at him). He ignores me and continues to try to pick the princess' pocket, so I peg him in the chest with an arrow, dropping him, and tie him up, the whole time lecturing him that he's lucky that I let him life, "because in the desert... blah blah blah... not as merciful." So, he, in his ultimate wisdom, tells me "Oh, I wasn't trying to steal from her! I just wanted to give her a feel! I'm horny!" Yeah, that went over well. The princess and the blind monk (another PC) to convince my character not to kill Black Mage, so I treat his wound and I let him go with a "don't pull any more crap" warning. Well, later the archers on the roof attack us, and I peg a few on the roof. On his turn, Black Mage decides to get revenge for foiling his get-rich-off-of-the-party-member scheme. So, he hits me with his club. I drop (as he rolled maxiumum damage and I was only level 1). The cleric heals me on the next turn, and then it's my initiative. I look up, see a rogue that tried to dishonor / steal from the princess, who is holding a bloodied club, standing above me. It is obvious to me who just attacked me, so I attack him from the prone position (taking a -4 to hit) with my battleaxe. *roll* Natural 20. :eek: *roll* Critical Confirmed. :cool: Level 1 Rouge takes 33 damage. :weep: The problem ended thus, and later the other PCs would call the incident "poetic justice," :D and nobody was very concerned when our party lost the PC-theif. The campaign unraveled several weeks later, however, because it couldn't support the weight of 8 PCs. :eek:
nightwing 03-11-05, 03:18 PM	I think Thorak has clarified the situation very well in post #13. Here's my summation of the various alignments and their views on theft: LG: Will not steal unless it's an extreme life-or-death situation or when "forced" to (eg. Steal your dad's ring and bring it to me or I'll kill you little sister). Even in that case, they will likely have a bad conscience about it after the fact. CG: Will steal from those who "deserve" it as a way to promote the general well-being of a group or society. NG: Would not prefer to steal, but will not loose too much sleep over it if that course of action is most logical, safe, and warranted. LE: Will view being robbed as an insult and a violation of the natural order. Will punish thieves publicly and heavily. Will rob others by some beurocratic or "legal" but entirely unfair way. (eg severe taxation, browbeating, blackmail, etc) CE: Will steal from anyone for any reason and by the most convenient means, usually from the weak and easily targeted. NE: Recognizes the need for structure in society, but does not think this structure applies to himself as much as to others. Will steal if and when it is easy and safe, and is uncaring of any collateral damage his actions may cause. Hope this helps...
Thorak 03-11-05, 03:30 PM	I left that qualifier in because I thought you might make this kind of argument. Also, I guess, because I was trying to say that slavery was more obiously lawful than evil. Anyway, one problem with a hypothetical 'real' society like the one you describe, is that some rather interesting (and highly unethical) psychological studies have observed that humans who are put into arbitrary quality divisions (group one are the guards, group two are the prisoners), begin to believe that actual quality differences exist very fast, and then begin opressing the other group. As a theoretical construct it might work - I would have to think about it more. Look at it this way; it's an alternative to prison. Replace "guards" with "owners", and replace sitting around in a cell with working, and you've got the system I proposed. There would be no more beliefs about quality differences than there already are in our society. Obviously, there would have to be some way to control the slave, because otherwise he'd run away. I would suggest a tracking/taser collar, not on the neck, but around a leg or something. At the flip of a remote switch, the beacon transmits a location, and at the press of a button, it tasers the person it's attached to. Tasering because it drops the target, with a minimum of damage. And yes, that could be abused. And would be, if this were our society. You'd need to have further controls, obviously, I'm just building this as a theoretical construct, not a suggestion that it's the best way to go.
The Great Alchemist 03-12-05, 12:47 PM	I think that theft is not unlike other actions that violate other people. Killing, assault, imprisonment, etc. These things are not inherently evil, but have the potential to be depending on the motivations of the perpetrator. For instance, killing can be extremely evil if the act was motivated by selfish reasons - killing someone for pleasure for instance. But, then again, killing can be a heroic act of goodness in some circumstances - a paladin slaying the evil wizard so he cannot harm anyone ever again. Then again, killing can also be a neutral act - killing in self defence. Theft is no different. You have evil theft - stealing from an innocent person to benefit oneself. Neutral theft - taking back something that was tollen from you. Good theft - stealing for the greater good, such as taking an evil artifact away or being Robin Hood (it was King Richard and Germany, not King James and the Turks). To claim that stealing doesn't harm anyone is ludicrous. Of course it harms someone, even if you take a penny from a billionair you harm them. They worked for that money, they made an effort to make that penny so that they can use it for some purpose that is pleasing to them. Money is a person's time, its their livelihood, its the luxery that they have earned. When you take it, you violate that - and violating someone else for your own benefit is evil for the same reason that killing for pleasure is. Now, if you are a theif that only steals small amounts from the very rich, then I would say that such acts of theft are only very minor evils, but evil non-the-less. If harming someone physically is the standard for what is evil, then you have stood morality on its head. Imprisoning the innocent against their will isn't evil, rape isn't evil if you're careful not to physically hurt the victim, threats aren't evil, arson isn't evil, etc. There is more to a person than their physical body, when the fruits of a man's labor are stollen you have harmed him as much as if you had punched him. As for governments and natural rights, when talking about any government on earth, no matter how kind and enlightened, you must realize that the government violate natural rights on a regular basis. Even governments with lots of protections and freedoms still have people killed, seize property, imprison, restrict actions, etc. A government must violate natural rights if it is to exist and not fall into anarchy. Just because a government violates these rights doesn't mean they don't exist or that the government can take them away. I think that even file sharing is evil, just a very very very minor evil. And just because someone commits evil acts doesn't make them evil. Even highly good people commit the occational evil act. Its a matter of the degree and frequency of these evil acts that make someone have an evil alignment. I would say that if you're in the habbit of picking rich men's pocket's in the town square, that you will slip from good to neutral before long. Now, if you're in the habbit of eating apples (a truelly neutral action) then you could do it all day long without taking a step towards neutral or evil.
Thorak 03-12-05, 01:39 PM	To claim that stealing doesn't harm anyone is ludicrous. Of course it harms someone, even if you take a penny from a billionair you harm them. That's a bit extreme. That's like saying pinching someone is "hurting" them, and thus evil. Feel free to rule that way in your own games, but that kind of interpretation means 98% of everything will be dastardly evil. I think that even file sharing is evil, just a very very very minor evil. And just because someone commits evil acts doesn't make them evil. Just a side note; filesharing is not stealing. In any way. Not even remotely. What it is, is copyright infringement. Filesharing doesn't hurt anyone, since it takes nothing from anyone. If you're going to talk about what laws something breaks, at least get the right laws.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 03-12-05, 06:22 PM	Just a side note; filesharing is not stealing. In any way. Not even remotely. What it is, is copyright infringement. Filesharing doesn't hurt anyone, since it takes nothing from anyone. If you're going to talk about what laws something breaks, at least get the right laws. Technicaly true, but a copyright infringement is a theft of intelectual property. Yes, in effect, you are stealing something. simplistic. What is a music CD? When you're buying a music CD, do you buy it for the CD (the physical object) or the music? You're buying music that happen to have been stored on a CD. The artists are selling their music. File sharing is stealing.
The Wasp 03-12-05, 06:56 PM	That's a bit extreme. That's like saying pinching someone is "hurting" them, and thus evil. Feel free to rule that way in your own games, but that kind of interpretation means 98% of everything will be dastardly evil. Pinching someone is evil. Not dastardly evil, just a tiny bit evil. It's the diet coke of evil. Of course if someone "deserves" to be pinched, or if you know they really won't mind (cause they're your friend, and its just in good fun), its different. similarly, stealing is warranted if the victim deserves it, or if you know (and you'd better be darn sure) that they won't mind. if Bill Gates has said publicly that he doesn't mind people stealing a few dollars from him, then doing so is not evil. but if he hasn't said so, it is.
Thorak 03-12-05, 08:45 PM	Technicaly true, but a copyright infringement is a theft of intelectual property. Yes, in effect, you are stealing something. simplistic. What is a music CD? When you're buying a music CD, do you buy it for the CD (the physical object) or the music? You're buying music that happen to have been stored on a CD. The artists are selling their music. File sharing is stealing. Copyright infringement is not theft. It is impossible to steal intellectual property, because there is nothing that can be taken. CI is a crime of copying. Creating a brand-new item without compensating the owner of the intellectual property in it. This is also why it's not copyright infringement to copy small bits of something. Because there hasn't been enough copied to infringe on the owner's rights. Theft isn't a crime of getting something. It is a crime of taking something. And if I take something, whoever had it ceases to have it. You can't take something by copying it. Ergo, you can't steal something by copying it. To make an analogy, it's like if I walked up to a car dealership, and magically copied one of their cars. Did I steal one of their cars? No. I infringed on their copyright, but they didn't lose anything. Heck, in Canada, our Fair Use policies protect us from a lot more copyright infringement than those of the US. We can, for instance, freely download music off of P2P services completely legally. Because it's not theft, and it's not copyright infringement here. If it were theft, we could be charged. It's not, so we're home free. Yes, when you buy a CD, you're paying for the piece of plastic. You are not paying for the music, not directly. Pinching someone is evil. Not dastardly evil, just a tiny bit evil. It's the diet coke of evil. Of course if someone "deserves" to be pinched, or if you know they really won't mind (cause they're your friend, and its just in good fun), its different. similarly, stealing is warranted if the victim deserves it, or if you know (and you'd better be darn sure) that they won't mind. if Bill Gates has said publicly that he doesn't mind people stealing a few dollars from him, then doing so is not evil. but if he hasn't said so, it is. Since you apparently think cranky toddlers are bastions of Evil, I cannot argue the point with you. Not because I think you're right, but because I don't even know where to begin.
trapspringer 03-12-05, 09:14 PM	I wish all my player's characters had built-in plot hooks. I am sure this thread has deviate a lot since my reading of the OP, but this is my general stance on his proposed character.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 03-12-05, 10:14 PM	Copyright infringement is not theft. It is impossible to steal intellectual property, because there is nothing that can be taken. CI is a crime of copying. Creating a brand-new item without compensating the owner of the intellectual property in it. This is also why it's not copyright infringement to copy small bits of something. Because there hasn't been enough copied to infringe on the owner's rights. Then the same thing can be said about data theft, can't it? I mean, I hack into a computer and copy secret blueprints or bank account numbers. I didn't steal anything, right? Wrong. It's called data theft. Maybe the law, in it's infinite technicality call it otherwise. But in the real world, in everyday life, it still is theft. Heck, in Canada, our Fair Use policies protect us from a lot more copyright infringement than those of the US. We can, for instance, freely download music off of P2P services completely legally. Because it's not theft, and it's not copyright infringement here. If it were theft, we could be charged. It's not, so we're home free. so laws are what decide what's ethical and what's not? nope. Yes, when you buy a CD, you're paying for the piece of plastic. You are not paying for the music, not directly. We live in a practical world, Thorak, not a theorical one. If you're paying for the CD proper (and not the music), why doesn't Three doors down sell as much as Eminem? since music's not the most important part of what you buy, both should sell about as much. To repeat, I buy my CDs for music. I could care less about the plastic CD. Since you apparently think cranky toddlers are bastions of Evil, I cannot argue the point with you. Not because I think you're right, but because I don't even know where to begin [/QUOTE] Mondo generalisation. Cranky toddlers sometime do (trivial) evil acts. Therefore, all cranky toddlers are bastion of evil. Let's look at WHY the toddler's pinching someone. since you stated yourself he was cranky, it's safe to assume he was not happy at this time. How do babies (and small children and, etc) express anger at something? They'll try to hurt the offending object/person. It's then safe to assume the cranky toddler wanted to inflict harm (pinch) upon his target because said target was somehow arousing his anger. We have someone willfully inflicting harm upon another (with the intention to hurt...). This is evil. Yet, the world's not a place of absolutes. His act was evil, yes, but it's a trivial evil.
Thorak 03-13-05, 12:38 AM	Then the same thing can be said about data theft, can't it? I mean, I hack into a computer and copy secret blueprints or bank account numbers. I didn't steal anything, right? Wrong. It's called data theft. Maybe the law, in it's infinite technicality call it otherwise. But in the real world, in everyday life, it still is theft. It's called data theft, but it's a misnomer. In both cases, it's not having the info that's illegal, it's how you acquired it. If I walked in, in plain view and without entering restricted areas, and photographed the secret blueprints, and then walked out, I've done the same thing, but because there's nothing illegal about how I did it, so no crime was committed. That's a crime of electronic break-and-enter, not theft. so laws are what decide what's ethical and what's not? nope. Who said anything about ethics? Besides, if you're implying I'm engaging in something unethical, I'm not. There's an additional fee applied to all blank media, from audio tapes to blank DVDs, in Canada, which was set up at the same time as our Fair Use policies were modified. The fee is designed, explicitly, to defray the costs to companies from people copying their works for private use. I'm already paying for the right to download music, and the money goes to the companies that produce it. Forgive me if I don't think it's unethical to do something entirely legal I'm already paying for. We live in a practical world, Thorak, not a theorical one. If you're paying for the CD proper (and not the music), why doesn't Three doors down sell as much as Eminem? since music's not the most important part of what you buy, both should sell about as much. To repeat, I buy my CDs for music. I could care less about the plastic CD. I never said the reason you bought it wasn't the music. Just what, in legal terms, you're buying. It's like the reason you buy a sports car is to attract hot chicks and drive really fast. You're not buying really hot chicks and fast driving, though, you're buying a sports car. Mondo generalisation. Cranky toddlers sometime do (trivial) evil acts. Therefore, all cranky toddlers are bastion of evil. Let's look at WHY the toddler's pinching someone. since you stated yourself he was cranky, it's safe to assume he was not happy at this time. How do babies (and small children and, etc) express anger at something? They'll try to hurt the offending object/person. It's then safe to assume the cranky toddler wanted to inflict harm (pinch) upon his target because said target was somehow arousing his anger. We have someone willfully inflicting harm upon another (with the intention to hurt...). This is evil. Yet, the world's not a place of absolutes. His act was evil, yes, but it's a trivial evil. By your ruling, it's impossible for Exalted characters to exist. Exalted character lose their powers the moment they engage in an Evil act. So an Exalted character cannot, by your interpretation, ever hurt anyone on purpose for any reason ever, because that's evil. Even if we restrict it to physical hurting, that's called the Vow of Peace, and it's a very specific restriction within the Exalted sphere. It's hardly standard. Seriously, this is like saying that laws, because they keep you from doing certain things, are inherently oppressive and thus evil. So everyone who is Lawful is therefore Evil automatically, and Lawful Good characters are either insane, or have their heads blow up from moral conflict.
Nithendil 03-14-05, 05:43 PM	My wizard just got a boccob’s blessed book. :dancin: The morality of the action depends on who/what you are stealing from, and what you are stealing. For example, you could steal from the government (not pay taxes). This seems perfectly CN to me. Or its reference. The victim may feel it is NE, who knows what the perpetrator thinks (it may very well match the victim)? And the DM god of judgment may think it is TN. You may think it’s CN and I may think its CE, or in another campaign I may very well say CN. Player #3 may think it is NG. Or, if such an omnipotent divine being exists, he may think LG. Isn’t this how all alignment threads end up, and morality discussions in general? (*) Upon searching through various entries, the PHB makes one mention of theft: "the criminal who robs and murders to get what she wants is neutral evil." I'm suprised that no one has mentioned this because it is a pretty powerful argument against me/the people who agree with me (or more accurately, the people that I agree with). To head this off, my argument is that the defining trait of the NE character is his complete devotion to himself, rather than his methods. One may also argue that robbery is theft with violence, which the violent portion would shift it from N (if that is what the authors were thinking) to E. It would be interesting to know how they fleshed out Oligidamma (sp) in the books. The only reason I did not continue our discussion from earlier was that I do not have further adequate knowledge of Locke's works, and don't have much time to go over it. A separate, but important question: Do you agree that you could have a neutral (wrt good and evil) character who steals from people regularly for his personal gain? If I were arguing that the theft is evil, the character can still be neutral. Like some of said, stealing a loaf of bread is relatively minor, even though I may consider it evil (or on the evil tinges of the neutral spectrum). I would argue that the thief has no reasonable expectation that a billionaire would care about $10 (of course, if a thief snuck into his house and stole a $10 bill from said billionaire's wallet, he might care that his security was breached, but that is different). Depends on the reference. I can only speak for myself, but I would consider it an evil (and hurtful) act if someone stuck their hands in my pockets and removed something of mine, even if I was rich and only had a coupon in my wallet. I would also like to point out that theft is not considered wrong by all societies out there. Take for instance, the Plains Indian. The horse, being a vital aspect in their way of life, was exceptionally valuable. In that society, a person could gain stature by stealing horses from one's enemies! Yes but if you stole it from someone in your tribe, they’d likely kill you (not that I know anything about plains Indians, I am just assuming). The act of theft is unlawful. You keep saying it's evil like you've proved that. What quantifies as evil then? If you take something from me, you hurt me. You’re just arguing that it’s “minor” so it doesn’t count. MOST people in MOST societies consider THEFT IMMORAL hence EVIL. Because (one definition of) evil means immoral or morally bad or wrong. If your society considers theft morally sound, good for you. Can you sell your body? If not, it's hardly something you own. You are aware that not too long ago, you very well could (at least in the US)? And today you can theoretically rent it out, albeit illegal in all but one state. And I'm not talking prostitution. I'm talking selling your kidneys. It’s called slavery. Once again, who owns your body? It can't be a crime to a chaotic. Crime is breaking of law. Chaotics don't care about the law. To a chaotic, it won't be a crime, it'll be a wrong. Sorry, wrong. crime P Pronunciation Key (kr m) n. 1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction. 2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime. 3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality. 4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime to squander our country's natural resources. un•just P Pronunciation Key ( n-j st ) adj. 1. Violating principles of justice or fairness; unfair: “monstrously unjust and socially harmful” (Anna Garlin Spencer). 2. Archaic. Faithless; dishonest. Fairness has very little to do with law, in a historical context. I don’t want to get too much into the slavery bit, but… A theoretically Good slave-holding society would, for instance, have criminals of certain crimes, especially white-collar nonviolent crimes, sold into slavery, typically to those against whom they committed the crime if they expressed interest, until such time that they either pay off the effects of their crime, or serve a sentence as a slave equivalent to the sentence they would spend in a prison. However, such a theoretically good slave-holding society is about as possible as a pure libertarian or communist (in the true theoretical sense) society (as in more than 100 people), which essentially means not probable at all (as in me winning the jackpot lottery tomorrow improbable). It’s also theoretical that we don’t need rights laws at all, because theoretically our government and fellow people should never be oppressive, but everyone knows this is a pipe dream. So as long as it is a possibility that the government or population will oppress us, then the concept of rights remains. Anyway, one problem with a hypothetical 'real' society like the one you describe, is that some rather interesting (and highly unethical) psychological studies have observed that humans who are put into arbitrary quality divisions (group one are the guards, group two are the prisoners), begin to believe that actual quality differences exist very fast, and then begin opressing the other group. The video of this (they filmed a lot of it) was very interesting. I think Thorak has clarified the situation very well in post #13. Here's my summation of the various alignments and their views on theft: I do not think anyone is arguing that one action dictates a characters alignment. Most people in my generation believe that they are good people, and most have done at least one or more evil act in their lifetime. I’m not going to get into the filesharing bit. By your ruling, it's impossible for Exalted characters to exist. Exalted character lose their powers the moment they engage in an Evil act. So an Exalted character cannot, by your interpretation, ever hurt anyone on purpose for any reason ever, because that's evil. By D&D definition of evil, yes (not including everything within the BoED), which is why the definition is incredibly subjective (and DMs including exalted characters should read at least a little bit of the BoED, unless they never have issues with their characters).
Insane Pixie 03-14-05, 06:13 PM	Here's the situation: I'm making a new character with a DM who's only Dmed 1.4 sessions I wanted to play a character that steals for a living (but doesn't kill) and he complained, saying that that was just too game breaking, that there'd be no reason for you to join the party, that "Evil characters in a good party are annoying". Me: "I'm not going to be evil" DM: "What do you call robbing people of all their stuff?" (I wanted to be a pirate, sort of a "honorable" one sort of) Me: "well, I guess that's evil, but.." Eventually he argues alot, keeps sighing and asking me why I've got to complain and whine so much.... Feeling guilty about this, I decide to back down, I'll be the same character, but during the raids on ships, once in a while (as hard as they try) someone on the receiving end of the looting ends up dying, and at some point I just cant take it anymore, because that last one had alot of death in it, unavoidable or not, so he quits the crew, goes to the bar and drowns his sorrows in booze.... DM: "That's much more interesting" Me: (Not agreeing with the "anti-thief" attitude, but actually liking this character hang up, so I shut up..... But that doesn't last, next I say: "But I'll still steal stuff once in a while..." "What? No! What do you call stealing people's stuff? Me: "Chaotic" DM: Its evil, so you'd eventually turn evil... Failing that you'd get the party in trouble by stealing something... or cause an inter-party argument, which isn't fun...its annoying... Me, after slow tired argument (its late): "Fine I won't steal" By the way, this is the second idea for my character, the first was a rooftop thief, but he Xed that idea too. By the way I've never ONCE ever, in my years of playing D&D ever played a shifty dude. My characters are always good honorable guys. I can play this character, no problem, I just wanted a chance to play a somewhat shady character for once. I think it's time to answer the initial question. In your game, your DM is God. Whatever he says, goes. If you don't like the way he's DMing, then find a new group.
Thorak 03-14-05, 06:37 PM	By D&D definition of evil, yes (not including everything within the BoED), which is why the definition is incredibly subjective (and DMs including exalted characters should read at least a little bit of the BoED, unless they never have issues with their characters). I'm pretty sure that, if you're going to claim that by the D&D definition of Evil, an entire D&D supplement is completely invalidated, you'll find that it's your interpretation of what D&D means by Evil that's flawed, not the writers of the Book of Exalted Deeds.
Aliquid 03-14-05, 06:45 PM	It's called data theft, but it's a misnomer. In both cases, it's not having the info that's illegal, it's how you acquired it. If I walked in, in plain view and without entering restricted areas, and photographed the secret blueprints, and then walked out, I've done the same thing, but because there's nothing illegal about how I did it, so no crime was committed. That's a crime of electronic break-and-enter, not theft.Ok.... this is incorrect on many counts. First data theft can be a serious crime, and can result in jail time. Secondly, your "taking pictures" scenario isn't a fair comparison, since the "secret blueprints" are in an area accesable by the public (which wouldn't happen if they were secret). Data theft requires someone to hack into a system before they copy the data, thus it isn't publically accesable. Furthermore, taking pictures of private or copywrited documents is a crime as well. Besides, if you're implying I'm engaging in something unethical, I'm not. There's an additional fee applied to all blank media, from audio tapes to blank DVDs, in Canada, which was set up at the same time as our Fair Use policies were modified. The fee is designed, explicitly, to defray the costs to companies from people copying their works for private use. I'm already paying for the right to download music, and the money goes to the companies that produce it. Forgive me if I don't think it's unethical to do something entirely legal I'm already paying for.I believe you have a misunderstanding of how Canadian law works. P2P file sharing isn't illegal in Canada due to a loophole in the law. When the copyright laws were written, technology like this wasn't anticipated, and as such the law wasn't designed to protect from it. You are correct in the statement that the additional fee on blank CDs DVDs and tapes was put in place to defray the costs. The thing is though, this was put in place in an attempt to retaliate against file sharing, it was not put in place as a 'green light' for P2P file sharing. Besides, the money goes to SOCAN (I think) who quite likely won't give any of the money to the artist who created the music you download. I never said the reason you bought it wasn't the music. Just what, in legal terms, you're buying.When you buy a CD, you are buying the legal right for personal use of the artist's music. That is 90% of what you are paying for, the other 10% is the incidental cost of the plastic the CD was made on. You aren't even buying the music itself, you are only purchasing the right to listen to it. Theft isn't a crime of getting something. It is a crime of taking something. And if I take something, whoever had it ceases to have it. You can't take something by copying it. Ergo, you can't steal something by copying it. To make an analogy, it's like if I walked up to a car dealership, and magically copied one of their cars. Did I steal one of their cars? No. I infringed on their copyright, but they didn't lose anything.They lost the possibility of making a sale to you. They lost potential business. They lost compensation for the car you now own. You took their intellectual property from them (the design of the car)
Thorak 03-14-05, 11:50 PM	Ok.... this is incorrect on many counts. First data theft can be a serious crime, and can result in jail time. Secondly, your "taking pictures" scenario isn't a fair comparison, since the "secret blueprints" are in an area accesable by the public (which wouldn't happen if they were secret). Data theft requires someone to hack into a system before they copy the data, thus it isn't publically accesable. Furthermore, taking pictures of private or copywrited documents is a crime as well. I never said data theft wasn't a serious crime. I said it was electronic break and enter. Break and enter is a serious crime, but you can't be charged with theft if you break into someplace and just take pictures of stuff. As for the blueprints; they're not accessible to the public, but security is lax. So I walk in, take the pictures, and walk out. If I committed a crime, it was trespassing. That's it. As for taking pictures; no, it's not a crime. Falls under "fair use". I believe you have a misunderstanding of how Canadian law works. P2P file sharing isn't illegal in Canada due to a loophole in the law. When the copyright laws were written, technology like this wasn't anticipated, and as such the law wasn't designed to protect from it. It's not a loophole. Back when VCRs came out, the law was deliberately changed to include this so-called "loophole", for the exact purpose of making copying copyrighted works and giving copies to friends perfectly legal. And the supreme court of Canada recently ruled that P2P systems are essentially a big group of friends trading copies, something that was perfectly legal for movies and music on all media, so just because it's electronic doesn't mean it's suddenly illegal. You are correct in the statement that the additional fee on blank CDs DVDs and tapes was put in place to defray the costs. The thing is though, this was put in place in an attempt to retaliate against file sharing, it was not put in place as a 'green light' for P2P file sharing. Besides, the money goes to SOCAN (I think) who quite likely won't give any of the money to the artist who created the music you download. Actually, it was put in to defray the costs of VCR and audio taping. The supreme court of Canada just sees little reason to change the law just because the medium of copying has changed. When you buy a CD, you are buying the legal right for personal use of the artist's music. That is 90% of what you are paying for, the other 10% is the incidental cost of the plastic the CD was made on. You aren't even buying the music itself, you are only purchasing the right to listen to it. They lost the possibility of making a sale to you. They lost potential business. They lost compensation for the car you now own. You took their intellectual property from them (the design of the car) Let's cite some actual numbers, from this site (click). (http://nosleep.ca/blog/article/199/record-label-cd-cost-breakdown) "This breakdown of the cost of a typical major-label release by the independent market-research firm Almighty Institute of Music Retail shows where the money goes for a new album with a list price of $15.99. $0.17 Musicians’ unions $0.80 Packaging/manufacturing $0.82 Publishing royalties $0.80 Retail profit $0.90 Distribution $1.60 Artists’ royalties $1.70 Label profit $2.40 Marketing/promotion $2.91 Label overhead $3.89 Retail overhead [/quote] That's 10%. 10% of the price of a CD goes to the artist to pay for the right to use their music, the other 90% gets used up in other sundry costs. Incidentally, standard book contracts offer 30% royalties for hardcover books, and 10% for paperbacks. Considering production costs are higher per book, and the price (for paperbacks) is lower, I find the practices that result in music artists making so little to be a wee bit reprehensible. Since their choice is essentially between self-marketing and having poor sales but big royalty percentages, or shafting themselves on the royalties and hoping to make it up in bulk. Especially since there's more money in music than in books. Yep, I'd rather not pay a record company 90% of a CD price to shaft it's artists, and instead ensure I attend concerts and make direct donations to the artists I enjoy, where they'll actually see the money I pay.