I was getting a little sick of the dictionary war occuring on my other, controversial thread so I've made another specifically to house it. Please no raging, ALL CAPS SHOUTING, or incessant prodding.
My own thought is that honesty is determined by both or all parties involved. If all involved were capable of stating - "No, that did not infringe upon any codes of conduct that they have agreed to abide by." then yes, I'd say the condemned were honest.
The Vikings fit this view well. They raided villages, stealing and slaying, but at no point did they even imply that they were not going to do it.
I just wonder something though. The number of people in your other thread that found following your own morals and ethics as a path to empowerment contradictory to their perceived notion of what a cleric is (myself included), makes me wonder how they dealt with the 2.0 edition + notion that clerics can do just that. If D&D told us a 'Lawful Good' thief was possible in the game, would we choose to accept that as 'just the way the D&D world works' or would we fight against the apparent contradiction?
But now I'm hijacking the thread back towards your other post, so I'll stop for now
Senri-Sei wrote:
Thievery, by its nature is anti-lawful but that doesn't mean that you couldn't have an investigator whose job it is to catch thieves being built using the rogue class. State-sanctioned thieves need not be lawful as the rise of piracy in the wake of rescinded letters of marque showed but some could certainly be.
Senri-Sei wrote:
Professional spy or assasin in service of her magesty can fit the honnest Thief concept.
This is just ridiculous.
Mr. Senri, please take more time to think about what you are saying.
Yes, honesty could well be defined as obeying the rules that as they were previously agreed upon.
In the terms of the Viking raids, the people who were being attacked never at any previous point agreed to the idea that people with weapons could come into their village, take whatever they wanted, kill whomever they wanted and have sex with whomever they wanted. At no point were these concepts established as the proper accord within the village. That is why these acts are robbery, murder and ****.
Now, it certainly is not difficult to imagine a situation where a culture might have a collective resource that everyone has access to. Here are the village tools, whomever needs to use them may use them. How often does one need a ladder? That over there is common land, anyone who wants to use it can use it. Maybe in the village the food is all collected and distributed to whomever needs it. Okay, but in any of these cases, if you are within the group that has been allowed to take or use these items, then taking or using them as permitted is not theft.
Now, imagining a situation where a village puts into effect a rule that anyone can have sex with anyone they want at any time is a bit harder to imagine. I mean, if you had a particularly unusual culture, probably matriachal rule, maybe for whatever reason male babies were still births 9/10 times there and everyone in the village raised the children as a collective and everyone understood it was their duty to produce as many children as possible to expand the village.... then maybe under that particular circumstance I could see a situation arising where one could march into the village and force themselves on anyone. But, in such a rather unusal case, the act would no longer be "****".
And a concept of a society where it has been previously agreed upon that anyone is allowed to kill anyone they want at any time is a bit more difficult to imagine. I mean, you'd need a pretty self-destuctive, bone-headed, reckless society to even think of enacting such a policy-- I mean, you'd have to have less intellectual capacity of most non-sentient social animals. You'd have to be on the level of a Floridian. But, I suppose fantay worlds do have Ogres and such... so maybe there could be such a society.
But then, it would probably be called "challenged and slew" someone rather than "murder".
You see, the definition of the word "steal" says it was done without consent, without knowledge and generally not being within the agreed upon rules of the society. If the society allowed those things, then maybe the term "take" would be used instead.
I think the discussion is getting away form the definitions of Lawful vs. not and into Good vs. not.
Arguments could be made that the Vikings were Lawful - they did strictly follow their own code of laws, often stoicly. No argument could be made, however, that the Vikings were Lawful Good. They were Lawful Neutral at best, and often Lawful Evil.
In that vein, a Lawful Good Rogue would be difficult to justify, as it would imply they obeyed not only the laws (written and unwritten) of their society, but also those that they interact with (at least to some degree). A military scout might certainly be Good, but given their required highly independent nature, being Lawful would be a detriment.
I would also be careful about equating Honest with Lawful. You could easily create a Chaotic character that never lied and who was always open with his intentions. Being honest doesn't mean someone isn't selfish and/or focused on sowing chaos everywhere they go. Nor should being Lawful imply that they never lie or decieve. The motivation of the character matters more than the specific actions.
There are certainly cultural influences and specific cases in which "stealing" is not dishonorable.
Certain North American Indians had codes of honor in which stealing an enemies horse was considered an extremely honorable (and brave) thing to do. Likewise, you can get certain cultures in which they don't recognize others as equals and where stealing from them is fine. You can also simply have rogues who only steal against those who are evil, dishonorable, or not worthy of honor. I.e. you don't treat taking things from goblins as stealing... because the goods are already stolen. You could also have those who justify stealing as for a greater good. For example, stealing from the rich and given to the poor. You could also see a culture which doesn't have individual property rights and "borrowing" is fine. You can take someone's cart as long as you return it. A strange monastry, halfling village, religious commune, etc.
If a player can have a background consistant with the setting and campaign, sure. They can think whatever they want. If they try using it as a license to steal from random people... they would have to deal with the game world consequenses -- laws, other players reacting poorly, being attacked, shunned, etc. Most characters aren't from such remote/isolated backgrounds that they can't realise that others simply don't have their codes.
I think everyone who has posted so far has missed the point of the initial question brought up in the previous thread, which is: Is it possible to have an honest thief? (Not honorable, or Lawful, but specifically HONEST.)
For instance:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Honest_Thief
http://www.swaminarayan.org/yogijimaharaj/talesofwisdom/83.htm
Interesting reading.
Senri-Sei wrote:
Is honesty an important quality at all? I know plenty of good people who are not always honest. Likewise there could be some quite nasty people who are brutally honest.
An honest thief may even announce his plan to everyone, even the victims in order to raise the stakes. For him, the heist or theft is a big game and the more people who know about it the more challenging the heist becomes.
Also, stealing and getting away with it may not even touch on honesty. If nobody ever asks the thief about the crime, the thief may not have any reason to tell about it. Keeping that information to himself or herself is just a matter of survival and prosperity in the trade.
Plus, if a thief has a highly developed moral code, that code may encourage the thief to "rob from the rich and give to the poor" and when questioned about it, he or she may admit to the crimes. This thief has to have a great hiding place and be one step ahead of the authorities. (Robin Hood) In this case, pride urges the thief to a sense of honesty...which makes life more exciting for the thief too - a real thrill seeker/risk taker.
souldoubt wrote:
souldoubt wrote:
Senri-Sei wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Bilbo Baggins.
Q.E.F.D.
/thread
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
An honest thief could be a spy for the force of goods (as alluded by the variant Criminal background) or even working with law enforcement like the Investigator kit of the AD&D 2nd Edition Complete Thief's Handbook.
Plaguescarred wrote:
Perhaps the best example of a thief being outside the norm. He was a doctor and explorer and a monster hunter and knowledge seeker a herbalist and a writer.
Senri-Sei wrote: