I thought that was a bit cheeky, she said that as she made the roll and succeeded so she could do as she wanted. To be honest i wasn't that bothered because i got the Chainmail, but i felt bad for the rest of the party. I asked the DM if i could make a check to find the items or see if she was lying, and the DM said that i didn't see her find (and hide on herself) the items as i was searching elsewhere and asked why would my character be suspicious (he wouldn't be). So my character asked the rogue if she found anything other than the chainmail, to which she replied no. So it all makes sense from a role play perspective.
Now no one else at the table seemed too bothered by it, and hence didn't say anything either, which i was a little suprised at. Am i being too sensitive? I guess for all i know she might declare the items as group loot later on. However my character would be very annoyed if he found out that someone was hamstringing the group. Especially when others in the group have indicated items they have found and i've kept track of them to distribute out later on. But then again if she is going to by a magical weapon for herself then it would benefit the group anyway.
Just wondered what others thought about this, and possibly what i could do about it that would make sense in game. I guess wait until the little story pans out.
In the end it's more important what she does with what she is keeping, rather then the fact she is keeping it. If she is using it to gather things to help the group it's not so important that she is keeping them to herself for the moment.
It may work out in your favor, or the group might decide that this is an acceptable way of playing. The world is not perfect: issues don't solve themselves, and he who is brave enough to address something doesn't always get the results he desires. But when it's out in the open, people who like hanging out together generally find a way to compromise and move on. If it's not addressed, it will linger.
My character is a trusting one (perhaps too much), but i will see what happens when we divide the loot up, pehaps she might refuse her share.
Basically i don't want this to be a catalyst for people to just start taking things that they find and keeping them. Fair enough they made the rolls but its a team effort to get in the dungeon and stay alive. I guess that if it starts to spread i will make a point of saying i don't think its fair.
In an RP sense as soon as my character finds out about any funny buisness then he can kick up a fuss. He is pretty moral and all for stuff that is fair, so it would be a big trust issue for him. That might impact how he reacts in battle for example (might not be as willing to provide help),
Other views welcome.
I play plenty of rogues characters but I have never agreed with that stealling for your party is just playing IC what your pc would do, unless Your rogue is going to be willing to be attacked or ejected from the group when IC the rest of the party learns that instead of an even split for everyone she has been stealing from yall.
I play plenty of rogues characters but I have never agreed with that stealling for your party is just playing IC what your pc would do, unless Your rogue is going to be willing to be attacked or ejected from the group when IC the rest of the party learns that instead of an even split for everyone she has been stealing from yall.
That seems a bit virtuous for a rogue. Depending on the rogue's alignment, there's not a problem with them pilfering the choicer bits of sparkly for themselves.
What I would have problems with is the warlord deciding apparently out of the blue to start watching the rogue closely for signs that they've been pocketing a bit more than their share. That's a case of player knowledge affecting character action.
I've played in alot of games over the years. A rogue, thief in second, or even a bard pocketing an item here or there when they're fairly certain no one is watching is not a big deal. In one game the party was all thieves, so the pilfering was pretty much non-stop. Depending on the rogue, the OP should be more worried about getting knifed by the rogue for paying too close attention.
To be honest i wasn't that bothered because i got the Chainmail
But, you were bothered. You were bothered enough to come here and post. You even posted twice about it, making me think you want people to come back with, "that's not right, it's not fair to the party, you should tell her to stop doing that". I just don't think that's going to happen. Parties have theives in them because of their usefulness. It comes with a price, and that price is theives steal things.
...just IMO.
Probably the best solution is talk to the player first - say it pisses you off. If she says something like: "Just playing the character - Sorry!" I'd then talk to the DM. Tell him this is inversely effecting your game play experience. If he says: "It's a PC issue - not a DM one." and refuses to make her tone it down...
... I'd simply tie her down and chop off her hands. When both her and the DM look at you with horror, you saying. "Where my character comes from - this is how we deal with thieves. Now, do you wanna keep playing *this* game, or does the Rogue wanna stop robbing us blind?"
That seems a bit virtuous for a rogue. Depending on the rogue's alignment, there's not a problem with them pilfering the choicer bits of sparkly for themselves.
What I would have problems with is the warlord deciding apparently out of the blue to start watching the rogue closely for signs that they've been pocketing a bit more than their share. That's a case of player knowledge affecting character action.
I've played in alot of games over the years. A rogue, thief in second, or even a bard pocketing an item here or there when they're fairly certain no one is watching is not a big deal. In one game the party was all thieves, so the pilfering was pretty much non-stop. Depending on the rogue, the OP should be more worried about getting knifed by the rogue for paying too close attention.
Yes, there is a problem. The problem is that the rogue is taking her unfair share of the party's gains and proving that she cannot be trusted. This is not conducive to playing the game. 'I'm just playing my character' is not an excuse to have your character be a jerk; if your character is going to steal from, attack, or betray other members of the party, you're playing a bad character.
I've played a lot of rogues and I have *never* stolen from the party. Simply put, it's stupid.
.In my experience, this is a downhill slide. Once the rogue starts taking treasure for their personal benefit, it forces the rest of the party to act selfishly in order to get their fair share of the gold.
I reject the defense that it's "in character" to rob players and that for the group to be suspicious of the rogue is "metagaming".
My character always keeps a close eye on the thieves in the group. And you know how I pick them out? They're the ones that skulk around in the shadows, that stab others when they're not looking, and carry around special tools for jimmying locks. It doesn't take platinum dragon to figure out that these individuals should not be trusted.
Also, and rogues that ever want to survive with a group of adventurers should be upfront with them. Often times, you're deep underground or in the middle of nowhere, so if the party catches you stealing, it's very easy for them to gut you were you are and never be punished. You become just another one of those nameless ruffians that disappears into the wilderness.
You are not being sensitive. I would reiterate next session the rules for divving treasure. And if the rogue continues to do rogue-ish things for the team (bluffing guards, sneak attacks, open locks) feel free to watch her like a hawk and not trust a word that comes out of her mouth.
To do otherwise is to be willfully ignorant and any adventurer who is like that deserves to be robbed blind.
You even posted twice about it, making me think you want people to come back with, "that's not right, it's not fair to the party, you should tell her to stop doing that". I just don't think that's going to happen.
You're right, you can't simply 'lay down the law' on your peers. There are a lot of ways to play D&D. If a new group is formed, everybody plays D&D like he's used to. In some groups it is ok if the rogue steals from the party, while other groups use some sort of honor-system about cooperative play where this is 'not done'. Starting a conversation about how the new group is going to handle things is a decent way of dealing with (any) clashing expectations. The decision can go one way or another, as there is no absolute 'right' way to deal with this. Basically, when a few issues need to be addressed, you'll win some and you'll lose some.
Parties have theives in them because of their usefulness. It comes with a price, and that price is theives steal things.
I don't buy that you have to steal from your party because your class is called 'thief'. I don't see the party fighter beating up the rest because he's called 'fighter' and should therefore fight whenever he has the chance.
But I could accept a 'this PC is untrustworthy, and this will add depth to the character and create the roleplaying opportunities'. If that's what the group agrees upon, than that is a right way to play D&D for that group.
But, you were bothered. You were bothered enough to come here and post. You even posted twice about it, making me think you want people to come back with, "that's not right, it's not fair to the party, you should tell her to stop doing that". I just don't think that's going to happen. Parties have theives in them because of their usefulness. It comes with a price, and that price is theives steal things.
...just IMO.
I posted twice? Do you mean my reply? Your post seems rather agressive.
Firstly i'm not looking for sympathy, and i don't think my post was leading replies into backing me up. If thats how it came across it wasn't intended, i just wondered what others thought.
Secondly, i'm not trying to lay down the law. We didn't agree to anything before hand, and she took the stuff, it was fair game. I just wanted to find out other peoples oppinions on it as i'm relatively new to 4e and RP as a whole.
What i said i think is true, but perhaps i said it in the wrong way. I'm not that bothered because as i picked up an item, it's likely that i won't get any gp or perhaps very little so that those who didn't get an item have enough to buy stuff for themselve. My main reason for posting was that if i hadn't recieved anything then i might be a little peeved, so why didn't anyone else say anything or even seem to react. Initially i just thought that this happens so perhaps i need to wise up.
I'll reiterate and say that i'm gonna see how this pans out. So it's nice to see how other feel about the matter and it gives me more information if i want to address it.
Grab the rogue by the ankles and turn them upside down everytime you suspect something.
OOC, however, I'm aware it's the batshit crazy Warlock who keeps nicking stuff and the Rogue is just looking to get laid as often as possible and not do too much work.
well it is the rogue, their whole thing is thievry. I wouldn't worry about it, there is only so much one person can hold on their person before they start looking suspicous.
What i said i think is true, but perhaps i said it in the wrong way. I'm not that bothered because as i picked up an item, it's likely that i won't get any gp or perhaps very little so that those who didn't get an item have enough to buy stuff for themselve. My main reason for posting was that if i hadn't recieved anything then i might be a little peeved, so why didn't anyone else say anything or even seem to react. Initially i just thought that this happens so perhaps i need to wise up.
Others may not have said anything because they, too, may not know how they should react.
Talk to them, see if anyone else is bothered. If it is an issue, you should probably speak to the rogue herself.
In game, you can do as I suggested. Unless your character is unbelievably dim, he shouldn't be incredibly trusting of someone who does rather unscrupulous actions. Feel free to inform the DM that you are 'keeping a respectfully watchful eye on the rogue'. If you don't want to start the session saying this, do it once the rogue opens a single lock, disables a single trap, etc...
It's like inviting your friend who jacks cars to your house, then politely wondering where you wallet and keys went once he left.
I don't think that relavent as i'm hardly going to tell someone in the first session that i don't want them playing a Rouge because they are untrustworthy.
I'm pretty sure this will be dealt with in RP terms, there has been nothing to suggest the character is underhand in any way. She has been more than helpful, and like i said currently none of the party know she has pocketed the stuff.
This kind of reminds of game we had back in the early 90s. There was a lot players. I might miss a few here but we had a Cleric, Paladin, fighter/wizard, 3 thieves, and a Ranger/druid.
We were in a dungeon and there was crawl space accessible from hole in the ceiling. Only the thieves could get to in and slip in. The hole was small and meant light armor only. So we send one thief up and he finds 10 golden disc worth 100 gp each. Out of game we know this but in game we don't. The other thieves are still climbing up when the first thief stashes 5 of the disc in his handy haver sack. Now the other two thieves arrive. They see 5 golden discs and they get talking. They decide to take one each and tell the rest of the party they found 2 golden discs. They agree and off we go. Now out of game we all know but in game we are supposed to roleplay that we don't know. The guy playing the Paladin however had a really tough time at this. He was ticked about that and was just waiting for the thieves to slip up. He never did actually catch them. I was playing the Ranger/Druid and I thought it was funny that one thief rips off the others then he plots with the other thieves to rip us off. I thought it was great.
On the other side, another game I am in, the party rogue does carve a little off the top...and it works out fine. She'll pocket a few private loot items like a few gems or coins or something like that. And she will also sell off the loot since she has ranks in Appraise and Diplomacy, has a Handy Haversack, and also has connections with fences and the underground/black market. She will often, as a result, get a higher percentage of value than any of the rest of us (even as high as 75-80 percent buying price). Sometimes she will return to us and say she got 65 percent buying price when she got 70 percent and keep the difference which goes right around to get stuff to help the party like magic items and such. And none of us, as players, really have a problem with it.
I think the way to make it work is for the rogue or thievery character to have personal courtesy limits. Improving one's share by 10 percent by private loot and carving off the top is usually fine. Doubling or tripling your share or pocketing powerful items is never fine. I mean, the people who play the non-rogues are at a disadvantage...and if they feel that playing the other important classes is bringing them down, the party dynamic is lost.
Another comment I want to make is that a rogue/thief/whatever does not ever need to be sneaky and cheating towards the party. You can play an upfront, honest rogue (at least towards the party) who shares equally and does his job without having to claim a secret prize at each treasure chamber. That's like the fighter slaying the dragon and saying "I killed something so I get an extra share". Rogue is a job not a personality trait.
I posted twice? Do you mean my reply? Your post seems rather agressive.
My intent was to point out I think it bothers you more than you may think, not to be agressive.
The items that you pointed out that the thief took were relatively minor. IMO, people who want to write down every gold piece so it can be divided evenly are more annoying than the thief who keeps some for herself. Why does the one person have to write everything down and then assign $$ value to magic and not give the person with items as much money? To me, that person is more greedy and control freak than the thief who sneaks a few non-essentials.
So the thief kept some valuables...when the wizard needs money later does the thief help out or lie about not having any money? That's more relevant to me.
How about a party (wizard, thief, cleric, fighter) finds a treasure stash that contains armor, acrobatic boots, an amulet and gold. The treasure is guarded by a mage using a magical orb. The party kills the mage and the wizard takes the orb. The thief takes the boots and sneaks some coinage. The fighter gets the armor. The rest of the gold is divided evenly. Then an argument occurs over the amulet. Eventually the wizard gets the amulet because the fighter didn't want it and the wizard says, "I didn't get any magic from the treasure" and then complains about the thief taking coins before they are evenly divided, even tho his character knows nothing about it because he was LOOTING THE FALLEN MAGE at the time.
My point is, greedy players cause problems with playing, not just thief characters. Is the thief player being greedy or just trying to roleplay what she thinks her character would do? Some say it's a fine line, but I think it's easy to tell when the line is crossed....
My point is, greedy players cause problems with playing, not just thief characters. Is the thief player being greedy or just trying to roleplay what she thinks her character would do? Some say it's a fine line, but I think it's easy to tell when the line is crossed....
If it's roleplaying for a predominant number of players in the class of 'rogue' to pilfer items without party consent, it is equally roleplaying for savvy party members to watch said members of the 'rogue' class.
It takes a very mature person to steal from the group and keep things fun and civil. More often then not, the thief will steal something that would have helped the party had it been in someone else's hands. They either tote this item around for the rest of the campaign or sell it to bump up their own personal power.
I've played a lot of rogues and I have *never* stolen from the party. Simply put, it's stupid.
We're talking about rogues here, not paladins.
I had a rogue once that financed the construction of a wizard's tower, a cleric's temple and a fighter's stronghold with what he managed to ferret away. Being able to come up with money when the rest of the group is skinned is a pretty good skill if you're looking to live the easy life. Mind you that was the same rogue that always bought a bit of the local trade goods every time we travelled to another town. You can call it stupid or stealing, but the rest of the world calls it a "finder's fee" and banking.
Tell me, what would you do with the odd bits of treasure if you didn't have a rogue to tell you what it was worth? How would you sell the odd bits without the bargaining savvy that most rogues have? Is it too much to ask for a bit of coin in exchange for it? Do you give up anything for the weapons and armor you assume are yours because you're the only one that can use them? How about that scroll, what part of that does the rogue get?
So the rogue gets to take it in the shorts because they don't use heavy armors and wield alot of magic weapons? And then they get it again when scrolls and spellbooks come around? And again when the party splits the treasure? If you share equally, how much do other party members have to give up for the stuff they want?
I think i would have the same thoughts if it was any other PC (or Class) that did what the Rogue did. So i'm not shoe horning here.
TBH its too early to tell what this will lead to, so i guess right now its best to wait and see.
Currently i've got a track of loose gp and gems that is deemed 'group loot' and will be divided up later. If we fine a magical item we see if anyone could benefit from it and if not add that to the pile.
You don't see this as skimming? Your character is wearing a suit of chainmail +1 that could be sold off to increase that loot. are you going to take 1300 gold pieces less than the rest of the party? Fair's fair, isn't it?
You don't see this as skimming? Your character is wearing a suit of chainmail +1 that could be sold off to increase that loot. are you going to take 1300 gold pieces less than the rest of the party? Fair's fair, isn't it?
Yup.
Is this a PVP game? Because stealing from others is a PVP act. If the rogue has the right to loot stuff from fellow players you have the right to take her stuff and eject her violently from the party when you discover that betrayal. Consequences for actions taken. However since being ejected from the party is very similar to character death in a PnP game you and your group have to decide if you want to be messing with each other in ways that basically involve removal from the game. If it's cool with all of you go ahead. If not then it's time to lay some ground rules.
Lastly being a rogue has no excuse to steal from the party. A Rogue is not a thief, and even most thieves are smart enough not to steal from their friends, who they spend very long amounts of time with, and who are the only things standing between them and death. Wealthy merchants have far better long term risk to gold ratios.
You need to try harder to keep in-character knowledge & out-of-character knowledge seperate.
Sure, you as a player know the rogues double dipping.
But your character doesn't.
And it's just a game.
So just learn to play the game based on the info the character knows.
You also need to learn to seperate character vrs character conflicts/anger from player vrs player issues.
Learning to do this will lead to many years of better gaming & stories. It also makes it possible for RL best friends to do truely awefull things to each others characters during a session & be none-the-worse for it in real life.
As far as being naturally inclined to keep your eye on the rogue, that's some BS. Since when can you discern anybodies nature just based on how they fight? I have a rogue who doesn't steal at all, and doesn't use stealth. He has the ability to, he's trained in stealth and thievery, but he's a thug. He's a street brawler who throws sand in your eyes and stabs you in the kidney. If I were to start stealing from the party, they'd never even suspect me because I don't fit any sort of typical rogue/thief profile.
Also, does your party have a contract with one another about the division of loot? If not, then the rogue is just doing what's good for himself. And aren't adventurers a selfish lot to begin with? "Hey will you kill the monsters that are kidnapping and eating our people?" The ambitious adventurer responds, "Sure, but it's gonna cost you."
I've never stolen from anyone as any of my rogues, but i've played with people who have and it's just fine. In our group is actually quite hilarious to see how much of our wealth the rogue could amass without anyone noticing. And we were fine on treasure as it was. We all had good equipment and a little cash, the rogue had good equipment and a ton of cash.
In most games I've played this sort of thing is just expected. In fact, if the player who has the thief said they want to sit next to the DM to pass notes so the other players won't know what he's doing everyone shifts chairs to allow for it. However, if there's a paladin or equivalent in the group the thief better watch their butt.
Not accounting for that is just... Bad DMing.
Fortunately for my own party, our rogue is almost never there- but he's screwed up enough times that we know he's a thief. Whenever something goes missing, he's the first one to get the blame. I fully expect the DM to use that against us at some point, but eh.
The items that you pointed out that the thief took were relatively minor.
Expressed over a series of many levels, it adds up in time. Like HP...
IMO, people who want to write down every gold piece so it can be divided evenly are more annoying than the thief who keeps some for herself. Why does the one person have to write everything down and then assign $$ value to magic and not give the person with items as much money? To me, that person is more greedy and control freak than the thief who sneaks a few non-essentials.
There's a difference between accounting/book keeping for accuracy's sake and personal gain. You'd be amazed how often a group of PCs doesn't remember item 'x' or plot device 'y' cuz' no one scribbles it down, then they get pi$$ed when it becomes a detriment later. They did it to themselves.
Still, you are assuming independent variables and may be mistaking good intention for ill. Depends on the group largely.
My point is, greedy players cause problems with playing, not just thief characters.
Greed is a sin, this much is true, but some are more equipped than others to express that in game (thieves). You want to just handwave it as, "Boys will be boys." when it's minor in scope which is largely fine. Unprofessional and really stupid, but fine thematically speaking. Of course, one must remember wrath is also a sin, and there are those better equipped w/ dolling out it as well (the remaining party), particularly when revenge is a really good motivator.
Is the thief player being greedy or just trying to roleplay what she thinks her character would do? Some say it's a fine line, but I think it's easy to tell when the line is crossed....
Well, that's the big question, but the answer lies in each household's game room, not an official stance from us, the community, you know? Entirely a personal matter w/ the PCs, not really me, the DM.
Why it's not a good idea (IMO).
Show
Unprofessional/Stupid:
-Ruins your reputation and rep is major for thieves. No one wants to hire some hack that is a petty crook. They want professional burglars, assassins, facemen, whatever. Thieves are like a sewing circle anyway, word gets around. What later-day party would hire someone they have to trust w/ their lives?
-Same reason many evil PCs won't or shouldn't dick over their teamates. They need the support of close friends to afford them "dubious" activity. Screwing your friends is largely shooting yourself in the foot in this light. What you bring to the table should outweigh what you take from it. This insures a degree of protection and loyalty.
-There are far more easier marks to rob that aren't in such a precarious position to catch you, stick it in and break it off. Rob a moneylender or something if you must. Robbing adventurers is the hallmark of stupidity given their relative power, conviction, and resources to extract revenge.
-You stand better chances making more money on the whole when you work together rather than nickel and diming them. Sum is greater...bla bla bla. When you take enough from 1 class, it may be enough to hamstring them at a later date, and in turn you by default when joined in group combat. Entire parties have died cuz' they were short item 'x', a +1 here or there, 1 healing potion, and so forth. When they go down, your chances do in turn.
Take care of them, they'll take care of you when you're in a tight spot.
-The risk outweighs the benefit; guards might not catch you, but very powerful and now, bitter, adventurers likely will. And their degree of mercy is not the same as local place 'x'. The lesson taught could be catastrophic as the breach of personal trust is as well. Why rob from ppl that are far better at dealing w/ this sort of thing than a lesser, NPC 3rd party?
-Nothing will ever be the same. It's like adultery. Even if amends were made, still, suspicion will always linger and the initial dynamic of loyalty and power is now compromised forever. They will be less likely to help you.
-Loss of credibility; suspicion alone will foster further distrust, further erroding the team's power and efficiency (screws everyone). Proof of guilt destroys it completely, undoing many levels of solid conflict resolution over peanuts. Realistically, many parties would take their due (rob him senseless) and kick out the rogue, or more simply kill him given the crime and he is now a liability as the truth has surfaced. This means he is even more unpredictable and likely to have a "F-it, the jig's up," mentality.
-They are far more likely to detect your larceny given such close proximity, knowing your habbits, etc. Bluff, for one, gets much harder when the subject of the deceit is a close friend/PC, as is the present case. It wouldn't be hard to discern, after a while, a disporportionate amount of wealth given said rogue's moral flexibility.
-Tactically incompetant; when you steal 'x', you're supposed to hide it, create some plausible deniability. Not keep it on you and mingle w/ the ppl you robbed, sleep next to, are nearly defenseless against at times. This is how many cops get crooks; they return to the scene of the crime...except here, the crime scene is static and stays w/ you/victims entirely. Not wise. A professional thief steals 'x', has a planned cache for it, or arranged a fence to move it quickly. Having 'x' on you means you probably took it. Like murder, no body = no crime.
-Ruins your reputation and rep is major for thieves. No one wants to hire some hack that is a petty crook. They want professional burglars, assassins, facemen, whatever. Thieves are like a sewing circle anyway, word gets around. What later-day party would hire someone they have to trust w/ their lives?
-Same reason many evil PCs won't or shouldn't dick over their teamates. They need the support of close friends to afford them "dubious" activity. Screwing your friends is largely shooting yourself in the foot in this light. What you bring to the table should outweigh what you take from it. This insures a degree of protection and loyalty.
-There are far more easier marks to rob that aren't in such a precarious position to catch you, stick it in and break it off. Rob a moneylender or something if you must. Robbing adventurers is the hallmark of stupidity given their relative power, conviction, and resources to extract revenge.
-You stand better chances making more money on the whole when you work together rather than nickel and diming them. Sum is greater...bla bla bla. When you take enough from 1 class, it may be enough to hamstring them at a later date, and in turn you by default when joined in group combat. Entire parties have died cuz' they were short item 'x', a +1 here or there, 1 healing potion, and so forth. When they go down, your chances do in turn.
Take care of them, they'll take care of you when you're in a tight spot.
-The risk outweighs the benefit; guards might not catch you, but very powerful and now, bitter, adventurers likely will. And their degree of mercy is not the same as local place 'x'. The lesson taught could be catastrophic as the breach of personal trust is as well. Why rob from ppl that are far better at dealing w/ this sort of thing than a lesser, NPC 3rd party?
-Nothing will ever be the same. It's like adultery. Even if amends were made, still, suspicion will always linger and the initial dynamic of loyalty and power is now compromised forever. They will be less likely to help you.
-Loss of credibility; suspicion alone will foster further distrust, further erroding the team's power and efficiency (screws everyone). Proof of guilt destroys it completely, undoing many levels of solid conflict resolution over peanuts. Realistically, many parties would take their due (rob him senseless) and kick out the rogue, or more simply kill him given the crime and he is now a liability as the truth has surfaced. This means he is even more unpredictable and likely to have a "F-it, the jig's up," mentality.
-They are far more likely to detect your larceny given such close proximity, knowing your habbits, etc. Bluff, for one, gets much harder when the subject of the deceit is a close friend/PC, as is the present case. It wouldn't be hard to discern, after a while, a disporportionate amount of wealth given said rogue's moral flexibility.
-Tactically incompetant; when you steal 'x', you're supposed to hide it, create some plausible deniability. Not keep it on you and mingle w/ the ppl you robbed, sleep next to, are nearly defenseless against at times. This is how many cops get crooks; they return to the scene of the crime...except here, the crime scene is static and stays w/ you/victims entirely. Not wise. A professional thief steals 'x', has a planned cache for it, or arranged a fence to move it quickly. Having 'x' on you means you probably took it. Like murder, no body = no crime.
It's one thing to skim, and it's another to take the majority share of the CR encounter treasure that's supposed to go to the group for themselves.
If the thief is getting away with the majority of the loot then you either have one hell of a thief on your hands or a perception of -1. ;)
Agreed on the DMing part. The thief should only really be able to pull of skimming, and only now and then. That should be taken into accoutn by the DM.
She should also realize the consequences of being caught (depending on her party make-up) and only try to get a handful when nobody's looking. Anything more would be too noisy/heavy/bulky to hide.
Oh, and help party members financially when need-be. After all, the party being stronger only helps her adventuring career. Not helping party members with the loot you've acquired is just silly.
You could spot that he looted somthing... notice when he is lieing... and make your point for him to share it with diplomacy... the dm might just be like...." and some say... that the rogues heart grew 3 times its size that day"
lol... but anyway... when i play rogues i steal.. alot... alot alot... but i dont steal from my group... even if im N-E... i have respect for my party members... for always having my back... i dont steal from people i entrust my life to.. you know... for the rogue to do this to you guys... he is just having some RL giggles..and bringing down the overfall enjoyment of the campaign for the rest of the group... if your the only one bothered by this there isnt much you can do... but ask your party next time he does this... do it right in front of the rogue player... ask..." is anyone else bothered by him doing this all the time or is it just me?" ... that way if they agree... then look at him as politely ask him to stop... that usually does the trick... they are doing it to enjoy their character more by having some giggles but if you flat out call them on ruining your fun... they usualy notice they are bringing down the room....
The treasure parcel guidelines are intended to give everyone roughly the same amount of "loot". Thus, you guys "happen" to find items which are useless or unattractive to the rogue, and the rogue "happens" to steal stuff, and is able to buy stuff that is desired. Some groups get that to happen by sharing the loot equitably, and giving a larger share to the person who got shorted on a magic item. Your group can handle it another way if it's fun for you.
If people have a problem with the issue, whether or not their character knows about it, then the group should try to resolve this in some way. It wouldn't be OK (in most groups) for one character to be a demon worshipper and murderer (in secret) just because it was secret. If the secret activities are going to influence the group and their game, they should be examined by the group. No one player should really get to dictate the type of game everyone else is playing. The goal is for the game to be fun for everybody at the table, if possible.
You don't see this as skimming? Your character is wearing a suit of chainmail +1 that could be sold off to increase that loot. are you going to take 1300 gold pieces less than the rest of the party? Fair's fair, isn't it?
Well i don't think +1 Magic Cainmail is worth 1300gp, but yeah i think that principal is right.
I'd be happy not having as much loot because i got an item, seems fair to me and i'd put that forward to the group as the way we should divide it. In fact i think that the PHB mentions something like this where it talks about dividing loot.
I think its interesting how people are divided on this. Although i agree with a lot of people the in theory it is the DM's job to keep track of the economic balance, so i will perhaps just ask if him if thats the case and if so won't concern myself about it.
Well i don't think +1 Magic Cainmail is worth 1300gp, but yeah i think that principal is right.
Considering I got that price directly from the DMG, I'm fairly certain it's right. Let's see 150 for the chainmail, 150 for masterwork and 1000 for the +1 bonus. It's on page 216, if you'd like to check it.
Rogues skimming and stealing from the party goes back to the 2nd edition. Back in 2nd, a rogue could pick up extra xp for using their thieving skills and quite a few players figured out that if they used them on their own party, they tended to get arrested less. Palming a couple extra coins when you were searching for treasure got you 2xp per gold piece. Sucessful use of a thieving skill would get you 100xp. Since they didn't get any kind of combat bonuses to their xp like the fighters, wizards and clerics did, it was one of the only ways to keep up.
My dad used to play, and I, at 10 year old, was hugely interested. He was playing an elven thief. He'd be shady and sneaky. This one time post combat, the party are healing and recouping, and he just catches the DMs eye and makes a subtle hand gesture. The party found nowt but a few crappy weapons, when they searched the bodies. End of the night the DM hands him a note detailing what he'd found.
Months later the party are dealing with some super natural big bad (possibly a demon?) who demands they hand over an amulet he insists they took from one of his preists. The party has no idea what he's going on about. Only Dad's elf knows and he's not speaking up. I can't remember the resolution but I don't think it went well for the party.
I think the best part of this is not only did the characters not know he's been skimming, but the players didn't either.
I'd have to ask if you are thinking on "paying more attention" to the rogues actions and searching, why you hadn't in the past but are now. What has caused this change (in character). If you were routinely checking then fair enough, but you weren't and now you want to? Why?
That said as DM I'd be having the rogue make theivery rolls against the parties passive perceptions (possibly with a bonus, because of the trust of being in the party). This would mean that either a) it forces the rogue to limit her skimming (probably to when she finds something really good). or b) she's gonna get caught eventually and brought to whatever party justice goes on out there.
In my current group this wouldn't happen (we're not Role-play enough, a lot more hack and slash), personally I'd welcome the roleplay if it did.
I'm the party rogue in both our games.
My 4E halfling rogue, is a somewhat stupid, and totally untrusted, psycho. The party is always watching over his shoulder, even if they trusted him enough not to steal off them (they don't) they wouldn't trust him enough not to get himself, or all of them in trouble.
My 3.5E changling beguiler is more likely to get away with it, more trusted and smarter he's pick the right moment to pinch a gem or two if he was going to do it. He's earned their trust first.
I'd question the party scruitinizing the beguiler, but not my halfling.
Considering I got that price directly from the DMG, I'm fairly certain it's right. Let's see 150 for the chainmail, 150 for masterwork and 1000 for the +1 bonus. It's on page 216, if you'd like to check it.
QUOTE]
The OP is playing 4E so the chainmail is only 360 gp. I assume your looking at 3E as magic items are no longer in the DMG.
To the OP how big were the statues, it seems to me like they wouldn't be easy to hide even if they were only a foot or so tall.
If the party trusts you, there's no reason for them to endlessly roll perception on you every time you loot a body, or roll insight every time you lie to them. I've had games ruined where I made a character who excells at bluff, and every time he lied, no matter how small of a lie it was, everybody in the entire party rolled insight. It was exceedingly lame.
The same can be said for thievery. So he seals some stuff, big deal. You can't just suddenly perception check him every time something happens. As a DM I'd probably penalize you if you did that because you're metagaming.
Unfortunately, a lot of DMs don't moderate this kind of behavior. I usually test PCs in a new game - something like I make foul-tasting soup all alone - and if they refuse to eat it without even smelling it, then I know they are metagame fiends.
If the party trusts you, there's no reason for them to endlessly roll perception on you every time you loot a body, or roll insight every time you lie to them. I've had games ruined where I made a character who excells at bluff, and every time he lied, no matter how small of a lie it was, everybody in the entire party rolled insight. It was exceedingly lame.
You realize that's the rules, right? Every time you attempt to bluff someone, no matter how liked you are or how convincing the lie, there's a roll against Insight/Sense Motive.
A smarter alternative would be to take whatever modicum of Int said rogue/player has and channel that into a bigger score...you know, one where the party actually augments your brilliant heist w/ their own muscle, spells, etc. Payoff will be bigger, you'll have support to bail you out if there's a snag, healing, etc. Teamwork. The whole premise of this game, no?
Cutpurse, petty theft = child's play. Especially from your crew. Reflects poorly. Like aggravated robbery; you hold up a quickie mart for 3-figures usually, gun spec & implied violence means you could face serious time for peanuts. W/ a little brains, you could net way more cash w/ a modem/cell for way less jail time. Risk/gain assessment is everything.
RP wise; again, I must reiterate, PARTY LOYALTY. You can still be evil as Hell, but maintain that bond of comraderie w/out compromising whatever sensibilities your PC might ID w/ in game. Don't sh-t where you eat basically.
A PC party is like a "war buddy" dynamic. These are some of the closest friendships EVER. When you take a microcosm of races/talents and force them into life/death situations where they work together, that combat stress and conflict resolution premise fosters amazing bouts of loyalty and trust. Funny thing about saving a persons's life and all...doesn't get much more indebted than that. Soldiers, marines, whatever, they are very tight w/ each other. Adventurers would be way way closer even still.
Furthermore, this is often way more rigorous than a typical military campaign. Those guys get housed, fed regularly, can count on back up, surrenders can be honored, etc. Not so w/ adventurers; hiking for days in crap weather, food/lodging is where you find it, no back up typically, and many monsters would just as soon eat you than parlay. Way more stressful/risky. World of difference between enemy nation's troops on the battlefield vs. your guys and a tomb populated w/ ghouls.
Moving on:
Doesn't matter if you're under the aegis of "Just palming a bit here and there," that's cool, it might afford you more social flexibility when you use that petty cash fund for bribes, gathering intel, whatever. That's a rogue's sphere of influence; RP has it's ups and downs, but drives the game. But, realistically, if found out, all Hell breaks loose. Would you be angry if you risked your life daily fighting uknown terrors in horrifying situations for $ and knew the guy that was supposed to have your back was screwing you? Once more, screwing your friends that you look out for as well? It could mean the difference in life and death. Why risk it?
Would you trust that same "professional" or "war buddy" w/ your life RP wise after that? Or would you just powergame it as dollars and cents? That is typical motivation; risking your life for fame and riches. You're not getting your due of the later. How would you feel if said rogue were slandering your good name then of the prior, but giving you your cut of the loot then?
It undermines group cohesion basically. You gotta' trust your allies if you're gonna' risk your life for glory and gold. If you can't trust them w/ the later, chances are your life may be in further jeopardy, and for what? You'd risk it all for just "a little here, a little there."
That's in game. I know, "It's what my character would do." I support that position 100% of the time, I'd have your back at the table in a flash. However, I would not deny a wrathful colleague either as he RPs out anger either. What comes around goes around. Plus, there's the player. How good are they at willing suspension of disbelief? I'd rather curb my appetite for a few more gp's from a friend than alienate a RL friend over a game...
Considering I got that price directly from the DMG, I'm fairly certain it's right.
Hmmm then perhaps I’m not describing the Armor properly, or as Dragoloth said above we are getting mixed up. I received some Magic Armor that is of the Chainmail type, it gives me +1 to my AC and the PHB has it listed as costing 360gp. We are playing a 1st level 4e campaign, so i guess we are talking about different items. Sorry about the confusion.
@Dragoloth: I didn't actually ask, but the DM seemed to think that she would have not problem hiding it on her person so....
This thread has kind of blown up which i wasn't expecting, but i think that the discussion is good.
I will again reiterate that i am new to 4e and RP in general. This is NOT a game breaker for me, i don't think badly of the player that did it as it was completely within the confines of the game. I intend to keep my player and character knowledge separate and see if the opp. arises later on to role play this out.
My character is a trusting person, it has been built in his back-story. So suspicion wouldn't arise out of the blue. Perhaps the rouge my slip up and sell the items right in front of me when we are at the store? Or she might do other stuff with it. Perhaps my character discovers what happened. and shrugs it off? or is too scared of speaking up? I will decide when it happens.
I guess i now see that i want completely over reacting when i thought she was being cheeky, but that it's only going to become a problem if she (or anyone else for that matter) makes it a problem for the whole party (i.e. imbalance). Having said that balance is the job of the DM, right? So i guess either way i shouldn't worry about it.
ShowRogues are supposed to be "smart" too, or at least clever. Stealing from a group (not just 1 mark) that is more than capable of detecting said ruse given relatively small # of suspects, proximity to said victims, and the threat of them handing you your head as a result of said betrayal isn't "smart". Frontier justice, bla bla bla. If you RP out your larcenous side, that's cool and I encourage good RP, reward it even w/ some XP time to time, but that cuts both ways. Your 1/2 orc murder machine "tank" isn't likely to keep a brave face on things and not RP out his righteous indignation in lethal overtones. What's good for the goose is good for the gander...
A smarter alternative would be to take whatever modicum of Int said rogue/player has and channel that into a bigger score...you know, one where the party actually augments your brilliant heist w/ their own muscle, spells, etc. Payoff will be bigger, you'll have support to bail you out if there's a snag, healing, etc. Teamwork. The whole premise of this game, no?
Cutpurse, petty theft = child's play. Especially from your crew. Reflects poorly. Like aggravated robbery; you hold up a quickie mart for 3-figures usually, gun spec & implied violence means you could face serious time for peanuts. W/ a little brains, you could net way more cash w/ a modem/cell for way less jail time. Risk/gain assessment is everything.
RP wise; again, I must reiterate, PARTY LOYALTY. You can still be evil as Hell, but maintain that bond of comraderie w/out compromising whatever sensibilities your PC might ID w/ in game. Don't sh-t where you eat basically.
A PC party is like a "war buddy" dynamic. These are some of the closest friendships EVER. When you take a microcosm of races/talents and force them into life/death situations where they work together, that combat stress and conflict resolution premise fosters amazing bouts of loyalty and trust. Funny thing about saving a persons's life and all...doesn't get much more indebted than that. Soldiers, marines, whatever, they are very tight w/ each other. Adventurers would be way way closer even still.
Furthermore, this is often way more rigorous than a typical military campaign. Those guys get housed, fed regularly, can count on back up, surrenders can be honored, etc. Not so w/ adventurers; hiking for days in crap weather, food/lodging is where you find it, no back up typically, and many monsters would just as soon eat you than parlay. Way more stressful/risky. World of difference between enemy nation's troops on the battlefield vs. your guys and a tomb populated w/ ghouls.
Moving on:
Doesn't matter if you're under the aegis of "Just palming a bit here and there," that's cool, it might afford you more social flexibility when you use that petty cash fund for bribes, gathering intel, whatever. That's a rogue's sphere of influence; RP has it's ups and downs, but drives the game. But, realistically, if found out, all Hell breaks loose. Would you be angry if you risked your life daily fighting uknown terrors in horrifying situations for $ and knew the guy that was supposed to have your back was screwing you? Once more, screwing your friends that you look out for as well? It could mean the difference in life and death. Why risk it?
Would you trust that same "professional" or "war buddy" w/ your life RP wise after that? Or would you just powergame it as dollars and cents? That is typical motivation; risking your life for fame and riches. You're not getting your due of the later. How would you feel if said rogue were slandering your good name then of the prior, but giving you your cut of the loot then?
It undermines group cohesion basically. You gotta' trust your allies if you're gonna' risk your life for glory and gold. If you can't trust them w/ the later, chances are your life may be in further jeopardy, and for what? You'd risk it all for just "a little here, a little there."
That's in game. I know, "It's what my character would do." I support that position 100% of the time, I'd have your back at the table in a flash. However, I would not deny a wrathful colleague either as he RPs out anger either. What comes around goes around. Plus, there's the player. How good are they at willing suspension of disbelief? I'd rather curb my appetite for a few more gp's from a friend than alienate a RL friend over a game...
I'd rather curb my appetite for a few more gp's from a friend than alienate a RL friend over a game...
There's the kicker, right there. Some people have a bit of trouble understanding the difference between in-game and real-life. I'm not saying that they're going to go out looking for orcs to slay, but little things like palming a couple coins before the party's treasure gets tallied gets taken personally.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
What you're calling stealing from the party I call funding the adventure.
A party's rogue should be trying to hone their skills that way. If they get good enough they can lift the purse off a party member that knows they're gonna try it sometime, they will be very good at it by the time that skill is needed against an NPC. That lets the rest of the party act as willing participants in the training of their rogue.
Additionally, a rogue palming a couple coins here and there gives him the coins he needs to do things a paladin wouldn't allow if he knew about it. If I need a couple coins to bribe a guard, I might not be able to get Sir Snootypants to agree to the plan. But if I've been skimming for a couple adventures, that pallydingaling might scratch his head as we sneak in past an unmanned* guard posts to confront the evil king.
*I did that. I stole hundreds of gold pieces with one character and before we stormed the Evil King's castle, I bribed half the guards so that we wouldn't have to kill too many bad guys when we came to kill their boss. The paladin would've probably blown a gasket if we would've told him about it, so we didn't. We spent money that he didn't know we had.
What you're calling stealing from the party I call funding the adventure.
A party's rogue should be trying to hone their skills that way. If they get good enough they can lift the purse off a party member that knows they're gonna try it sometime, they will be very good at it by the time that skill is needed against an NPC. That lets the rest of the party act as willing participants in the training of their rogue.
This is a beautiful fairy tale.
While it worked for you and your group, I would hazard that most thieves are stealing for themselves... otherwise, if it were for party gain why in the world would they need to steal it from the party?!
Not every party has a paladin or morality stick-in-the-mud. Also, not every sneaky and underhanded method is the best. I also don't see why you couldn't reason with the Paladin to allow the bribe to slide (other than it would have ruined the fun of playing him as a fool).
"Look, we're going to compensate them for their time away from their posts. We're also saving their lives. Which is better for the greater good: the terrible tyrant king gets killed but we save those innocent bystanders that we can, or we run in with swords swinging, slicing and dicing everything in our path?"
There reasons to be dishonest with your party are almost negligable, and the few there few reasons there are will be rather extreme circumstances that don't serve as a valid defence of disruptive behaviour.
And, as for not taking the game serious, say you play paint-ball with a buddy of yours. You get along swimmingly when not playing but every time you suit up, he is as disruptive to your team as possible - shooting people in the back, calling out positions, etc. I think it would be understandable for you to be angry at him.
You realize that's the rules, right? Every time you attempt to bluff someone, no matter how liked you are or how convincing the lie, there's a roll against Insight/Sense Motive.
That's gamist to a silly degree. First of all, it alerts everyone in the party that the rogue is already lying. Second, it's just stupid. I don't even think I need to explain why this is stupid.
That's gamist to a silly degree. First of all, it alerts everyone in the party that the rogue is already lying. Second, it's just stupid. I don't even think I need to explain why this is stupid.
I don't understand what else you're suggesting? That any time you're suspicious of someone you roll Sense Motive? Because that wouldn't be any more stupid.
What players should do, is challenge the rogue if they think he's lying. Just like in real life you can read his response, his body language, whether or not his face turns read, and make a real sense motive check. This is by far a much richer role play experience and the rogue won't feel cheated by some BS die roll. You have fun trying to find out the rogue, and if the rogue is good, he enjoys trying to convince you otherwise. Die rolling ruins what can be a very fun role playing experience.
What players should do, is challenge the rogue if they think he's lying. Just like in real life you can read his response, his body language, whether or not his face turns read, and make a real sense motive check. This is by far a much richer role play experience and the rogue won't feel cheated by some BS die roll. You have fun trying to find out the rogue, and if the rogue is good, he enjoys trying to convince you otherwise. Die rolling ruins what can be a very fun role playing experience.
Sure, if you're a really good poker player.
However, if you're someone who couldn't 'lie their way out of a paper bag' and you want to play a sneaky, mischievious and dishonest thief, you're out of luck. This is a roleplaying game, where the idea is you can adopt roles that you don't normally.
Dice help mitigate weaknesses a person has. I don't expect my bards to sing well so why should I expect my thieves to lie well?
As an aside, I do understand your point. I'm very good at convincing people to do what I want and it's frustrating when my diplomacy roll does not match my brilliant speech. You just have to learn to roll with the punches is all.
Sure, if you're a really good poker player.
However, if you're someone who couldn't 'lie their way out of a paper bag' and you want to play a sneaky, mischievious and dishonest thief, you're out of luck. This is a roleplaying game, where the idea is you can adopt roles that you don't normally.
Dice help mitigate weaknesses a person has. I don't expect my bards to sing well so why should I expect my thieves to lie well?
As an aside, I do understand your point. I'm very good at convincing people to do what I want and it's frustrating when my diplomacy roll does not match my brilliant speech. You just have to learn to roll with the punches is all.
And I think that's BS too. I feel for you. If you were in my game, you wouldn't even need a diplomacy check if your roleplay was convincing. As for the player who can't lie well, then I'm sorry, in my game your character is as bad a liar as you are. It's part of the challenge.
I hate to get all, 'Kids these days!' but seriously, kids these days. In older editions many of the checks that exist now, didn't. And you had to role play your way through a lie or an inspiring speech. Now, for every kid who has cut their teeth on 3rd, they just want to reach for the die when they run into this kind of situation because that's all they know from the books. The role play is hurt, and dearly, when interparty social interactions are allowed to be resolved through die rolls.
What's more memorable, the whopper the rogue's player told the fighter to get out of trouble after trying to rob him while he slept, or the 20 bluff check he threw while the fighter threw a 12 on his sense motive? Everyone gets cheated when interparty social action is resolved through die rolls.
I hate to get all, 'Kids these days!' but seriously, kids these days. In older editions many of the checks that exist now, didn't. And you had to role play your way through a lie or an inspiring speech. Now, for every kid who has cut their teeth on 3rd, they just want to reach for the die when they run into this kind of situation because that's all they know from the books. The role play is hurt, and dearly, when interparty social interactions are allowed to be resolved through die rolls.
Ah, the good old days where the needs of the roleplayer were met and gamers in groups were assured to have the same motivations at the table. Sadly, the game has evolved to also incorporate the power-gamer and the battlefield tactician so that one specific demographic isn't the only one to get enjoyment.
Trust me, I would love all social encounters to be resolved without dice. But, most of the people at my table, including the new wallflowers, would stop showing. And you can't have a game of one.
What's more memorable, the whopper the rogue's player told the fighter to get out of trouble after trying to rob him while he slept, or the 20 bluff check he threw while the fighter threw a 12 on his sense motive? Everyone gets cheated when interparty social action is resolved through die rolls.
Or, how about that nine headed cyrohydra that the team took down through a combination of clever tactics, dirty ploys and solid teamwork? We use dice and mechanics to bring this about and, frankly, the more time you spend lying and stealing from one another the less you're spending fighting BBEGs.
Obviously I'm not suggesting that little social interactions like this should dominate the game. And I love the mechanics when it comes to fighting, fights should be resolved with die rolls. I think everything should be in balance though, and every element of game play has the opportunity to be engaging and memorable. So I don't see why the role play should be glossed over in a hurry via die rolls, while combat takes ages. That's all I'm saying here.
True, but you also don't think that someone who is bad at social skills be allowed to play a social build because you don't want to dice that aspect. The problem with that is, during the RP elements, these people just clam up and wait bored until you get into the fights.
Worse, there are some people who just skip RP altogether because they just want to toss some dice.
It sucks, but alas, that's the breaks.
But it's not that you can't still "pull a fast one" on the fighter. Let's see, he only gets 2 skill points a level up, plus Int (which is likely low) so he's doubtedly putting those in Sense Motive. A Rogue has a boat load more skill points and is pumping their Bluff. On an average dice roll, the rogue will be pulling a fast one on the fighter quite easily.
But it's not that you can't still "pull a fast one" on the fighter. Let's see, he only gets 2 skill points a level up, plus Int (which is likely low) so he's doubtedly putting those in Sense Motive. A Rogue has a boat load more skill points and is pumping their Bluff. On an average dice roll, the rogue will be pulling a fast one on the fighter quite easily.
By level 10 or earlier, the fighter will never be able to tell when the rogue is lying and will believe even the most outlandish of lies based on the dice result. I just never see any good coming from this I guess. Also, none of my players are mousey little wall flowers either so I've never had to press them to role play.
For example, I myself as a player probably have a Cha of 12 max, if not lower. I don't have a charming "fill-the-room" personality. My lies are quickly discovered at times. I as a player probably have zero ranks in bluff for a bluff skill check of about +1 (or less). Similarly I am not good at talking and if I was actually using my real words as the character's words talking to a king or lord or captor, I might be killed for breach of etiquette or at least fail at communicating and convincing. As such, in a role-play only situation, I can only really play characters who cannot do those things either. And heaven help me if I have to DM and roleplay an NPC lord. The only way I can back up my characters skill and prowess is with dice rolls and modifiers. Especially true if you have a pro bluffer character. No mortal human has a Cha of 24 and few have 20 ranks in bluff.
When in a situation where I would doubt the words coming out of the rogue's mouth, there is often RPing indicating I am doubtful. However, the dice rolls even out the situation.
And having a die roll situation is almost needed because there is no way a DM and a player can be 100 percent sneaky. Even a DM passing a note is going to make other players wonder what is the note about when the rogue is in the hidden alcove.
By level 10 or earlier, the fighter will never be able to tell when the rogue is lying and will believe even the most outlandish of lies based on the dice result. I just never see any good coming from this I guess. Also, none of my players are mousey little wall flowers either so I've never had to press them to role play.
Currently, I'm with two. One is new to the game, so is just quiet because she doesn't know what to do. The other one... has his reasons for being quiet.
When it came time to gather information and I wasn't around, our DM tried to get the first to roleplay the encounter... it was a little painful. She got flustered and upset because she didn't know what to ask. On the flip side, I've convinced gods to give us artifacts well beyond what appropriate for our party at the time.
Course, not everything is dice rolled in our group. Just inter-party problems as it's the only impartial method.
Some people have a bit of trouble understanding the difference between in-game and real-life.
Yes, which is another reason I am fairly discriminating in my gaming circles. I've taken plenty of nastier-than-usual hits in game from a fellow PC/player as well as parceled them out, only to find myself smoking & joking w/ them later in a non-game venue. It's in the delivery, intent, and one's prowess at dramatic improvisation, the meat and potatos of good gaming. There is no ego injected at my game table if it can be helped.
Dmg Control: I've (like to think I do :confused
got the 1,000 yrd stare as a DM and/or socialite over the years and can see a personal sleight, perceived or otherwise, way the Hell out in/out of game in advance. I usually let it play out if I know there will be no bad blood and the players are mature, to which, mine are (I do not suffer fools or inflict them on my like-minded players [my friends). My loyalties are as a friend 1st, not DM.On the otherhand, if I smell a rat, know it's gonna' compromise the evening's entertainment, I'll take measures, discretely, at first, so as not to embarrass any parties and maintain impartiality. If they wish to press the matter and it's revealed as a personal matter, then I handle it in a personal fashion; I'd rather not go into it as there are some things I'm not proud of in this capacity.
..but little things like palming a couple coins before the party's treasure gets tallied gets taken personally.
They can, but if you groom your players properly, differentiate between in and out of game, I don't see the issue. Not all of us have this luxury though to which I sympathize. More often that not, when these things surface, nothing has really come of it in my past XP's gaming. Hell, I've done it myself as character concept, not player concept, made it a likely and actionable transgression. That should be the motive, not simply $ for $'s sake. But, I do not endorse it from a professional approach. I have bigger aspirations. That is to say, I do not like to play rogues as petty thieves that take stupid chances. And robbing the ppl that protect you/support your otherwise questionable (para)illegal designs is in bad form if not incompetant (IMO anyway).
Anyone seen "Heat"? Consider DeNiro's speach about risk vs. gain.
What you're calling stealing from the party I call funding the adventure.
I never drew that comparison. Please do not infer that I did. The action is theft, this much is true, the motivation on the other hand, may very well be as you've described. Depends entirely on the PC/player. This is not to say I would forbid it. I rarely forbid anything as a DM, much less evil PCs. It's simply, "How smart are you?" is the big question. Is there a smarter alternative? Rogue's are all about the independent variable (usually).
A party's rogue should be trying to hone their skills that way. If they get good enough they can lift the purse off a party member...they will be very good at it by the time that skill is needed against an NPC. That lets the rest of the party act as willing participants in the training of their rogue.
That is well then, perhaps even clever. But, is he keeping the gains?
There is a world of difference between the fun-loving antics of Tasslehoff's insatiable curiosity as a kender rogue "finding" other's belongings per his racial handicap and your trusted buddy making you his guinea pig dupe.
If it's implied training, I'm all for it. Money returned, strategy analyzed, knowledge gleaned, yes, your proposal is sound if you're not **** your friends/allies/contemporaries. Rogue is a support function often enough. W/out the support, what then?
You shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you and keep your ill-gotten gains under the pretext of "training". Well, not from the party anyway.;)
Who neutralizes the poison that a trap inflicted upon you, or heals, or Ress's?
Who renders you invisible to evade a potential nasty arrest/beating/etc?
Who provides you a flank to better vanquish your enemy (that would otherwise kill you)?
You see where this is going, yes?
Truly, a rogue's potential is untapped until an ally can augment it IMO. Flank is a textbook example for one. Skill assists, perhaps a lesser example as well. If you take w/ one hand (theft from an ally), you should get realistic to losing something in exchange for the other metaphorically speaking.
Additionally, a rogue palming a couple coins here and there gives him the coins he needs to do things a paladin wouldn't allow if he knew about it. If I need a couple coins to bribe a guard, I might not be able to get Sir Snootypants to agree to the plan. But if I've been skimming for a couple adventures, that pallydingaling might scratch his head as we sneak in past an unmanned* guard posts to confront the evil king.
This is relative. Plus "might" is a big word w/ many implications. In this isolated incident/theoretical, many a Pal would whole-heartedly agree, even sacrificing their own coin in noble fashion to spare further bloodshed/achieve a greater good. Plus, if your team can't pony up a few gold for a team goal, you've got bigger problems than a perceived moral dilemma of 1 team member.
RunCDFirst: There reasons to be dishonest with your party are almost negligable, and the few there few reasons there are will be rather extreme circumstances that don't serve as a valid defence of disruptive behaviour.
There is something to be said for a thorough debriefing of intel to party 'x' before they infiltrate castle 'y' and the Pal is baffled as to 'z'. Holding out select intel has a nasty habbit of getting good ppl killed often enough. If I'm risking my life w/ my friends, I need to know we're all on the level basically. I can deal w/, "Oh, man, I needed those sp's for ale!", not, "Oh, sh-t, where the Hell did he come from?!"
And, as for not taking the game serious, say you play paint-ball with a buddy of yours. You get along swimmingly when not playing but every time you suit up, he is as disruptive to your team as possible - shooting people in the back, calling out positions, etc. I think it would be understandable for you to be angry at him.
Funny you should say that. A friend of mine had me dead to rights at 6-8ft. You're not supposed to fire under 10ft, it's just assumed "a kill" to which I conceeded. No, despite witnesses and my embarrassing acceptance of the inevitable, he shot me in the hand. It looks like I've got this weird stigmata scar now at my ulnar process to this day (shot around '96 or so). The irony is this was my gun hand-> I recoil in pain, trigger is depressed, errant paintballs fly, one of which struck him in his junk (or inner thigh as he claims). I'd rather had taken a rnd in the nuts w/ boxers and BDUs on than another one in my bare right hand again. Still, Craig's my boy and one of my favorite gamers of all time. Minutes later, the cold beer he got me felt pretty good on that bloody appendage. The buzz helped the ego and the pain...;)
Funny you should say that. A friend of mine had me dead to rights at 6-8ft. You're not supposed to fire under 10ft, it's just assumed "a kill" to which I conceeded. No, despite witnesses and my embarrassing acceptance of the inevitable, he shot me in the hand. It looks like I've got this weird stigmata scar now at my ulnar process to this day (shot around '96 or so). The irony is this was my gun hand-> I recoil in pain, trigger is depressed, errant paintballs fly, one of which struck him in his junk (or inner thigh as he claims). I'd rather had taken a rnd in the nuts w/ boxers and BDUs on than another one in my bare right hand again. Still, Craig's my boy and one of my favorite gamers of all time. Minutes later, the cold beer he got me felt pretty good on that bloody appendage. The buzz helped the ego and the pain...;)
Well, I was going for more 'spur of the moment' anger, than lasting friendship damage. After reading the other posts, I feel I may have been arguing something others were not.
I got one on the leg once (not inner but outer thigh) and near point blank shots do hurt like... well... hell. I didn't get any battle scars though :P.
We had a thief that was skimming from the party. The whole party knew it but also knew we couldn't do anything about it without metagaming. So we let it slide. Unfortunately it became habitual. The thief would forge ahead to find loot sometimes or leave combat early to pilfer.
We were getting tired of being stolen from so we asked him to stop. He refused and demanded we "roleplay by the book". This really cheesed me off.
Not too long after he was forward scouting when a giant spider pulled him into a tree infested with other spiders. I wasn't really paying attention and some one announced "Tree full of spiders"
ME: I Fireball the tree.
Thief: HEY I'M IN THE TREE
Me: Ok I won't fireball the tree.
DM: Roll perception.
Me: 7
DM: You don't know he's in the tree.
Me: Ok I Fireball the tree.
Thief: Don't do that
Me: Unfortunately I don't know your in the tree. That wouldn't be roleplaying by the book.
Long story short, I killed him with the Fireball. We found all the loot he stole from us on his person and we refused to raise him. He never stole from the party again.
I think any lawful character realizes the risk with inviting an expert thief into the group.
Grab the rogue by the ankles and turn them upside down everytime you suspect something.
i'd leave an exception for female rogues in skirts or dresses. but i make sure all my rogues, regardless of gender, wear pants, occasionally shorts. just in case the party paladin turns them upside down and shakes them.
i personally do not like the idea of "i see london, i see france." but any female rogue worth her salt would wear pants instead of a skirt for multiple reasons, to prevent unwanted exposure when climbing or tumbling or other similar activity. to provide further modesty, especially on windy days or when the paladin turns you upside down. protection of the legs from certain plants that cause itching or rashes. to reduce the number of unwanted guys whistling at, and commenting about you. taking this precaution allows the act to still be PG13 or younger. as we do not want those misconceived visuals of our characters as fetish fuel.
If it's implied training, I'm all for it. Money returned, strategy analyzed, knowledge gleaned, yes, your proposal is sound if you're not **** your friends/allies/contemporaries. Rogue is a support function often enough.
Again, that depends on the party. In the case of the Fighter/Thief (2nd ed) that I was relating, I was also acting as the quartermaster for the group. The mercenary company (party) kept 1/4 of everything as a treasury plus everything I was able to ferret away unnoticed. Our company's captain understood the need for alternate* training and it benefitted the company as a whole.
The party's priest and I kept the books, so none of the other characters never knew how much wasn't split, but they never had to purchase equipment for themselves. Weapons, armor, rations, mounts, shelter, training, and their billet in town were paid for from that fund, so in a way I was stealing from them for them.
There was a negative aspect as well. Whenever I got caught, I paid in double what I tried to pilfer. So if the party caught me grabbing 10 gold, I paid 20. It almost broke me the first time I tried to pocket a gem**.
*A fighter/thief that travels in a group with a paladin can't exactly join a thieves' guild for training. The paladin was told that it was training the company how to spot cutpurses and thieves, so he loved it.
**I tried to palm an emerald and rolled high enough that one of them spotted me. I lost 10,000 gold, but I got back a chunk of it as my share of the treasure split. After that I stuck to the cheaper gems.
We assumed that if she was actually handed everything (for her bag of holding, of course) with the explicit expectation of keeping an accurate tally of it, and giving it back later, it would be much harder for her to steal anything.
Anything in her possession which wasn't publicly declared personal loot (Hey, we found a magic short sword! Can I have it?) is assumed to be party loot automatically, since she's the one in charge of it.
As long as she can't outrun the ranger, we are all good.:D
There are many schools of thought on this, some say she is being selfish,
Yes
other that she is just roleplaying her character,
And choosing to be selfish
still others that she isn't doing anything wrong.
They're selfish players too
In the end it's more important what she does with what she is keeping, rather then the fact she is keeping it. If she is using it to gather things to help the group it's not so important that she is keeping them to herself for the moment.
She wants to play a solo game but POed she has to put up with other people at the gaming table so she takes it out on them.
That seems a bit virtuous for a rogue. Depending on the rogue's alignment, there's not a problem with them pilfering the choicer bits of sparkly for themselves.
What I would have problems with is the warlord deciding apparently out of the blue to start watching the rogue closely for signs that they've been pocketing a bit more than their share. That's a case of player knowledge affecting character action.
I've played in alot of games over the years. A rogue, thief in second, or even a bard pocketing an item here or there when they're fairly certain no one is watching is not a big deal. In one game the party was all thieves, so the pilfering was pretty much non-stop. Depending on the rogue, the OP should be more worried about getting knifed by the rogue for paying too close attention.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
That's where crap like this always leads, one party member killing another.
Why should anyone adventure together if you cant trust each other? The rogue player should be sticking to robbing NPCs. Playing a rogue does not give any player license to screw over another player "because that's what my character would do".
She's a thief. She gets screwed by the rules on a regular basis. She can't be a front line fighter or cast neat-o spells. What she does do well is rather limited. Unless she's steal items off of another character I don't see what there is to complain about. And, even then, if people just roleplay the situation correctly it shouldn't be a problem.
But, you were bothered. You were bothered enough to come here and post. You even posted twice about it, making me think you want people to come back with, "that's not right, it's not fair to the party, you should tell her to stop doing that". I just don't think that's going to happen. Parties have theives in them because of their usefulness. It comes with a price, and that price is theives steal things.
...just IMO.
I'm playing a barbarian. Parties have barbarians because of their usefulness. It comes with a price, and that price is barbarians kill things. So suck it up I cut you in half with my great axe and create a new character. Better make several. I kill a lot.
Stop stealing from me, and I'll stop killing you. Funny how that works.
Is it's stealing from the party if the rouge find something the rest of the party missed. I don't think so unless you had contract to split evenly anything of value found in the dungeon.
This kind of reminds of game we had back in the early 90s. There was a lot players. I might miss a few here but we had a Cleric, Paladin, fighter/wizard, 3 thieves, and a Ranger/druid.
We were in a dungeon and there was crawl space accessible from hole in the ceiling. Only the thieves could get to in and slip in. The hole was small and meant light armor only. So we send one thief up and he finds 10 golden disc worth 100 gp each. Out of game we know this but in game we don't. The other thieves are still climbing up when the first thief stashes 5 of the disc in his handy haver sack. Now the other two thieves arrive. They see 5 golden discs and they get talking. They decide to take one each and tell the rest of the party they found 2 golden discs. They agree and off we go. Now out of game we all know but in game we are supposed to roleplay that we don't know. The guy playing the Paladin however had a really tough time at this. He was ticked about that and was just waiting for the thieves to slip up. He never did actually catch them. I was playing the Ranger/Druid and I thought it was funny that one thief rips off the others then he plots with the other thieves to rip us off. I thought it was great.
He had every right to be ticked. The player feels like a chump because he's playing an honest character who would never do such a thing, and everyone else is taking advantage of him.
However, if you think this is so great, where do you live? I could use another computer. I'll get it myself when you're out of the house, so you needn't worry.
We're talking about rogues here, not paladins.
I had a rogue once that financed the construction of a wizard's tower, a cleric's temple and a fighter's stronghold with what he managed to ferret away. Being able to come up with money when the rest of the group is skinned is a pretty good skill if you're looking to live the easy life. Mind you that was the same rogue that always bought a bit of the local trade goods every time we travelled to another town. You can call it stupid or stealing, but the rest of the world calls it a "finder's fee" and banking.
Tell me, what would you do with the odd bits of treasure if you didn't have a rogue to tell you what it was worth? How would you sell the odd bits without the bargaining savvy that most rogues have? Is it too much to ask for a bit of coin in exchange for it? Do you give up anything for the weapons and armor you assume are yours because you're the only one that can use them? How about that scroll, what part of that does the rogue get?
So the rogue gets to take it in the shorts because they don't use heavy armors and wield alot of magic weapons? And then they get it again when scrolls and spellbooks come around? And again when the party splits the treasure? If you share equally, how much do other party members have to give up for the stuff they want?
What would the rogue do without the fighter and paladin going toe-to-toe against the bad guys so they don't go after the squishy rogue? What would the rogue do without the fighter or paladin to help flank? What would the rogue do without the wizard casting a spell to take out many bad guys or give the rogue a helpful spell like invisibility or fly? What would the rogue do without the cleric to heal his wounds, turn undead, buff him with spells, and even be willing to bring him back from the dead should the rogue's luck run out?
The group that I currently DM has an unwritten rule that the player who controls the group's thief also keeps track of all of the treasure. The players all look the other when when a small percentage of the treasure (about 2-4% quietly disappears when the money is dolled out at the end of the adventure. It is also pretty "amazing" that the treasure always divides up evenly amongst the group.
Yes, I think you are being to sensitive about this.
You need to try harder to keep in-character knowledge & out-of-character knowledge seperate.
Sure, you as a player know the rogues double dipping.
But your character doesn't.
And it's just a game.
So just learn to play the game based on the info the character knows.
You also need to learn to seperate character vrs character conflicts/anger from player vrs player issues.
Learning to do this will lead to many years of better gaming & stories. It also makes it possible for RL best friends to do truely awefull things to each others characters during a session & be none-the-worse for it in real life.
Ok. I'm roleplaying my character who has a tendency to lose his control and just attack the nearest living creature. Oh look, your character is the nearest living creature. So sorry. It's only a game. I'm just roleplaying my character.
There's the kicker, right there. Some people have a bit of trouble understanding the difference between in-game and real-life. I'm not saying that they're going to go out looking for orcs to slay, but little things like palming a couple coins before the party's treasure gets tallied gets taken personally.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
What you're calling stealing from the party I call funding the adventure.
A party's rogue should be trying to hone their skills that way. If they get good enough they can lift the purse off a party member that knows they're gonna try it sometime, they will be very good at it by the time that skill is needed against an NPC. That lets the rest of the party act as willing participants in the training of their rogue.
Additionally, a rogue palming a couple coins here and there gives him the coins he needs to do things a paladin wouldn't allow if he knew about it. If I need a couple coins to bribe a guard, I might not be able to get Sir Snootypants to agree to the plan. But if I've been skimming for a couple adventures, that pallydingaling might scratch his head as we sneak in past an unmanned* guard posts to confront the evil king.
*I did that. I stole hundreds of gold pieces with one character and before we stormed the Evil King's castle, I bribed half the guards so that we wouldn't have to kill too many bad guys when we came to kill their boss. The paladin would've probably blown a gasket if we would've told him about it, so we didn't. We spent money that he didn't know we had.
How do you know? If I was playing a paladin, and it was possible to kill off the BBEG while his relatively innocent or at least not the real target guards can be sent away unharmed, I'd be all for it. You didn't trust the paladin because you were untrustworthy yourself.
Rogues skimming and stealing from the party goes back to the 2nd edition. Back in 2nd, a rogue could pick up extra xp for using their thieving skills and quite a few players figured out that if they used them on their own party, they tended to get arrested less. Palming a couple extra coins when you were searching for treasure got you 2xp per gold piece. Sucessful use of a thieving skill would get you 100xp. Since they didn't get any kind of combat bonuses to their xp like the fighters, wizards and clerics did, it was one of the only ways to keep up.
It would depend on how the thief stole the treasure. If they simply opened up the treasure chest at night while everyone is sleeping I would most certainly NOT give the thief a bonuse for using a thief skill. Remember that "stealing" unto itself is not a thief skill. The thief would have to use an actual skill, such as pick pocket or open locks in order to earn that 100 XP. Also, there has to be an obvious reason to use the skill in order to get the reward. Simply climbing a wall just to climb the wall does not garner an XP award. And finally, the 2nd Edition Dungeon Masters Guide states on page 48, "...experience points should not be awarded when a player is being abusive to others in the group or attempting to use his abilities at the expense of others." In my 2nd edition campaign I do not give the 2 XP per gold piece of treasure for any treasure that the thief steals from the group, because doing so comes at the expense of the group.
I had a rogue once that financed the construction of a wizard's tower, a cleric's temple and a fighter's stronghold with what he managed to ferret away. Being able to come up with money when the rest of the group is skinned is a pretty good skill if you're looking to live the easy life. Mind you that was the same rogue that always bought a bit of the local trade goods every time we travelled to another town. You can call it stupid or stealing, but the rest of the world calls it a "finder's fee" and banking.
If that money to finance the rest of the group rightly beloned to the rest of the group then the thief did not do anything of service for the group. That would be like hijacking a shipment of food for a refugee camp, giving the food to the refugee camp, and then declaring yourself (not you specifically, but thiefs in general) a humanitarian because you gave food to some starving refugees.
Also, there is an equal share of danger spread out amongst the group. Sure, a thief disarms the nasty traps and such for the group, but the cleric heals the group. Does the thief give a little extra money to the cleric every time the cleric heals him? Does the theif give a little extra money to the mage when the mage casts detect magic and/or identifies magic items? The theory that the thief deserves extra money because of the dangers they face for the sake of the group is full of more holes than a suit of chainmail.
One thing people who object to this thing can try (and has happened in our groups) is that the rogue can take thier 'cut' first with the items nobody saw, and then just say 'here guys, I got my share already, this is yours' without actually revealing what they took. The occassional revelation of what they actually got (deliberately on the thief's part) usually means the rogue gets what they want first pick, and the rest of the party still gets an equal share.
As another note..... Characters can be greedy or want specific types of loot for RP reasons. Players shouldnt be when it comes to treasure as long as they arent getting shorted often or to the point where people get behind on gear. So honestly, if the thief playing in character and skimming off the top a little bothers you, you might want to ask yourself why it does bother you. If your player is being greedy, there needs to be a talk. If the character is greedy, well.... in character repercussions can be severe depending on the personalities of the other party members. So a good thief will only skim a *little* so that if anyone notices, they won't get in much trouble. If a thief is skimming enough that people are actually getting shorted enough to make a difference, then they are taking the risk of getting lynched when the party finds out.
I think a rogue keeping some valuables is just a rogue being a rogue. When you travel with dishonest types, you have to keep your eyes on them. The only time I would have a problem with this is if they were keeping things that had greater value than just the monetary value (things like magic items). This is especially true if the rogue happened to keep a magic weapon or something that one of the other characters could really use.
This is basically the rule that all the rogues have been in my groups have followed. They never stole gear, not even potions of cure light wounds back in 2nd edition. They only ever took the occasional small amount of gold (like < 50) or a small gem or two. This lets the players roleplay their characters personalities without greatly impacting the rest of the group's wealth once you pass the first few levels.
So my character asked the rogue if she found anything other than the chainmail, to which she replied no. So it all makes sense from a role play perspective.
I'm surprised no one noticed the rogue's pants/skirt was on fire. She blatantly lied to you when you asked her whether she found anything else. She should have rolled a Bluff against your passive or active Insight.
Not the rogue's fault here, but the DM/OP's for not catching that. Oh well.
There are many types of rogues and many rogues that have multiple spheres of influence and expertise. Such is the benefit of more ranks than any other class, among other goodies. This ecclectic mash of talents, abilities, and know-how makes them, perhaps, the most diverse PC class available.
-Assassins; self-explanatory, lucrative, technically, any PC class (more rarified).
-Facemen; fences, con artists, diplomatic go-betweens, information retrieval, etc.
-Cutpurses; self-explanatory. Petty theft, planting & stealing info/incriminating evidence, etc.
-Burglars; most lucrative?, stealth over power.
-Acrobats; flirting w/ monks, Tumble, high mobility, terrain management, etc.
-Spy/Infiltrator; an agent provacateur type, high social skills, Bluff, Disguise, Gather Info.
-Dungeon Delver; all purpose rogue, even distribution of ranks, etc.
-Trapsmith; akin to boxmen/burglars, likely ranked in Craft Trapmaking as well, less stealth, more Seach/Disable, etc.
-Forward Scouts; not the "Scout" class per se, simply stressing high stealth and detection skills in a martial capacity. 1st contact PCs typically.
-Thug; average bruiser, Sneak Attack/Intimidate/Gather Info being their bread and butter.
I seem to recall a hanful from 2nd ed's Thieves Handbook. True then as it is now I suppose. Did I neglect any? Please feel free to update.
I'm sure I'm probably missing a few really. Anyway, the point being, these types of professions often foster distrust as they're usually contingent on taking power, wealth, HP, or intel form a 3rd party, some directly, some indirectly. The degree of acumen and professionalism varies per type thereof though. Eye of the beholder, bla bla bla...
Party theft probably isn't that big a deal for a thug or cutpurse dynamic, but for a good cat burglar, it's often beneath contempt. For an assassin, it's a security risk that might compromise the bigger picture (wetwork), etc.
And so on. However, this engenders that mistrust stigma that follows you like a shadow (see Sense Motive bonus) and hard earned loyalty.
For every action, an equal and opposite reaction. Security measure -> counter-measure. Rogues are often that flip side.
A necessary evil in adventuring parties. I believe the general dynamic from 1st-3.5 ed was a 4pc party:
-1 Heavy attack (Ftr, Brb, full BAB type)
-1 Divine (Clr, Drd, etc)
-1 Arcane (Sor, Wzd, etc)
-1 Scoundrel (Rog, Ninja, etc)
Why everyone plays ball or as I say, "All are equally worthless" ;)
Show
All 4 compliment each other w/ varying degrees of power and limitless combinations of augmentation and assistance. We all know this; spell buffing, heals, assisted attacks, flanks, item creation & acquisition, research, mapping, intel gathering, interrogation (or torture), etc.
Who is more important than the other? Some would argue 1 class being pivotal over the others, but like everything else in the game, this is largely situational. The rogue isn't much when the cleric can vaporize undead. Of course, lots of luck when said cleric has to guess where a nasty pit trap is. Etc.
Quid pro quo. Group cohesion. Full potential isn't reached until all 4 begin working in synch, playing off each others (Ex)'s, (Su)'s, (Sp)'s, etc. A well oiled machine or whatever cliche' you want to impress upon it. This is how "professional adventurers" operate. But it goes w/out saying, if you don't take your career seriously, perhaps you will given untimely death.
Now, when inter-party theft happens, the main bone of contention, you cease that principle of loyalty now under the premise that you either want more than your due, have earned it, but cannot argue the fact plausibly, or whatever plot device you wish to employ. To each his/her own, I respect that. We all try and justify our crimes no matter how hard we try.
Still, this isn't like a casual acquaintance screwing you in a poker game. This is supposed to be your professional colleague, if not, your friend. And realistically, you get in enough life/death situations w/ a stranger, share your good times & bad, long travels, get rich together, etc., you will likely become de facto "friends". Job stress and esprit de corps alone should suffice. Why do you think cops, fireftrs, and military personel are so well integrated and often "look the other way" for each other? Now, amplify that tenfold and you begin to get a measure for the typical bond of a typical party.
Who is more important than the other? Some would argue 1 class being pivotal over the others, but like everything else in the game, this is largely situational. The rogue isn't much when the cleric can vaporize undead. Of course, lots of luck when said cleric has to guess where a nasty pit trap is. Etc.
Quid pro quo. Group cohesion. Full potential isn't reached until all 4 begin working in synch, playing off each others (Ex)'s, (Su)'s, (Sp)'s, etc. A well oiled machine or whatever cliche' you want to impress upon it. This is how "professional adventurers" operate. But it goes w/out saying, if you don't take your career seriously, perhaps you will given untimely death.
Now, when inter-party theft happens, the main bone of contention, you cease that principle of loyalty now under the premise that you either want more than your due, have earned it, but cannot argue the fact plausibly, or whatever plot device you wish to employ. To each his/her own, I respect that. We all try and justify our crimes no matter how hard we try.
Still, this isn't like a casual acquaintance screwing you in a poker game. This is supposed to be your professional colleague, if not, your friend. And realistically, you get in enough life/death situations w/ a stranger, share your good times & bad, long travels, get rich together, etc., you will likely become de facto "friends". Job stress and esprit de corps alone should suffice. Why do you think cops, fireftrs, and military personel are so well integrated and often "look the other way" for each other? Now, amplify that tenfold and you begin to get a measure for the typical bond of a typical party.
Why would you adventure with a person you knew was stealing from you? Now by "stealing from you" I mean reaching into your stuff and taking something. That's not right. I think if it HAD happened in my last campaign, my paladin would have thrown the thief into a jail and prosecuted them herself until they wished I had just punished them with my sword... not to mention the unending preachings of my god to help enlighten them.
I don't think killing would have been the right way unless that was how your god/lord would have you prosecute them.Now, I will switch to the character I have now... a very pathetic thief.
She can't even find traps better than the mage for goodness sake. But she could out-backflip Mary Lou Retton any day... (if Mary ever ventures into the D&D realm); however, she can't kill much of anything alone. Does she steal from the party? No. Does she lift some stuff before the other people get there? Maybe... sometimes. What does she do with the money? Well, she's taking care of a small tribe of orphans in the town she's from, and she BUYS HEALING POTIONS! My character can't take out a 1hp kobold with a sneak attack (I will get even with you, 20-sided die!), but she can keep the cleric alive.... which keeps the party alive... It's not the way I hope she would turn out, but she seems happy knowing she can do some damage and watch over her "new orphans" even though she's smaller and younger than they are, and she still wanted to do all this even after all the "She's a thief *spit*" comments. So... if you were to ask her, she would say, "Ask the thief what they need the money for. If it seems reasonable and not excessive, let it go. They'll feel they're using what little skills they have for something "good". If you still feel slighted, remember that the kobold you just killed might have been in the sights of a thief who had placed herself there after 3 rounds of work to perform her sneak attack, and you just STOLE HER KILL!" Then she'd wink and be all cute, hopefully impressing you more with her "argument" then say a small prayer to the Luck Goddess that she hits the next thing she fights super hard!
Talk things out... some people don't think to do it and others don't know how.
But it's a game, enjoy!... Take care!As for grabbing stuff and not sharing as it where. In my group me and a swordmage have the eye and hand of vecna. The second we saw them we snatched em up and wouldnt let the other chars even hardly see them. We are followers of Kelemvor so we are not after the items like that we want to make sure they get destroyed and no one gets corrupted by them.
So its pendelum swings both ways if you feel like she is taking an unfair share try to catch her in the act of pocketing and tell her if she doesnt cut with you you wont heal her and its to her mutual benefit to "share"
But in our our current campaign no one would do this because it would be out of character and more importantly the members of the group have changed and would not find it acceptable behavior.
The DM and the group need to decide what is acceptable PC behavior and communicate that cleraly to everyone in the group.
Rogues have been getting more than their share of loot since before time began.
It has been some kind of don't ask/don't tell game concept since the beginning, but so has cheating, nerd rage, metagaming, and all the usual slings and arrows that mire and otherwise fun game (institution even?) we enjoy. The wheat and the chaff basically.
WBL and gear dependency should definetly be examined in this issue to have a better understanding I'd venture. If it's part of character concept/background, well, then I encourage that initiative, but one must realistically consider a world that isn't entirely egocentric, even Evil PCs for proper RP immersion and good realism.
Others just address it simply as a, "Boys will be boys" scenario. I'm somewhere in between depending on the ebb and flow of a campaign, the maturity and RP immersion of players, and the bottom line (power & gp of monetary value). No 1 "It must be like this," approach. Not fair, but either is taking advantage of an allegedly close comrade either.
It's normal, and no one that I've ever played with would have a problem with it.
To be fair, "normal" for one demographic is "abberrant" for another. Core only might be normal. PvP might be normal. Minis/no minis might be normal. W/ so many rules, peripherals, and independent variables, the only thing we can put the "normal" stamp on is the sticker price of a book, and even then...
I've seen it treated as normal, expected even and delt w/ casually. On the other hand, I've seen a player expect it to be normal only to find himself grappled and right hand amputated and cauterized by a Justiciar in the party. He freaked out, understandably, but the others were fairly pi$$ed when they found they were short that little gold that would've gotten them rapid transport they needed to reach objective 'x' (time was a factor) and were unable having to cross on foot, thusly failing in their goal, losing an NPC contact, and also losing a lucractive contract. Which was ironic, as it was considerably worth more than the 50-100gp they were shorted by the rogue. See, it came down to just wealth w/ them too, but that near-sightedness cost them all a ton of XP, gp, and sadly, HP...
I understand a modicum of the "comes w/ the territory" dynamic for rogues, but truth be told, if I was risking my life against terrors above and beyond what the typical combatant engages, I'd want some crediblity, trust, and loyalty at my back. RP wise as well (which is what this should be about/justified with), the precident it sets is dangerous and destabilizing. Chain is only as good as its weakest link and all that.
fighterforhire: As long as the pilfering doesnt get out of hand it should be alright.
I'd back that for the most part if I could zero in on what "out of hand" was. It's different for each PC/player and we can't specifically cater, as DMs, to each little ego at the table perfectly. Little here, a little there, even coverage.
So its pendelum swings both ways if you feel like she is taking an unfair share try to catch her in the act of pocketing and tell her if she doesnt cut with you you wont heal her and its to her mutual benefit to "share"
Probably most diplomatic, wisest solution. Well said. The collective is always more important than the individual components, so a back & forth like this works. Usually, they come around when they realize that they are nothing w/out their team. Once again, professionally speaking, don't sh-t where you eat.
Ok. I'm roleplaying my character who has a tendency to lose his control and just attack the nearest living creature. Oh look, your character is the nearest living creature. So sorry. It's only a game. I'm just roleplaying my character.
It's just a game, I'm cool with that.
And it'd certainly add another RP element.
But that pales in comparrison to what I & some of my best friends have done to each other "in-game" over the years.
My point was that on say, Tuesday, we can all be playing perfect good guys, share the loot equely, save the world, etc. Then come the weekend game we can play characters who'll sell each others kidneys (w/o permission) - as a warm up.
But away from the gaming table? In real life? What our make believe characters did on Tue/Sat has no effect on our RL friendships.
Ok. I'm roleplaying my character who has a tendency to lose his control and just attack the nearest living creature. Oh look, your character is the nearest living creature. So sorry. It's only a game. I'm just roleplaying my character.
You know, I've actually played in a party with a character that did that from time to time. His character was one of the best we've ever had because he was roleplayed so well. Much hilarity ensued. So I don't really see that as an arguement, and really agree with CCS above.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
That's where crap like this always leads, one party member killing another.
Why should anyone adventure together if you cant trust each other? The rogue player should be sticking to robbing NPCs. Playing a rogue does not give any player license to screw over another player "because that's what my character would do".
Goodness. This is hardly true. Some people just like to play edgy characters and sometimes stealing stuff is just how they achieve this. Sure, you could say she shouldn't do it to her team mates, but if there hasn't been an opportunity to steal from NPCs she's gonna do it whenever she can get the chance because, in her head, it's a major part of her character that she wants to express.
Of course, if that's not the vibe she's giving off and is just sitting there acting proud of herself, then that's just annoying. Don't see any actual RP crime going on like you, navar, seem to see but I can understand being miffed. Of course, that's more an issue of player attitude. I would totally be OK with a fellow party member stealing from my character if I knew the player was a good roleplayer and a guy I trusted. If it's some dude that I think is going to buy dex gloves or new goggles for himself and feel awesome about it, I would talk to the guy.
Myself, i've brought it up to the player and said earnestly that if they want to play that way thats fine, but when the rogue is found out there will be consequences. Not just a slap on the hand and the rogue is still in the group. At best we're going to kick the character out of the group. At worst sell all of his belongings and himself into prostitution or slavery, perhaps frame him for crimes he didn't do or equally terrible things If we can't trust you not to steel from the group then we're not going to trust each other to go into combat.
Myself, i've brought it up to the player and said earnestly that if they want to play that way thats fine, but when the rogue is found out there will be consequences. Not just a slap on the hand and the rogue is still in the group. At best we're going to kick the character out of the group. At worst sell all of his belongings and himself into prostitution or slavery, perhaps frame him for crimes he didn't do or equally terrible things If we can't trust you not to steel from the group then we're not going to trust each other to go into combat.
So if the rogue steals from others and splits it with you that's fine, but if he happens to pick up something and pocket it without telling you he'll be crucified and you'll eat his innards? (ok, I exaggerate, but not by much....)
I'm sorry, but I hope this, "You wrong ME and I'll kill you" attitude isn't supposed to be Lawful Good. I thought this discussion was about the morality and/or player affect of a rogue pocketing some statues the other characters didn't know about, not "If you cross my party's characters we'll beat you, make up stories so your punishment will far outweigh your crime and sell you into slavery." THAT, my friend, is evil.
Jus' sayin'.
I'm sorry, but I hope this, "You wrong ME and I'll kill you" attitude isn't supposed to be Lawful Good. I thought this discussion was about the morality and/or player affect of a rogue pocketing some statues the other characters didn't know about, not "If you cross my party's characters we'll beat you, make up stories so your punishment will far outweigh your crime and sell you into slavery." THAT, my friend, is evil.
A subtle irony, but an irony none the less, isn't it?
I also want to reiterate some points others have made such as, separating IC knowledge from OoC knowledge. Not every rogue dresses in black hood and gets a shimmer in their eye when they see gold. Some rogues are foppish aristocrats, or brutal street thugs fighting to survive poverty, or neighborhood avengers correcting wrongs. The list goes on and on, but some people struggle to see any thing other than a common thief because that's the only perception they have. So leave your meta knowledge at the door and let the player tell you who their rouge is at the gaming table.
Also, you don't automatically get to distrust the rogue because you know, meta game, what his class is. I see a lot of people in this topic who are prejudiced against rogues before they even reach the gaming table, and are using OoC knowledge against the rogue. Also, if greed is what's motivating your ire against the rogue, you're just as selfish as he is. Particularly those of you who recommend killing the rogue for pilfering, that is psychotic behavior in the context of reality and DnD.
As for someone who mentioned the fact that the rogue relies on his party just as much as they rely on him, this is true, to an extent. The rogue does however take additional risks that the party does not. In the case of traps, or locks, no one else can deal with the danger except the rogue. So put yourself in his shoes, he faces all the same combat dangers the rest of the team does, but he also faces the needle traps on locks, the pit traps that fall to spikes, the lightning floor traps and the finger of death traps that protect the gem sitting nestled in the statue. No one else faces these dangers, yet the rogue is expected to share an equal amount of treasure? Even the treasure that was acquired exclusively through the use of his unique skills?
Now I don't necessarily share these views when I play a rogue, and in fact have never played a rogue who stole from the party. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate because I think a lot of people here are having a hard time breaking their preconceived notions of a rogue and I don't think it's fair to rogue players. My current rogue is so non standard you'd never even know he was a rogue, but people here would still be suspicious of him simply because it says Rogue on my char sheet.
So if the rogue steals from others and splits it with you that's fine, but if he happens to pick up something and pocket it without telling you he'll be crucified and you'll eat his innards? (ok, I exaggerate, but not by much....)
I'm sorry, but I hope this, "You wrong ME and I'll kill you" attitude isn't supposed to be Lawful Good. I thought this discussion was about the morality and/or player affect of a rogue pocketing some statues the other characters didn't know about, not "If you cross my party's characters we'll beat you, make up stories so your punishment will far outweigh your crime and sell you into slavery." THAT, my friend, is evil.
Jus' sayin'.
Jesus Christ, 1Red. The rogue steals from the group, so you sell him or her into sexual slavery or frame them? Sounds like you're playing an evil game if that's how you punish a little pick pocketing.
I also want to reiterate some points others have made such as, separating IC knowledge from OoC knowledge. Not every rogue dresses in black hood and gets a shimmer in their eye when they see gold. Some rogues are foppish aristocrats, or brutal street thugs fighting to survive poverty, or neighborhood avengers correcting wrongs. The list goes on and on, but some people struggle to see any thing other than a common thief because that's the only perception they have. So leave your meta knowledge at the door and let the player tell you who their rouge is at the gaming table.
Also, you don't automatically get to distrust the rogue because you know, meta game, what his class is. I see a lot of people in this topic who are prejudiced against rogues before they even reach the gaming table, and are using OoC knowledge against the rogue. Also, if greed is what's motivating your ire against the rogue, you're just as selfish as he is. Particularly those of you who recommend killing the rogue for pilfering, that is psychotic behavior in the context of reality and DnD.
As for someone who mentioned the fact that the rogue relies on his party just as much as they rely on him, this is true, to an extent. The rogue does however take additional risks that the party does not. In the case of traps, or locks, no one else can deal with the danger except the rogue. So put yourself in his shoes, he faces all the same combat dangers the rest of the team does, but he also faces the needle traps on locks, the pit traps that fall to spikes, the lightning floor traps and the finger of death traps that protect the gem sitting nestled in the statue. No one else faces these dangers, yet the rogue is expected to share an equal amount of treasure? Even the treasure that was acquired exclusively through the use of his unique skills?
Now I don't necessarily share these views when I play a rogue, and in fact have never played a rogue who stole from the party. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate because I think a lot of people here are having a hard time breaking their preconceived notions of a rogue and I don't think it's fair to rogue players. My current rogue is so non standard you'd never even know he was a rogue, but people here would still be suspicious of him simply because it says Rogue on my char sheet.
I could be playing Sir Hero Goodheart, Paladin of Heironeous. If the party rogue steals from me or the party (same thing) I'll kill him in his sleep if I have to. I don't care what penalty the DM places on my character. I am sick and tired of such selfish donkeycavities. I have long since lost patience of such behavior and will act accordingly.
If I'm playing a wizard, I might "accidentally" include him in my area effect spells. He has evasion, so he has a decent chance, though not all my area effect spells are reflex saves. If I'm playing a cleric, I won't heal or buff him. If I'm playing a warrior, I won't flank with him. The player, by choosing to steal from me or the party (same thing), has chosen to play his character as not my friend. I, therefore, am under no obligation to treat his character as my friend.
This doesn't mean that one can't play a pvp game, and that should be known beforehand. The worst examples of stealing from the party generally come about when the expectations that it wasn't a pvp game. The offenders rely on the fact that often they incrementally infringe on the goodwill of their fellow gamers. Banking on the likelyhood that because they are pcs rather than some inconsequential npc their character won't be bounced from the group. They glory in the moments of having one over their fellow gamers but pout, whine and complain when their characters are legitimately caught and there is no take back, redo or load from last save to rescue their character
I just don't have the time or patience to deal with that sort of silliness. My free time is at a premium and i don't intend to spend it being frustrated and feeling gyped because one player wants to play a game like that.
I could be playing Sir Hero Goodheart, Paladin of Heironeous. If the party rogue steals from me or the party (same thing) I'll kill him in his sleep if I have to. I don't care what penalty the DM places on my character. I am sick and tired of such selfish donkeycavities. I have long since lost patience of such behavior and will act accordingly.
If I'm playing a wizard, I might "accidentally" include him in my area effect spells. He has evasion, so he has a decent chance, though not all my area effect spells are reflex saves. If I'm playing a cleric, I won't heal or buff him. If I'm playing a warrior, I won't flank with him. The player, by choosing to steal from me or the party (same thing), has chosen to play his character as not my friend. I, therefore, am under no obligation to treat his character as my friend.
But you don't see these actions you describe yourself taking as being selfish to the extreme??
To react in such a way, completely disregarding even your own character guidelines over a small amount of pocketed, imaginary gold is just childish. You, sir, would risk friendship with anyone you game with by jumping out of character, abusing your fellow player's characters and completely disregarding any role playing opportunities because you weren't getting "your share" of the 5 copper the rogue managed to abscond with. At that point, why not jump across the table and slap the person? Or maybe that crossed your mind already....
Remind me to never game with anyone like you.
...so you sell him or her into sexual slavery or frame them? Sounds like you're playing an evil game if that's how you punish a little pick pocketing.
Alignment is a funny thing, not to mention character background, and M.O. Not condoning reactionary methods, but, ideally, "punishment should fit the crime" is a good bench point, but we're not all LN in align and must hipshoot a degree of realism in our larceny/reprisals. Again, player vs. PC.
That being said, "a little pickpocketing" is relative for NPCs & PCs, pro & con too. What's good for the goose isn't necessarilly good for the gander.
-That little amount of coinage could be the same mass as that little gem, it's just the later is significantly more profitable. Same DC, different $.
-Palming that extra potion might've been the one a dead comrade needed.
-Plot specific item may need to be a known quantity to all PCs, not some clandestine secret to indulge one's greed. True value isn't known until your learned mage's knowledge or a bard's bardic knowledge can scrutinize it beyond a rogue's appraise.
-PC specific goody; might've fetched a good price pocketed discretely, then again, it might've prevented a TPK in the right PC's hands alternatively. They're wise to hook you up w/ Dex buff stuff just as you are wise to entitle a mage anything arcane in most instances.
'x' gp might've been the straw that broke the camel's back basically.
Metagaming issues:
Show
Well said. I can't stand the lack of creative vision in crap players. Stereotypes as a whole, kill RP as much as metagaming on many levels. All Brb's are brutes, no villain could ever love his kids, all Pal's are zealots.
Mostly, a player problem. Many DMs are responsible for helping/enforcing those portrayals though upon their players/campaigns, and thusly, players begin to subscribe to that line of thinking as well. "Takes a village"...bla bla bla? That's what kills me; D&D is infinetly superior to video games for example, and yet too many short-sighted players must fall back upon those old tropes and pre-existing archetypes & expectations from said games. Product of their environments I guess. Says more about the PC than game. The problem is they begin to enforce that world view on the other players.
Another good point. I have to constantly remind players, particularly at low level, "You wouldn't know that." Non-casters especially. Usually it's something along the lines of, for example, "Oh, zombies! Some evil cleric must've reanimated them nearbly. Plan for 'x'."
No. W/out benefit of Spellcraft that far down the totem pole, you wouldn't know that, much less lack of Know Religion, undead's sphere of influence. Que the party cleric/magi (teamwork...amazing, even outside of combat :rolleyes. They draw theory and conjecture then debrief party/PC so that, then, yes, possible conclusion might be reached just as the party rogue can Appraise item 'x' and share that w/ the remainder. But far too often in that case, Ftr find green gen, looks nice, but he's ignorant until the rogue examines it, "Holy sh-t, that's an emerald." TEAMWORK...
To be fair, thoughts of greed vs. actual stealing and thoughts of avarice vs. actual killing are apples and oranges. I'd love to have the bulk of the dragon's horde (thought), but understand that's gonna' screw my party (act) who in turn keep me alive, make these situations possible.
I may feel vengeful vs. inter-party theft (thought), but killing the rogue prematurely (act) when I may need him later probably isn't wise either.
Not every rogue dresses in black hood and gets a shimmer in their eye when they see gold.
Well said. I can't stand the lack of creative vision in crap players. Stereotypes as a whole, kill RP as much as metagaming on many levels. All Brb's are brutes, no villain could ever love his kids, all Pal's are zealots.
...but some people struggle to see any thing other than a common thief because that's the only perception they have. So leave your meta knowledge at the door and let the player tell you who their rouge is at the gaming table.
Mostly, a player problem. Many DMs are responsible for helping/enforcing those portrayals though upon their players/campaigns, and thusly, players begin to subscribe to that line of thinking as well. "Takes a village"...bla bla bla? That's what kills me; D&D is infinetly superior to video games for example, and yet too many short-sighted players must fall back upon those old tropes and pre-existing archetypes & expectations from said games. Product of their environments I guess. Says more about the PC than game. The problem is they begin to enforce that world view on the other players.
Also, you don't automatically get to distrust the rogue because you know, meta game, what his class is. I see a lot of people in this topic who are prejudiced against rogues before they even reach the gaming table, and are using OoC knowledge against the rogue.
Another good point. I have to constantly remind players, particularly at low level, "You wouldn't know that." Non-casters especially. Usually it's something along the lines of, for example, "Oh, zombies! Some evil cleric must've reanimated them nearbly. Plan for 'x'."
No. W/out benefit of Spellcraft that far down the totem pole, you wouldn't know that, much less lack of Know Religion, undead's sphere of influence. Que the party cleric/magi (teamwork...amazing, even outside of combat :rolleyes
. They draw theory and conjecture then debrief party/PC so that, then, yes, possible conclusion might be reached just as the party rogue can Appraise item 'x' and share that w/ the remainder. But far too often in that case, Ftr find green gen, looks nice, but he's ignorant until the rogue examines it, "Holy sh-t, that's an emerald." TEAMWORK...Also, if greed is what's motivating your ire against the rogue, you're just as selfish as he is. Particularly those of you who recommend killing the rogue for pilfering, that is psychotic behavior in the context of reality and DnD.
To be fair, thoughts of greed vs. actual stealing and thoughts of avarice vs. actual killing are apples and oranges. I'd love to have the bulk of the dragon's horde (thought), but understand that's gonna' screw my party (act) who in turn keep me alive, make these situations possible.
I may feel vengeful vs. inter-party theft (thought), but killing the rogue prematurely (act) when I may need him later probably isn't wise either.
-That little amount of coinage could be the same mass as that little gem, it's just the later is significantly more profitable. Same DC, different $.
-Palming that extra potion might've been the one a dead comrade needed.
-Plot specific item may need to be a known quantity to all PCs, not some clandestine secret to indulge one's greed. True value isn't known until your learned mage's knowledge or a bard's bardic knowledge can scrutinize it beyond a rogue's appraise.
-PC specific goody; might've fetched a good price pocketed discretely, then again, it might've prevented a TPK in the right PC's hands alternatively. They're wise to hook you up w/ Dex buff stuff just as you are wise to entitle a mage anything arcane in most instances.
Agree completely. If anyone, rogues specifically, don't use what they've acquired for the party when the party needs it that is a problem. Right then you have a player-player conversation of, "Are you trying to screw us over?" As I've stated in my posts, anything the rogue pockets is still used toward helping the party, like using the healing potions they picked up to sneak in and help the cleric, hence keeping the whole party alive...
Also, you don't automatically get to distrust the rogue because you know, meta game, what his class is. I see a lot of people in this topic who are prejudiced against rogues before they even reach the gaming table, and are using OoC knowledge against the rogue.
No, but the moment I see an individual pick that lock, disarm that trap, slink away in that shadow, dishonestly stab individuals in combat(sneak attack), and lie to that guard, I'm sure as hell going to be watching him like a hawk.
Agree completely. If anyone, rogues specifically, don't use what they've acquired for the party when the party needs it that is a problem. Right then you have a player-player conversation of, "Are you trying to screw us over?" As I've stated in my posts, anything the rogue pockets is still used toward helping the party...
This position does not stand up to rigor as it is assuming every player engages his PC in a like manner. We know this is unrealistic at best. Furthermore, rogues are quite the wildcard in that their RP execution is rarely similar. That is, other players using rogues are unlikely to act as you've stipulated out of awkward, if not confusing, party pseudo-charity.
"Helping the party" in this fashion you've stated is coutner-productive in the extreme:
-Betrays the fact that you've stolen from them, defeats purpose of theft.
-Assumes you become the secret quatermaster; dangerous and presumptive in that you likely don't know all of the knowns of item 'x' you've taken unilatterally. Curses, poisons, plot contingency, class specific abilities, etc. When you presume in this capacity, you forgo party intel...this gets ppl killed a lot. They don't tell some of a black ops team 'x' and the rest nothing for good reason. Everyone needs to be up to speed. Communication is best weapon. You can do more harm w/ an order or cell phone than a gun.
-Too many eggs, 1 basket; that's you. Even dispersal of group resources helps insure there's less chance of a "big hit". This is simple military theory. You don't put all the Extra goodies on 1 rogue (low Fort, Will, & HP btw), they are further endangered should something happen. It can also be a matter of encumberance, stealth/detection, etc.
...like using the healing potions they picked up to sneak in and help the cleric, hence keeping the whole party alive...
-Tactically foolish; you're looking at possible movement to injured party, 1/2 that if you're sneaking w/out penalty (and likely detected w/out benefit of Cover or Concealment, especially in melee engagement), 1 Move Action to Draw said potion (item retrieval = Attack of Opportunity), another to give it to the injured party (AoO here too?). Then, they need to use a Move Action to recieve it (AoO) and a Standard Action to consume it (AoO).
This is way more work than worry. Rogue, ideally (not always), should be "sneaking" as you've said, in and out of engagement (their bread and butter), taking pot shots vs. Dex denied enemies, Tumbling for Flanks, troubleshooting as a whole IMO. They are namely offensive support, not necessarilly defensive support, though I wouldn't forbid a clever ploy or anything. Right tool, right job, whatever, you get the message I trust.
Said healing potions are supposed to be on those other PCs in the event cleric is unable to reach/cast upon them. That's the whole point. A contingency when standard (better) healing is unavailable. Evenly distribute those depending on need and so forth insures longer lived status.
Piling up additional healing potions in one position and leaving group ignorant of those valuable resources is very poor tactical design to be polite about it.
"Helping the party" in this fashion you've stated is coutner-productive in the extreme:
-Betrays the fact that you've stolen from them, defeats purpose of theft.
Not at all. A rogue could also buy potions for this purpose.
-Assumes you become the secret quatermaster; dangerous and presumptive in that you likely don't know all of the knowns of item 'x' you've taken unilatterally. Curses, poisons, plot contingency, class specific abilities, etc. When you presume in this capacity, you forgo party intel...this gets ppl killed a lot. They don't tell some of a black ops team 'x' and the rest nothing for good reason. Everyone needs to be up to speed. Communication is best weapon. You can do more harm w/ an order or cell phone than a gun.
You're making a lot of assumptions here. First, that the rogue is taking a LOT of items. Anyone doing so would incur problems as you've stated, but a rogue taking a limited subset that they know might be useful for them to use later is a different story... Also, the fighter may say he knows best and demand the potion, but the rogue who's been watching the fight from the shadows may know more than the fighter sees in a given combat. (see below)
-Too many eggs, 1 basket; that's you. Even dispersal of group resources helps insure there's less chance of a "big hit". This is simple military theory. You don't put all the Extra goodies on 1 rogue (low Fort, Will, & HP btw), they are further endangered should something happen. It can also be a matter of encumberance, stealth/detection, etc.
Again, they're not taking EVERYTHING. They are keeping certain items that could be useful for them and the party.
-Tactically foolish; you're looking at possible movement to injured party, 1/2 that if you're sneaking w/out penalty (and likely detected w/out benefit of Cover or Concealment, especially in melee engagement), 1 Move Action to Draw said potion (item retrieval = Attack of Opportunity), another to give it to the injured party (AoO here too?). Then, they need to use a Move Action to recieve it (AoO) and a Standard Action to consume it (AoO).
Well, maybe our group is reading the rules differently, but our rogue has an ability to move stealthily at full move w/o penalty. Using a potion, I believe is a minor action, so why would drawing one out be a full move and a standard then to use it?
This is way more work than worry. Rogue, ideally (not always), should be "sneaking" as you've said, in and out of engagement (their bread and butter), taking pot shots vs. Dex denied enemies, Tumbling for Flanks, troubleshooting as a whole IMO. They are namely offensive support, not necessarilly defensive support, though I wouldn't forbid a clever ploy or anything. Right tool, right job, whatever, you get the message I trust.
Not entirely, but the in and out of engagement, yes. Why not be a utility rogue with healing potions to distribute as well?
Said healing potions are supposed to be on those other PCs in the event cleric is unable to reach/cast upon them. That's the whole point. A contingency when standard (better) healing is unavailable. Evenly distribute those depending on need and so forth insures longer lived status.
Piling up additional healing potions in one position and leaving group ignorant of those valuable resources is very poor tactical design to be polite about it.
Ok....another couple assumptions I think. First, when the cleric (battle cleric in a party with one fighter) goes down that takes out all of the party's healing except for potions. Is it better for the fighter to have the potion and quaff it instead of an attack and be able to take one more hit, or for the rogue to help out the cleric and get him back in the healing business? Also, the rogue isn't carrying every available spare item, just what she's picked up.
BTW, this worked in an adventure. The actions of the rogue got the cleric back up, gaining the party two healing words and a healing strike that would not have been there if she hadn't produced the potion out of 'thin air'.
Am I saying this is a tactic everyone should use? No.
What I am saying is that you shouldn't judge a character because they pocketed something they thought would be useful for them to have later. Maybe they have something in mind you haven't considered, a tactic that the DM doesn't expect (and therefore neither will the enemy). Of course, if you're a paladin judge away....that's what you do, eh? ;)
But you don't see these actions you describe yourself taking as being selfish to the extreme??
To react in such a way, completely disregarding even your own character guidelines over a small amount of pocketed, imaginary gold is just childish. You, sir, would risk friendship with anyone you game with by jumping out of character, abusing your fellow player's characters and completely disregarding any role playing opportunities because you weren't getting "your share" of the 5 copper the rogue managed to abscond with. At that point, why not jump across the table and slap the person? Or maybe that crossed your mind already....
Remind me to never game with anyone like you.
The feeling is mutual. Been there, done that, don't want the t-shirt.
Another different campaign, different group it was a vorpral sword. You are right that five copper is no big deal, its been my experience that it starts small and excalates into a feeding frenzy. All the while the thief happily giggles to themselves and says you can't do anything you don't know anything about what i'm doing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3Uos2fzIJ0
and tell me your fellow party member, you supposed friend and ally, stealing from you is no big deal.
Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3Uos2fzIJ0
and tell me your fellow party member, you supposed friend and ally, stealing from you is no big deal.
Are you serious? That's real money among real people. That girl took that dudes money because of greed. That guy could've paid off home loans and paid off credit card debt. She just took it from him.
Imaginary money in a game with imaginary characters pilfering coins and treasure that would have otherwise been spent on periapts and portable holes isn't the same. Please tell me you don't need it spelled out for you. It's both physically and psychologically different. Money shouldn't matter to you as much as enjoying the characters in the game. That's what YOU are sitting at the table for. Nothing real is at stake. When another player steals from you, since nothing real is taken, your reaction is based entirely on your opinion of that person and how comfortable you are with them. If you don't respect them or you fear they don't respect you, the act of stealing from you is a hostile action. If it's your girlfriend's character or your buddy's little brother-who-think-you're-really-cool, you'll see it as them expressing their character and enjoying the game and NOT as forcibly denying you something.
I had a rogue in an Eberron game I ran that picked up everything and stole everything else and never declared any of it. But then, whenever the party needed train fare or they needed to bribe somebody, this guy would hemorrhage money from every orifice. Everyone would be like "Where did you get all this money?!" and he would give a different answer every time. "I did some stuff for some guy." "I have rich parents." "You ask too many questions." It was a lot of fun. It probably helped that he was an awesome guy and one of the major driving forces of the game.
Now I entirely understand if it boils your blood when some guy you aren't that close to steals things from you or another team mate. Especially if he goes and spends the money on gear and has nothing to show to you guys other than a stupid grin you want to smack off his face. "You should've rolled a better spot/perc. What can I say?" That's messed up. You know what, though? He's a bad player. That kind of behavior means you can't trust HIM. The player. Dude can take a walk.
The OP was pretty OK about it for instance and I have had a lot of fun playing characters who were stolen from and in one case who got beaten unconscious by an NPC for attempting to steal from a member of the group (everyone at the table thought that was the most fun we have ever had to start off a campaign). But in my current group I would not try that with our current campaigns, even though they include most of the same people who thought it was fun earlier because it would not fit the campaigns or the characters.
Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3Uos2fzIJ0
and tell me your fellow party member, you supposed friend and ally, stealing from you is no big deal.
That was a game show of people who did not know each other at the beginning of the show. There is a big difference between that and a group of people working as a team and putting their lives in each other's hands.
I had a rogue in an Eberron game I ran that picked up everything and stole everything else and never declared any of it. But then, whenever the party needed train fare or they needed to bribe somebody, this guy would hemorrhage money from every orifice. Everyone would be like "Where did you get all this money?!" and he would give a different answer every time. "I did some stuff for some guy." "I have rich parents." "You ask too many questions." It was a lot of fun. It probably helped that he was an awesome guy and one of the major driving forces of the game.
The facts of the matter are: a) this isn't the mainstay of most inter-party stealing rogues from experience and b) this is an incredibly round-about and unnecessary avenue that would be avoided if all party funds were known.
I can't help but get the impression that these 'benevolent rogues' just like the idea of being able to lord over their fellow player. It appears that they like this little but of power authority - 'Yes, you may have your bus fare but remember it's because I allow it.'
And you know what? That's fine, but don't get upset if the group dynamic starts turning into a game of cat and mouse with some party members attempting to catch you in the act. I find it just as metagamey for players to let this suspicious behaviour to slide then if they were to start keeping a tighter leash on the rogue.
Imaginary money in a game with imaginary characters pilfering coins and treasure that would have otherwise been spent on periapts and portable holes isn't the same. Please tell me you don't need it spelled out for you. It's both physically and psychologically different. Money shouldn't matter to you as much as enjoying the characters in the game.
Or maybe we've been down this road so many times with the same outcome that we're tired and would rather get back to unravelling the plot and exploring dungeons instead of playing 'Let's catch the party thief'.
SourceOfEvil uses the example of five copper pieces as being the amount that is skimmed. What if its more than that, substantially more. In one of the campaigns i was in it started as copper, then silver and then onto gold and gems. In the end it was thousands of gold I could have used for whatever I wanted to do with my character..
Another different campaign, different group it was a vorpral sword.
A vorpal sword? First, how the hell did they pocket that without people seeing? Second, a thief with a vorpal sword obviously contradicts what I said about taking things that they could have a better use for, yeah? Your example has nothing to do with the point I was making at the point where they take something that's obviously more useful to another character...
Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3Uos2fzIJ0
and tell me your fellow party member, you supposed friend and ally, stealing from you is no big deal.
Good example. I say that because anyone with a grain of perception could see she was going to steal from about 1:20 in. If you didn't know that, then you weren't paying attention to her at all. Now, I play poker, so her body language may be a little more obvious to me, but re-watch it and look at her. She would never win a hand against good poker players, her theft was obvious and would be spotted by observant watchers, and she would make a horrible thief.
Also, your example deals with LARGE sums of money. In fact, ALL of the money in question. Again, my examples are about skimming a few gold. If your thief is taking all of the money then you have a different problem from what I'm discussing.
The facts of the matter are: a) this isn't the mainstay of most inter-party stealing rogues from experience and b) this is an incredibly round-about and unnecessary avenue that would be avoided if all party funds were known.
I can't help but get the impression that these 'benevolent rogues' just like the idea of being able to lord over their fellow player. It appears that they like this little but of power authority - 'Yes, you may have your bus fare but remember it's because I allow it.'
In response to 'a)': I'm sorry that hasn't been the case for you. I've gamed with three different groups, mostly friends before/during/after gaming, and all have had the playful rogue who pocketed what he could, but was generous otherwise...
And, why shouldn't the rogue try to 'lord over' with their thieving skills? Doesn't every fighter do the same? "You can't handle these ogres, I'll take care of 'em", kinda attitude? Aren't mages normally haughty about their intellectual superiority? Don't clerics preach about their deity and say how you should be more like them and follow the 'path', etc, etc...
IMO, it sounds like the groups you have played with wouldn't be as much fun. I mean no offense, but the rogue can be a very fun adventuring partner, even the one that pockets some goodies for themselves. That being said, I've never played a thief like this. I just don't think I could pull off the lucky, light-hearted rogue like others in my groups have.
And, why shouldn't the rogue try to 'lord over' with their thieving skills? Doesn't every fighter do the same? "You can't handle these ogres, I'll take care of 'em", kinda attitude? Aren't mages normally haughty about their intellectual superiority? Don't clerics preach about their deity and say how you should be more like them and follow the 'path', etc, etc...
IMO, it sounds like the groups you have played with wouldn't be as much fun. I mean no offense, but the rogue can be a very fun adventuring partner, even the one that pockets some goodies for themselves. That being said, I've never played a thief like this. I just don't think I could pull off the lucky, light-hearted rogue like others in my groups have.
Well, actually, our groups usually strive for cooperation over limelighting. I suppose adventuring by committee may not be exciting, but we get along fine. Sure, the wizard has powerful spells, but they will often defer to the player that has a really good tactical use for them. We communicate with each other and try to work as a team.
We also use liberal amounts of 'assists'. Even the Binder jumps in with the rogue to help with searches and individual attempts to do something are usually the exception and not the rule.
But, I suppose if you're in a group where the Cleric is constantly demanding peity, the fighter is just an armoured bully, the wizard is an intellectual snob then the self-serving thief may be more tolerated/fun/acceptable... whatever, I guess.
Again, if it bothers you as a player then work it out as players. Set ground rules early-on and deal with new in-games issues as they arise, but do so out of game. Talk to the DM and work out as a group what kinds of things are acceptable and which are not.
Well, actually, our groups usually strive for cooperation over limelighting. I suppose adventuring by committee may not be exciting, but we get along fine. Sure, the wizard has powerful spells, but they will often defer to the player that has a really good tactical use for them. We communicate with each other and try to work as a team.
We also use liberal amounts of 'assists'. Even the Binder jumps in with the rogue to help with searches and individual attempts to do something are usually the exception and not the rule.
But, I suppose if you're in a group where the Cleric is constantly demanding peity, the fighter is just an armoured bully, the wizard is an intellectual snob then the self-serving thief may be more tolerated/fun/acceptable... whatever, I guess.
Cos obviously it must be one or the other, right? There is no possibility that the characters can be a bunch of spotlight-hogging dicks but the players can use them to work together effectively as a group, right?
Not at all. A rogue could also buy potions for this purpose.
Let me just dust off my trusty ole' sblock (wall o' text enroute;))
Show
Again, this is tactically unsound and further endangers safety & group cohesion. His own coin, sure, why not, but stealing from the collective, then, posturing some twist in an attempt to justify it by presuming party needs out of "generosity & goodwill" unilatterally (not as a team FOR the team) is the hallmark of egocentrism and stupidity. He is not qualified to make those decisions out of game, and most definetly not realistically in game. A cleric perhaps, given the hypothetical healing scenario you've mentioned, and even then, he simply can't know all the variables. More qualified, but to stand alone, God, that's stupid...
Furthermore, it puts additional risk on the rogue which is their speciality; threat assessment. They exist to constantly weigh risk vs. gain in no uncertain terms, namely by virtue of their ample skills alone. Again, a rogue that acts in this "inter-party theft for perceived good endgame" fashion could be a terribly compelling character full of moxy and good RP, which I'm all for...but he's totally unprofessional and taking unecessary risks which have the side effect of shortened life span for him and his crew.
It is infinetly wiser (this isn't a good/evil thing so much as a smart/stupid one) for parties to strategically allocate resources for these endeavors as a group, comparing notes in game (as best able), shoring up weaknesses in others, accenting strengths, etc. When they plan ahead in this fashion, each mind synching up w/ each other and accomodating/helping that end, a greater chance of success (and living) is likely vs. this independent variable free-wheeling it w/ the rest ignorant as (s)he sees it.
They're a team (for good or ill), not a group of like-minded ppl looking for game & fortune w/ that one show boat starting Center whom routinely undermines the collective dynamic for altogether foolish notions he believes are in their best interest. They decide what's best for them, not 1 for all for them.
Long story short, that stolen wealth to buy more healing potions might've better been served in alternate venues, even similar ones that could've been more cost-effective & efficient. The assumption is counter-productive & unjust.
ex)[3.5ed] Stolen wealth to finance cure potions might've been better served pooled into a party Wand; more HP for your gp. And don't say Cleric only. Rogues get Use Magic Device too, plus you're not constantly eating up the clock w/ item retrieval, drawing Attacks of Opportunity, etc. Cheaper, better, more pragmatic. Screwing them initially at treasure acquisition can, in the long run, screw you. You keep them alive, they reciprocate. Tactics, karma, good sportsmanship, whatever you wanna' call it. To each his own.
unilatterally (not as a team FOR the team) is the hallmark of egocentrism and stupidity. He is not qualified to make those decisions out of game, and most definetly not realistically in game. A cleric perhaps, given the hypothetical healing scenario you've mentioned, and even then, he simply can't know all the variables. More qualified, but to stand alone, God, that's stupid...Furthermore, it puts additional risk on the rogue which is their speciality; threat assessment. They exist to constantly weigh risk vs. gain in no uncertain terms, namely by virtue of their ample skills alone. Again, a rogue that acts in this "inter-party theft for perceived good endgame" fashion could be a terribly compelling character full of moxy and good RP, which I'm all for...but he's totally unprofessional and taking unecessary risks which have the side effect of shortened life span for him and his crew.
It is infinetly wiser (this isn't a good/evil thing so much as a smart/stupid one) for parties to strategically allocate resources for these endeavors as a group, comparing notes in game (as best able), shoring up weaknesses in others, accenting strengths, etc. When they plan ahead in this fashion, each mind synching up w/ each other and accomodating/helping that end, a greater chance of success (and living) is likely vs. this independent variable free-wheeling it w/ the rest ignorant as (s)he sees it.
They're a team (for good or ill), not a group of like-minded ppl looking for game & fortune w/ that one show boat starting Center whom routinely undermines the collective dynamic for altogether foolish notions he believes are in their best interest. They decide what's best for them, not 1 for all for them.
Long story short, that stolen wealth to buy more healing potions might've better been served in alternate venues, even similar ones that could've been more cost-effective & efficient. The assumption is counter-productive & unjust.
ex)[3.5ed] Stolen wealth to finance cure potions might've been better served pooled into a party Wand; more HP for your gp. And don't say Cleric only. Rogues get Use Magic Device too, plus you're not constantly eating up the clock w/ item retrieval, drawing Attacks of Opportunity, etc. Cheaper, better, more pragmatic. Screwing them initially at treasure acquisition can, in the long run, screw you. You keep them alive, they reciprocate. Tactics, karma, good sportsmanship, whatever you wanna' call it. To each his own.
I can't help but get the impression that these 'benevolent rogues' just like the idea of being able to lord over their fellow player. It appears that they like this little but of power authority - 'Yes, you may have your bus fare but remember it's because I allow it.'
WTF? This is clearly an issue you have with the player. If the dude is a jerk, the dude is a jerk. If it's your friend, you know they don't mean anything even remotely like what you're describing.
I'm going to say it again. A rogue that steals from the party isn't the issue here. It's what you think the player is thinking when his rogue steals from the party.
Well, actually, our groups usually strive for cooperation over limelighting. I suppose adventuring by committee may not be exciting, but we get along fine. Sure, the wizard has powerful spells, but they will often defer to the player that has a really good tactical use for them. We communicate with each other and try to work as a team.
That sounds like rather a boring little board game you're playing. "The wizard has powerful spells but they'll defer"? If the player with the tactical use isn't playing the wizard he bloody well should be.Do you remember that those long, drawn-out conversations on tactics use up your actions?
Out here in the fast and dirty world of gaming, not everyone is a perfect fit in the jigsaw party. A rogue makes a choice whether they want to slip a couple extra coins in their pocket, the same choice the fighter makes when he decides that he should have that shiny, new magic weapon. Does your deferring wizard automatically get any scrolls, staves or wands that the party finds?
As for you points on sharing information and making a better working, well-oiled machine for combat....I have no arguments. I'm quite sure a group you describe may work more efficiently than ones I've been in. However, as our group was formed by characters being drawn together by a town lord asking for adventurers to appear to quell an evil, and we have no previous background together, we do not have a 'leader' who everyone follows. We're still just a bunch of characters who happen to work well together. It's a lot of fun because we all have our own interests and approaches to overcoming problems. We may not function like a well managed group, but personally I believe if there was a leader saying, "Put all the treasure here, divide it evenly" it wouldn't be as much fun.
If the thief ever does get caught I'm sure she'll just get a slap on the wrist and a watchful eye, much like Tas did. And, it is still my opinion that players who force rules on other player's characters (ie, no treasure taken without the party dividing it or everyone tell everyone else all your powers so we can tell you how to use them better) take some fun out of the game.
I'm a DM namely
I would advise you as a friend, if not, like-minded enthusiast, to consider the other POVs as well before committing to this course as you're taking liberties w/ other ppl, presumably, ones you care about, compromising game balance, but mostly, screwing yourself in addition to your party in the long run.
Ok.....
I've DM'd longer than been a player. Only while trying out the 4E have I switched to being a player, prior to that I DM'd for a group for more than 12 years, and for several groups before this one, mostly 2E and some 1E. In my experience, one player making the "no stealing from other players" rule prior to character creation causes nobody to want to play the rogue. If everyone in the group just has fun with the situations that arise instead of taking the few gold they're missing personally, I don't see any problems with it. In the end, as stated above by someone else, if none of the players take offense to it, it's not a problem.
Also, I'm not playing the thief in our group, so I'm not taking any liberties...I'm the cleric in the story.
I beg to differ...ANY ITEMS (# is irrelevant) not judged and weighed and spirited away is bad design/stupid. Again, you presume to know what you're doing when you clearly don't (as a rogue, not player to be respectful). Another PC might be able to shed light on it, thereby helping you/the team, but you've killed that possibility now for your own purposes, not the team's. Shooting self in foot. It could be a red herring for all you know.
You've been fortunate in your gaming experience, obviously. All too often I have to explain why a rogue, cleric, wizard, druid or ranger also has a need for the treasure that the party finds. Along with the total of the coins there is a value to every piece of gear found as treasure.
If I'm in a party where the fighter demands a full share of the coins after getting a +3 longsword (or whatever) and then tells me that I have to buy my own ammunition and tools from my share because "your stuff is cheap", you can bet your sweet aunt fanny that there will never be an equal distribution of the wealth again. Don't get me wrong, but if I'm playing a rogue and it's been clearly demonstrated by the other players that the division of wealth will always favor one end of the party over the other, I will put my fingers on the scale. Sometimes greed can only be balanced out with a bit of thievery, other times, kidney surgery works*.
*If you have to ask, you don't want to know.
Also, I'm not playing the thief in our group, so I'm not taking any liberties...I'm the cleric in the story.
So you're playing a thug with one heck of a big blackjack, eh?
That was a game show of people who did not know each other at the beginning of the show. There is a big difference between that and a group of people working as a team and putting their lives in each other's hands.
So that's supposed to make it more ok to steal from your team?
The players on that game show know going in such an ending, however hurting, can happen. That's like choosing to play Diplomacy or Paranoia. You know going in what can happen. D&D is not Diplomacy or Paranoia.
WTF? This is clearly an issue you have with the player. If the dude is a jerk, the dude is a jerk. If it's your friend, you know they don't mean anything even remotely like what you're describing.
I'm going to say it again. A rogue that steals from the party isn't the issue here. It's what you think the player is thinking when his rogue steals from the party.
Yes, it is. By stealing from me or the party (same thing) he has shown he is NOT my friend. I will treat the rogue in kind.
Yes, it is. By stealing from me or the party (same thing) he has shown he is NOT my friend. I will treat the rogue in kind.
You're pretty harsh on your friends. I'm willing to let my friends play whatever character he wants as long as it makes a profit in fun. If he does a good job of it, I'd let a player play a drug addict that indirectly causes the group to lose money or missions (and therefore money).
At a convention, that crap would not fly. I don't trust strangers to actually care about my enjoyment of the game so people have to follow some guidelines like you're suggesting. My only point is that if you can trust the people you play with, you should theoretically be able to let them get away with semi-sketchy behavior.
Cos obviously it must be one or the other, right? There is no possibility that the characters can be a bunch of spotlight-hogging dicks but the players can use them to work together effectively as a group, right?
Actually, yeah, usually those definitions are mutually exclusive. Perhaps we could work out what these terms mean to each of us, but I think you'll find that the consensus doesn't side with you.
That sounds like rather a boring little board game you're playing. "The wizard has powerful spells but they'll defer"? If the player with the tactical use isn't playing the wizard he bloody well should be.Do you remember that those long, drawn-out conversations on tactics use up your actions?
I'm sorry... WTF?!
So, I think more tactically, I should always be the wizard. Or, you know, heaven forbid that the rogue thinks up something I haven't thought of (but that wouldn't happen as a wizard since I'll be blessed with some mystical mental fortitude beyond my friend?).
Seriously dude, this is the most ridiculous thing I've heard. It's a roleplaying game. If my friend's girlfriend wants to make a wizard, we're not going to stop her because she doesn't quite grasp the nuances of Evard's Black Tentacles.
And neither does, "Hey, Mialee, cast fireball there!" use up your actions. When your team trusts you, you don't have to have long drawn out arguments about tactics. IF THEY TRUST YOU being the key operative here. A rogue stealing from the party stabs that point right in the heart.
But no, you're right, cooperation and team work is pretty boring. D&D clearly isn't that and we should find some other game, amirite?
She's a thief. She gets screwed by the rules on a regular basis. She can't be a front line fighter or cast neat-o spells. What she does do well is rather limited. Unless she's steal items off of another character I don't see what there is to complain about.
Uh, dude, the class "Warlord" and this being the 4E forums would tend to suggest that the thieving character is a Rogue, meaning an absolutely *killer* fighter, regularly doing massive damage in combat with all kinds of neat tricks up her sleeve.
So no, "the rules suck so I should get more stuff" doesn't really hold water, especially since if that were *actually* the case, your fellow party members would probably agree with you and you wouldn't have to steal from them, they'd give it to you.
For me, I figure D&D is a co-op game for a bunch of friends who want to get together and save the world. This means that screw-the-party behaviour is generally a bad thing, and while I don't mind greed as a motivation or the opportunity for a fun scene to play out that comes from things like this, I *also* tend to prefer my players talk out of game about what's going on. Because, you WILL get caught bogarting the treasure at some point.
A respected, trusted, loyal and valuable party Rogue who pockets stuff is going to get a lot of disappointment from the group, quite possibly be asked to pay back the money or explain what grand reason she had for betraying their trust that way - and isn't likely to be trusted, ever again. She might even get kicked out, depending on how much was stolen, and why, and what she did with the money.
A shiftless amoral jackass who's stupid, doesn't work with the group in combat, and screams bloody murder if we don't save him from the horde of skirmishers he *deliberately allowed to surround him, AGAIN*, and who is only allowed to stay with the party because he's more dangerous to the enemies than he is to us and he picks locks really well? (And yes, this is a PC in a game I played in) - that guy doesn't get ANY leeway on robbing the party. When, not if, he gets caught, he's going to get held down, stripped of all his gear, and tossed naked into the wilderness, and if we ever see him again, we'll kill him. If he fights us we'll slit his throat and dump his body in a chasm. Why? Because he's *dangerous to have around*, he's Chaotic-Evil-in-all-but-the-alleged-alignment-written-on-his-sheet, and he's only tolerated because he's useful. As soon as he starts robbing us, that tips him firmly in the "detrimental" category.
And he knows this. So he doesn't *try* to rob the PCs, and everyone is happy.[1]
But yeah. In this specific case: Talk to the *players* out of game and say "Hey, I thought this was a friendly kill the monsters and keep their stuff game. Do you mind not playing like every day is bowb-your-buddy day?" - and, point out, simply and clearly, what the consequences of failure are in terms of their character's ability to continue as a viable member of the party.
[1]: Well, actually, the player knows but really doesn't understand and constantly has delusions of grandeur wrt his character's abilities[2]. But the *DM* knows we'll do this, and the *DM* insists on reading the full list of all found treasure, to everyone, after each battle.
[2]: - "I can't get caught!" - No, you get caught on 6-, AND we all saw that there was a bag of gold there. You can make us not realise where it went 50% of the time, and not make us think you *tried* another 20%, but you have a 0% chance of making us FORGET that there was a bag of gold there with a sociopathic *thief* standing next to it. Or "I totally can't get hit! I could solo this bossfight!" - we've seen this one *four times* already. He doesn't seem to clue in that "AC 29 versus Opportunity Attacks" is not the same as "AC29" in practice, or that a +14 to hit monster will hit that 29 25% of the time, or that it will *club his real AC like a baby seal*, or that sometimes monsters target Fort or Will.
...that anyone lifting items without talking to all party members first should be hanged/sold into slavery/killed, etc... My object was to show that not all thieves deserve what was suggested.
Personally, I agree w/ that position IRL and in game often, not always. Heavy-handedness in reprisal can cause more harm than the initial infraction. Punishment should fit the crime is normally a maxim I uphold. In game though, I really push for accurate PC immersion. Having said that, the great RP range, reglardless of player, can change the principle. There is no universal standard, nor should there be. 2 PCs of mine;
Examples, pro & con:
Show
ex)Velbon Hemlock, cleric of Mask (theft/intrigue god), might even applaud your dupe, it's damn near a church tennet. He'll want his gp (he "worked" for it), but from an existential light, his position is, "Hmm, clever. How'd he do that? How can I groom him to my advantage this way?" He may steal from him in turn to teach him a thing or 2 both benign & malice wise. Silver lining basically.
ex)Ch'tturgah, necropolitan Wzd (same aligment), however, having endured a long (un)life of injustices and hardship (racial handicap;)) doesn't believe in 1/2 measures. As such, more "permanent" solutions are considered. He didn't get to be immortal by taking risks, perceived or otherwise. Magic compulsion to insure accountability on a good day maybe, drawing and quartering on another. Varies per his motivations.
ex)Ch'tturgah, necropolitan Wzd (same aligment), however, having endured a long (un)life of injustices and hardship (racial handicap;)) doesn't believe in 1/2 measures. As such, more "permanent" solutions are considered. He didn't get to be immortal by taking risks, perceived or otherwise. Magic compulsion to insure accountability on a good day maybe, drawing and quartering on another. Varies per his motivations.
Someone would notice with just their passive perception that the rogue puts a statue into its pack if they were in the same room.
This has happened in my campaign and my players instinctively knew to roll a stealth check to hide this.
I have also been in a situation where a stash was hidden and a certain member - the rogue oddly enough was the only one that rolled a high enough perception to find the stash. I was simply going to tell him what he found but because the other players were all talking to one another and not paying attention I gave the rogue the stuff right out.
A rogue has to play their character, but they have to PLAY it, just because she is the only one that rolled high enough to find it does not mean that the other did not notice her find it, everyone was actively searching the room, she should have to make a stealth check to hide these things.
It's not necessarilly a player problem. You absolutely must distinguish between the PC and the player. John Doe might be cool with it as a player, "Aw, man, you got me...good one." However, John's miserly dwarven Ftr could be very LN (their default align), very rigid, and more than a little pi$$ed. What would the PC do (not the player)? This is the dramatic foil to a would be rogue. If a duped PC is acting out of character once the ruse is discoverd, then the DM must intervene.
Exactly, you're actually making the point I was trying to get at. If the players are upset that is a problem above and beyond how the characters would react. Would the characters be upset? May be, but that can be handled in-game. If the players are upset that is a larger issue. The OP asked if he should react, and my whole point was to say, "Not necessarily."
Akin to your potion example, but the variation made all the difference:
I stole more from my own party as "Velbon" (see above) the cleric than I ever did as a rogue. The point was it was a spiritual matter, learning tool (like a parable), and namely, RP decision, not a primarilly a financial one per se. ex) Discretely stolen monies provided enough for a 5k gp diamond (over time) for Raise Dead which I humbly ;) provided to enlist the bereaved to my cause, enlist a conversion, and further my own god's aims. They couldn't believe my generosity doing this on gratis. I "paid", no questions asked, but in essence, we all paid really, as we would've ponied up the 5k anyway. I saw an opening, took it. 2 birds, 1 stone...
This rare example took time to come to fruition, but worked like a charm, and technically didn't short anyone. RP growth? Fun? IDK, we all were pleased.
Again, I think you're making my point. There may be all sorts of reasons for anyone in a group to pocket something without the other characters knowing, and that does not mean the players need to react in an aggressive manner.... If another character notices and reacts, that's a different matter.
Exactly, you're actually making the point I was trying to get at. If the players are upset that is a problem above and beyond how the characters would react. Would the characters be upset? May be, but that can be handled in-game. If the players are upset that is a larger issue. The OP asked if he should react, and my whole point was to say, "Not necessarily."
If the players are upset, it should probably be talked about before the session.
Again, I think you're making my point. There may be all sorts of reasons for anyone in a group to pocket something without the other characters knowing, and that does not mean the players need to react in an aggressive manner.... If another character notices and reacts, that's a different matter.
If it's more than a reason of 'I'm a rogue, I steal... booya' then I agree.
Actually, yeah, usually those definitions are mutually exclusive. Perhaps we could work out what these terms mean to each of us, but I think you'll find that the consensus doesn't side with you.
You're kidding, right? You can't actually believe that the PC's personality and the player's must be the same.
Not sure if it's been posted already because this has 5 pages, but a rogue is a rogue is a rogue. They are going to steal things ...
Why does a rogue have to be a thief? Why can't they be a specialist in recovering stolen objects, or in providing technical expertise (lock picking etc.) to adventuring parties?
You're kidding, right? You can't actually believe that the PC's personality and the player's must be the same.
Well, seeing that I wouldn't use this:
spotlight-hogging dicks
to describe only a character and not a player (since spotlighting is really a metagame descriptor) I would argue that what you said would be the player's personality.
But, this is getting into semantics. Can the character be a dick and the player not? Yes - to a point. If the player really isn't a dick, then the character isn't likely to be a full fledged dick since the non-dick player will be playing respectfully.
(Otherwise, the player isn't a non-dick and the player and character share the same dick personality.)
Well, seeing that I wouldn't use (spotlight-hogging dicks) to describe only a character and not a player (since spotlighting is really a metagame descriptor) I would argue that what you said would be the player's personality.
Then I would argue the limitation is with your ability to understand the distinction rather than the lack of one. Popular fiction is full of characters who are flamboyant attention-hogs (Han Solo, anyone?) but who step up and back the group when the play is on, and D&D is no different.
Why does a rogue have to be a thief? Why can't they be a specialist in recovering stolen objects, or in providing technical expertise (lock picking etc.) to adventuring parties?
Some rogues are just that. My current rogue is well above average on stealth, proficient with picking locks but completely untrained at Sleight of Hand (pickpocketing). The character would take insult at being called a thief. He's geared more towards being a merchant or an acrobat if truth be told.
Should the circumstances warrant lifting a bit off the top, I can't say I wouldn't do it. But my current rogue wouldn't see the justification for it. But then the character I'm playing wouldn't have to. Since I'm pretty much the leader, the de facto faceman and I have an intelligence to rival the wizard's, when I think the rogue needs something, I just say so. But then the group understands the need for certain items of a dubious nature that augment my abilities.
It's a bit odd, but I'm playing a Lawful Good goblin fighter/rogue. He takes great pride in his stealth abilities, but being called a common thief would drive him into a rage. The only reason for his ability to pick locks is so that he can get out of the shackles he himself puts on when entering towns and villages of other races. An armed goblin might raise suspicion, but a goblin in chains being led by a pair of dwarves is pretty much ignored.
You're pretty harsh on your friends. I'm willing to let my friends play whatever character he wants as long as it makes a profit in fun. If he does a good job of it, I'd let a player play a drug addict that indirectly causes the group to lose money or missions (and therefore money).
At a convention, that crap would not fly. I don't trust strangers to actually care about my enjoyment of the game so people have to follow some guidelines like you're suggesting. My only point is that if you can trust the people you play with, you should theoretically be able to let them get away with semi-sketchy behavior.
If, in the real world, my real world friend regularly steals from me, he's not my friend.
If, in the roleplaying world, my roleplaying friend regularly steals from me, he's not my friend.
Not sure if it's been posted already because this has 5 pages, but a rogue is a rogue is a rogue. They are going to steal things, but in order to be sneaky they need to perform a stealth check.
Someone would notice with just their passive perception that the rogue puts a statue into its pack if they were in the same room.
This has happened in my campaign and my players instinctively knew to roll a stealth check to hide this.
I have also been in a situation where a stash was hidden and a certain member - the rogue oddly enough was the only one that rolled a high enough perception to find the stash. I was simply going to tell him what he found but because the other players were all talking to one another and not paying attention I gave the rogue the stuff right out.
A rogue has to play their character, but they have to PLAY it, just because she is the only one that rolled high enough to find it does not mean that the other did not notice her find it, everyone was actively searching the room, she should have to make a stealth check to hide these things.
A rogue is a rogue, but not all rogues are thieves. There is no D&D Police to force anyone playing the rogue class to steal. In 3E, someone could play the rogue class, spend all his skills points on "thieving skill necessities", and not be a thief. He could be a constable working under cover. He could just be using his skills to further the cause of justice such as disarming traps of the Evil Overlord, pickpocketing the wands off the Evil Wizards, Hiding and Moving Silently pass the Evil Orc Guards, knock them out with sneak attack, then open the gate to the stronghold for the rest of the party. All the while he's Lawful Good.
That said, if the rogue player wants to be a thief, fine be a thief, just don't steal from your party.
A thief is someone who takes from others without their permission. Any character of any class can be a thief, and no class is more entitled to be one than any other. In fact, different classes are better than the Rogue at certain kinds of thievery - since not all theft involves stealth or subtlety.
But lets make an analogy. Lets say that in real life, you and your friends are some sort of special ops team, working for a government that isn't picky about what gets confiscated getting to them. You see a friend pocket something expensive that needed confiscation. Sure you could assume that they have been stealing all the time and are actually an enemy, and take drastic measures about it. Or you can assume that for whatever reason they need the money more than you, and now, for something they don't want to admit. Gambling debts, blackmail, what have you. Personally I would be inclined to believe the second. This isn't stealing from you anyways, its altering the distribution of confiscated property which is probably going to be doled out in such a manner that everybody does not get an equal share down to the penny, as prices will vary highly for resale, among other things. Its not really owned by you at the point it is stolen anyways.
On another point, why is it always the rogue? Any class can have reasons to skim money off the top, not just rogues.
If, in the real world, my real world friend regularly steals from me, he's not my friend.
If, in the roleplaying world, my roleplaying friend regularly steals from me, he's not my friend.
Something that happens in a game and something that happens in the real world have the same meaning. Check.
You obviously play this game way different from me. When I DM, I'm watching my friends play out a story together. They aren't extensions of the players. If for one session, one of the players is a giant D-bag, that's fine. As long as he didn't steal the show or make somebody feel bad, it's kosher. Next week we'll get together and he'll play a different character.
Crap that happens in an imaginary world with no consequences shouldn't bother you this much. If a player is repeatedly disrespecting you (which stealing from you can qualify as), then that guy isn't your friend. What I'm saying is that somebody's character stealing from you doesn't always mean disrespect. Not always.
Then I would argue the limitation is with your ability to understand the distinction rather than the lack of one. Popular fiction is full of characters who are flamboyant attention-hogs (Han Solo, anyone?) but who step up and back the group when the play is on, and D&D is no different.
Well, I would argue with your application of the word. Also, it's a lot easier to make "difficult" characters work in fiction that is being written by one person than being played out in group story-telling but there's no point in turning this into a semantic and personal definition debate.
Something that happens in a game and something that happens in the real world have the same meaning. Check.
That's not what he said. Or, rather, that is what he said, but you're misinterpreting it anyway.
I'm watching my friends play out a story together. They aren't extensions of the players.
He never said they were. What he said was that very few people take being robbed by their friends well, and that his *characters* tend to have the same response. He's not getting ****** about being robbed - his CHARACTER is getting ****** about being robbed, and he's getting annoyed that the co-op team game with his friends isn't being played like a co-op team game - just like a guy in an FPS who bogarts all the health packs or doesn't watch for friendly fire.
If for one session, one of the players is a giant D-bag, that's fine. As long as he didn't steal the show or make somebody feel bad, it's kosher. Next week we'll get together and he'll play a different character.
You change characters every week? How... odd.
Most people stick with characters for longer than that - but betrayal by a PC tends to make the group *not trust that PC*.
In fact, different classes are better than the Rogue at certain kinds of thievery - since not all theft involves stealth or subtlety.
Ah, excellent point. Examples that prove your case:
-Post dungeon treasure/intel extravaganza; every crew goes through this, but, only the magi is privy to the true nature of 'x' via Identify. And that Vorpal Sword he scaned could be easilly "reported" as another +1 sword w/ Bluff and Sense Motive duking it out for good or ill maybe. Nystul's Magic Aura can tidy up a searing magic aura to conceal true nature and discretely sold later for a fat chunk of change, etc.
-Anyone rendered Invisible, often the rogue, not always, has a big leg up.
-Cleric's Speak w/ Dead has shed enough intel to make that (un)holy man very very wealthy very quickly w/ no one the wiser. My old cleric w/ Trickery in a domain and a cunning backbone managed this easilly.
-Bards, rogue-ish by definition, are plenty good thieves.
etc etc.
It is well they renamed theif to rogue. Helps kill stereotypes. An assassin is worlds apart from a con man just as an acrobat is not a safecracker.
More often than not, good hauls don't ever entail Sleight of Hand or Thievery for 3.5 or 4th ed respectively. I've personally made a vast fortune w/ judicious Gather Info, Bluff, and Forgery. It's easier than you think.
Holy_Beholder: On another point, why is it always the rogue?
It's not always the rogue despite the stereotype, it's just, often, that is the case given their skill set making them better equipped for those endeavors. It's basically profiling which is a good RP angle to work.
Any class can have reasons to skim money off the top, not just rogues.
Truly, but I guess gear dependecy and UMD offers more incentive. IDK
. Have's vs. the have-nots?Exposed_Wires: When I DM, I'm watching my friends play out a story together. They aren't extensions of the players.
Pardon me for butting in, but I must repsectfully disagree.
They ARE extensions of themselves...in degrees. Any game, video, P&P, board game, etc., you will see certain characteristics of your friends you know and love leave a definable footprint upon the alter ego they are playing and or personifying. It's just human nature, not a good/bad thing.
Some of us are better at suppressing it than others, but, the telltale details are there to be sure, you just have to look hard enough. The upside is, the longer/better you've known a friend, the more you about them, and thusly, their playstyle, dramatic posturing, predilections, everything. You're probably pretty tight w/ your fellow gamers, yes? It is safe to assume of that demographic, you could likely zero who is more likely to pick class 'x', push for a fight vs. diplomacy, rules lawyer, or take a laizze fare approach.
Every assumed persona we adopt for recreation, commercial, artistic reasons, what have you, have a little of us invested in them whether we like it or not. Sometimes we don't even notice it, but I assure you, it is very much there and in turn, those characteristics will surface from time to time through that persona. D&D's PCs are just more telling as the range of character action and possibilities is endless.
So last night 3 out of our party, me, the rogue and another were searching a room. We made some poor rolls apart from the rogue, she found 2 silver statues, 5 rings and a +1 chainmail. So she declares the chain mail which i graciously accept after asking the rest of the party for my Warlord, but she keeps the other stuff for herself.
I thought that was a bit cheeky, she said that as she made the roll and succeeded so she could do as she wanted. To be honest i wasn't that bothered because i got the Chainmail, but i felt bad for the rest of the party. I asked the DM if i could make a check to find the items or see if she was lying, and the DM said that i didn't see her find (and hide on herself) the items as i was searching elsewhere and asked why would my character be suspicious (he wouldn't be). So my character asked the rogue if she found anything other than the chainmail, to which she replied no. So it all makes sense from a role play perspective.
Now no one else at the table seemed too bothered by it, and hence didn't say anything either, which i was a little suprised at. Am i being too sensitive? I guess for all i know she might declare the items as group loot later on. However my character would be very annoyed if he found out that someone was hamstringing the group. Especially when others in the group have indicated items they have found and i've kept track of them to distribute out later on. But then again if she is going to by a magical weapon for herself then it would benefit the group anyway.
Just wondered what others thought about this, and possibly what i could do about it that would make sense in game. I guess wait until the little story pans out.
I've had this come up as a DM and a player.
As a DM, I would weigh the situation.
For example: If the entire party participated in a fight and destroyed their foes together, then everyone gets a share of the spoils, period, regardless of who made the Perception Rolls to find it. I know they'll be alot of people who'll disagree me on this point, but consider this. You're a party member who took the most damage or cast the most damage causing spells or healed everyone and kept them standing to win that fight. What?, Just so the party rogue could pocket the loot/spoils of vicory for herself and not even offer to share any with the party. In my games, I think not.
As a player, this has happened. If a player defeats a monster solo then they should get first dibs on that monster's treasure.
Example 2: (this happened to my favorite fighter PC in 1st Edition) When my fighter was 10th level he was in a party that consisted of a 6th level Magic-User, 6th level Thief, 5th level Cleric and a 6th level Paladin. We played a module set in Greyhawk and I think it was called "White PLume Mountain." In that mod was a lair belonging to a 13th level Vampire Fighter. My guy was tough, but I didn't know how much until that game session. Well my guy being the daring one and leading the way entered the vampire's lair. Before we knew she was a vampire, she looked like a very well preserved corpse lying atop an ornate slab of marble. Just as soon as she woke up and hissed, the party rolled initiative. I think my fighter went next to last in the order. But here's the twist. As soon as the other party member's number came up, they ran out of the room while my fighter engaged the vampire. The vampire went last I do remember that. She landed a hit on my fighter and I lost a level and my fighter decided it was time to leave as well, but lo and behold, the door was now wizard locked. With no way out, I decided to let my fighter go out fighting. Well the DM had a real bad day that day. His vamp landed one more hit and my fighter lost another level, which made his level 8th now and the rest of the fight belonged to my fighter. The fighter beat her down to zero hit points, which forced her into gasous form and the very slab she had been resting on had her coffin under it. In the treasure pile was a hammer and he used it to smash the coffin and slab to bits, thus destroying the vampire. Just as soon as the fight was over my fighter began to rifle through the treasure horde and found a big fat spell book, a suit of +3 plate armor, +3 Dagger and a few other knick-knacks which went into his backpack. This is where the rest of the party reenters the room. They wanted their share of the treasure, and they got it. They got about 1,000 gold pieces to divide among themselves and that was it. The paladin asked for the plate armor and the wizard demanded the spell book and so on. I said NO on behalf of my fighter. The thief's player announced he would try to Pick Pocket the stuff later and cut my fighter's throat as he slept. But the DM stepped up and announced that since my fighter had defeated the monster single-handedly, he gets the final say in the treasure distribution and ALL of the XP from the encounter. Which the DM inflated as a reward to allow my fighter to regain his two lost levels. He did this because he was annoyed by the fact the party had left the fighter behind to become a vampire snack. There was protest, but the ruling stood. Later on the thief did try to murder the fighter, but was instead severely beaten, robbed and set loose in nothing but his skivvies in the center of town. The wizard also tried his hand at snatching the spellbook, but got a lesson in Speed Factors instead. The wizard ended up loosing his component pouch and HIS spellbook as well. The DM eventually put a stop to it. But it was funny while it lasted.
The point is....
The party is supposed to be a team. If the team defeats an encounter together as a team, then as a team, they get to share in the spoils. I hate playing in a group where one player/PC is always trying to steal or keep treasure from the rest of the party. I understand rogues steal things and tend to be greedy almost to a fault, but not to the point where it causes conflict in the party. Think about it, would you trust someone with your life, to have your back, when they're likely to put a knife in it or try to rob you when they think they can get away with it? I wouldn't...
Peace.
That's not what he said. Or, rather, that is what he said, but you're misinterpreting it anyway.
He never said they were. What he said was that very few people take being robbed by their friends well, and that his *characters* tend to have the same response. He's not getting ****** about being robbed - his CHARACTER is getting ****** about being robbed, and he's getting annoyed that the co-op team game with his friends isn't being played like a co-op team game - just like a guy in an FPS who bogarts all the health packs or doesn't watch for friendly fire.
You change characters every week? How... odd.
Most people stick with characters for longer than that - but betrayal by a PC tends to make the group *not trust that PC*.
Darmoc and Jilard at Tanagra. His eyes opened.
That makes the assumption that their characters are friends.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Now you're starting to get it.
That said, there are better ways to play the rogue class that at once let you do your thing and still be fair to other players. The example given by the OP shows pretty crude RP on part of the rogue. Where's the sneakery, where's the deception?
A good rogue player will be aware that they need their allies on their side. That doesn't mean she won't steal from them, but it does mean that she will try to build goodwill or throw off suspicion. I have a player who approached me as DM about this and we worked out what I think is a better approach.
To build favor with the other players, this rogue is going to use public displays of thieving skills to benefit the whole group. She'll involve them, probably by asking them to watch her back and back her up if things go bad as she attempts to pick a pocket or similar. As a reward she's going to give them an equal cut of the money she makes this way, even if no combat breaks out. Win-win - other characters trust her, she gets to feel like a tricky thief which is why she chose the class.
But: it's partly a diversion. She also talked to me about treasure hauls and her desire to skim loot as part of her rogue RP. So in normal situations where the party is searching the slain or a room for treasure, I'm giving her an easy or moderate thievery DC to skim either 10% of monetary treasure, or the most valuable looking "shiny thing" in the loot. I'll roll this for her as a passive check without the other players' knowledge, but if the roll fails I'll announce that they see her trying to pocket some extra loot and she'll have to explain/disarm the situation and won't get any extra for that encounter. We also have an arrangement for more difficult situations where I let her know it's harder (could be 20 or 25 DC) and she lets me know whether she's going to risk it, using code words.
I'm kinda proud of this arrangement. First, if she ever fails her DC, she'll have goodwill built up from the pickpocket money she's shared so it will probably blow over with the other players. Second, she doesn't have to overtly haggle with them any more when dividing loot, so that will build goodwill as well. Third, as DM I don't have a problem padding the treasure a little to let the rogue have her extra take, as a reward for the attempt at good RP, so there's no real loss to the other players. Finally, I think it's appropriate that a rogue has more cash on hand at all times then the others, and long-term rely much more on wealth as the basis for their power than the other characters.
We're calling this "The Rogue's Arrangment"[TM] and I heartily recommend it to anyone playing a rogue whose DM will allow it. Rogues should be not just immoral but sneaky, both IC and OOC! And everyone should remember it's all for fun.
One caveat, there are no lawful goods in the party so that helps a bit - a lawful good paladin probably wouldn't agree to watch a rogue's back while they pick a pocket.
Stealing is a part of the rogue class, and conflict with good allies is a classic part of RP with the class and, if everyone understands it, part of the fun.
That said, there are better ways to play the rogue class that at once let you do your thing and still be fair to other players. The example given by the OP shows pretty crude RP on part of the rogue. Where's the sneakery, where's the deception?
A good rogue player will be aware that they need their allies on their side. That doesn't mean she won't steal from them, but it does mean that she will try to build goodwill or throw off suspicion. I have a player who approached me as DM about this and we worked out what I think is a better approach.
To build favor with the other players, this rogue is going to use public displays of thieving skills to benefit the whole group. She'll involve them, probably by asking them to watch her back and back her up if things go bad as she attempts to pick a pocket or similar. As a reward she's going to give them an equal cut of the money she makes this way, even if no combat breaks out. Win-win - other characters trust her, she gets to feel like a tricky thief which is why she chose the class.
But: it's partly a diversion. She also talked to me about treasure hauls and her desire to skim loot as part of her rogue RP. So in normal situations where the party is searching the slain or a room for treasure, I'm giving her an easy or moderate thievery DC to skim either 10% of monetary treasure, or the most valuable looking "shiny thing" in the loot. I'll roll this for her as a passive check without the other players' knowledge, but if the roll fails I'll announce that they see her trying to pocket some extra loot and she'll have to explain/disarm the situation and won't get any extra for that encounter. We also have an arrangement for more difficult situations where I let her know it's harder (could be 20 or 25 DC) and she lets me know whether she's going to risk it, using code words.
I'm kinda proud of this arrangement. First, if she ever fails her DC, she'll have goodwill built up from the pickpocket money she's shared so it will probably blow over with the other players. Second, she doesn't have to overtly haggle with them any more when dividing loot, so that will build goodwill as well. Third, as DM I don't have a problem padding the treasure a little to let the rogue have her extra take, as a reward for the attempt at good RP, so there's no real loss to the other players. Finally, I think it's appropriate that a rogue has more cash on hand at all times then the others, and long-term rely much more on wealth as the basis for their power than the other characters.
We're calling this "The Rogue's Arrangment"[TM] and I heartily recommend it to anyone playing a rogue whose DM will allow it. Rogues should be not just immoral but sneaky, both IC and OOC! And everyone should remember it's all for fun.
One caveat, there are no lawful goods in the party so that helps a bit - a lawful good paladin probably wouldn't agree to watch a rogue's back while they pick a pocket.
I highlighted your errors.
Stealing is not part of the rogue class. It is something a rogue can do, but a rogue player who doesn't steal even a copper piece is not playing wrong.
A Good rogue doesn't steal from his friends, if he's chosen to be a thief. He'll steal from strangers. He'll steal from known evil people. He doesn't steal from his friends.
If I'm playing a paladin, I'd have no problem with the rogue pickpocketing the evil wizard's wand.
Paladins and rogues can get along, just as long as the players aren't being jerks. The paladin player should not be self-righteous, and the rogue player should be loyal to the party. Paladins can appreciate the rogue's ability to disarm traps as they explore the evil overlord's dungeon. Rogues can appreciate the paladin's willingness and ability to confront the evil monsters in the dungeon head on so that the monsters won't splat the rogue.
Anyone can be a "thief". A fighter may not be sneaking around pilfering, but he can confront someone head on and mug him. A wizard could Charm Person someone to "loan" him some cash. A cleric could use Diplomacy to "sell" absolution.
A player choosing to steal from the party is choosing to work against the party. It is not an inherent necessity of something a rogue must do.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Now you're starting to get it.
...But the players aren't always friends in-game. So, you're wrong. This attitude of yours is messed up.
So, more often than not, we are talking about a group of people (the characters) that are going to be adventuring together for years - facing despair, death, and terrifying circumstances more dire than any of them could have possibly imagined. In the face of all that adversity, there is little likelihood that anyone would choose to entrust their survival and success again and again to someone for whom they did not feel that unique combination of trust, faith, sacrifice, understanding, acceptance, and forgiveness that we call friendship.
Oh, some extremely good RP could manage to construct circumstances convoluted enough to make it believable, but as a general rule? If the characters in a group are not "friends", some of the characters will be leaving the party long before the campaign ends. This does not apply in games which accept/allow PvP.
To the poster who so helpfully indicated others' "errors" including mine: you're free to DM your game in a way that requires your characters to never work at cross purposes, but that's your house rule not a golden rule. Other approaches are not in "error" - particularly not if all of the players accept them and have fun. Good-natured tension between chracters is good RP if your players are mature enough to separate that from their fun playing the game together. I'm glad mine are.
I say let the rogues be rogues, encourage each class to be itself in RP, and spare us the hair-splitting.
In my experience, if the players are true friends the characters do not have to be. Fortunately I play with friends and not with people who take their characters so seriously that they can't try some RP antics now and then.
I agree completely.
That makes the assumption that their characters are friends.
True. You're much more likely to beat senseless a thief who isn't your friend, he's just a guy you brought along to scout, find traps, and complement the fighter's combat style with some really nasty bonus damage.
So, everything we've been saying about "stealing from your friends sucks and results in them not being friends" counts *double* if they're not your friends, because then they'll kill you. You're risking not just risking your friends and your job with the adventuring company, you're risking your life.
On a single D20 roll.
Where you're going to get caught, consistently, about 25% of the time, because that's how the numbers tend to work out with skills and levels.
Thyrwyn:
So, more often than not, we are talking about a group of people (the characters) that are going to be adventuring together for years - facing despair, death, and terrifying circumstances more dire than any of them could have possibly imagined. In the face of all that adversity, there is little likelihood that anyone would choose to entrust their survival and success again and again to someone for whom they did not feel that unique combination of trust, faith, sacrifice, understanding, acceptance, and forgiveness that we call friendship.
That is absolutely true! And that's another reason that only an extremely stupid person would steal from their friends without an unimaginably compelling reason. If you lose their trust, *you're out*. They can't go on with you without trusting you, and if you show them you cannot be trusted, your character is not going to be able to continue adventuring with the group.
And since the story is about the group, your character just retired himself.
A group I know calls this "****ed Upping Yourself Out Of The Game" - whether it's betraying the group, or simply deciding to run away and hide from the plot, or refusing to talk to or work with any of the other PCs, or simply being so repugnant that none of the other PCs will deal with you, you're making your character impossible to play with.
Now, if you've GOT that unimaginably compelling reason for why you've been stealing from them, you might be able to salvage this and stay a viable PC in the game - but you need to have that reason, and you're unlikely to manage to do this twice. And, hey, having that reason *can* lead to great RP and a fun quest hook and is awesome.
But "I'm a thief. I steal. That's what I do." is unlikely to get you anything other than a swift boot out of any adventuring party, even assuming they don't take your stuff or kill you in the process.
Monkeydm:
Stealing is a part of the rogue class, and conflict with good allies is a classic part of RP with the class
Uh, no, *the ability to steal* is part of the class, but not all rogues are thieves, and not all rogues have "conflicts with Good characters". Shock, horror, amazement, some Rogues are even *Good*. Some are *Lawful* Good. Some are even heroic, reliable, trustworthy, and occasionally, once in a while, you'll find one who's capable of simple cost/benefit math and realises that stealing from the party is counterproductive before getting kicked out and involuntarily rendered an NPC.
Rogues should be not just immoral but sneaky
Rogues *can* be immoral and sneaky.
But very few adventuring parties will keep one around who is *actively stupid*, *counterproductive*, immoral, and sneaky.
True. You're much more likely to beat senseless a thief who isn't your friend, he's just a guy you brought along to scout, find traps, and complement the fighter's combat style with some really nasty bonus damage.
So, everything we've been saying about "stealing from your friends sucks and results in them not being friends" counts *double* if they're not your friends, because then they'll kill you. You're risking not just risking your friends and your job with the adventuring company, you're risking your life.
On a single D20 roll.
Where you're going to get caught, consistently, about 25% of the time, because that's how the numbers tend to work out with skills and levels.
Jesus. First of all, this talk of getting caught isn't much related to the point I was trying to make earlier. I'm not referring to pickpocketing team mates. That's just stupid. Instilling doubt into your group is the last thing you want to do as a thief. I'm talking about stealing from your team in more indirect ways be it skimming from the top, not declaring treasure that you find, and stealing things from NPCs and not telling the players about it.
I'm talking about that to point out that there are, in fact, situations where a player can "take" from the team and have it not end in an OOC argument. Most of the time it's a bad idea, but the assertion that only a-holes do it and the comments by navar are way over the top, in my opinion. There is a lot more gray area than is being presented in this thread.
...But the players aren't always friends in-game. So, you're wrong. This attitude of yours is messed up.
If we're not friends, then I have no reason to adventure with you.
If we're forced to adventure together because of some mission where our patron forces us to work together and cooperate, by stealing from me or the party (same thing) you have chosen not to work together or cooperate, and you could in fact be a spy working for the enemy.
It is your attitude that is messed up.
If we're not friends, then I have no reason to adventure with you.
That's a bit narrow-minded, isn't it? PCs don't have to be friends for life. Heck, they don't even have to like each other. They adventure together because it means they don't have to get a job.
They adventure together because it's of a benefit to all of them. Some people would take the rogue skimming a coin here and there as just part of the cost of having the lockpicking and trap disabling skills of a master thief at their disposal.
You need to read the books by Pratchett that center around the watch. It'll make more sense to you then.
It's so funny that we're having this discussion right now because the changeling wizard is actually stealing money from the rest of the party. My players all have massive ADD and spend a lot of time doing silly things. At one point the wizard was the only character trying to further the story and as such was handed the reward for the mission. He took a quarter of it and hid it before making a show of splitting it up "fair and square".
All the players saw him do this. Only the paranoid veteran sniper sensed motive. When he failed, he just squinted his eyes at the wizard player and shrugged it off. Now, this is hardly an ordinary circumstance. I have a very unique changeling wizard player. The guy is a crazy scheming Ben Linus-type person who likes to work big plans in the backgrounds. Everyone just lets it go when he does crazy stuff. I guess they just trust him as a player to at least make whatever he does with the money entertaining.
Jesus. First of all, this talk of getting caught isn't much related to the point I was trying to make earlier. I'm not referring to pickpocketing team mates. That's just stupid. Instilling doubt into your group is the last thing you want to do as a thief. I'm talking about stealing from your team in more indirect ways be it skimming from the top, not declaring treasure that you find, and stealing things from NPCs and not telling the players about it.
It's extremely rare that you'll be counting the treasure or searching for hidden stuff with nobody else around. Forget "trust", and think "everyone likes to know what they got" and "everyone tends to cooperate while searching" - there's usually at least two characters examining any haul, meaning you're rolling Thievery if you want to pocket something without them noticing you do it.
And you're still coming up with a "getting caught" result 25% of the time.
(And if you're smart, you're doing this wrt dead guy's pocket money or the amulet he had on under his armor, not the glittering bejewelled rings that were in his initial description. Because sure, you might pocket those without anyone seeing you pocket them, but *everyone knows they were there*. Bob help you if you try that on a *magical item* that was in the guy's description - one minute later, the Wizard, Bard, Invoker, or anyone else trained in Arcana will be saying "so, we excluded all the known magic items from our Detect Magic spell. Why are your pants pockets glowing? What does it have in its pocketses?")
Stealing from NPCs and not not telling other players about it isn't stealing from the party. I mean, that's not treasure that they all worked to earn, and it's not something they have a claim on.
They might be mad for you stealing from the city guards and they might not help you if the guards try to arrest you, and they might get mad because you're making their lives difficult, or they might just leave without you and leave you in jail - but that's not the kind of direct personal betrayal that robbing the other members of the party is.
I'm talking about that to point out that there are, in fact, situations where a player can "take" from the team and have it not end in an OOC argument. Most of the time it's a bad idea, but the assertion that only a-holes do it and the comments by navar are way over the top, in my opinion. There is a lot more gray area than is being presented in this thread.
It is possible to have a good reason to do it and a good story result come from it.
But that's not what most people here are discussing.
What LordofWeasels said.
I agree.
If we're not friends, then I have no reason to adventure with you.
What an unfortunately narrow and limiting point of view.
Everyone is free to play their PC however they like up until the point it impinges upon the other players' enjoyment of the game. One of my few house rules is "your PCs don't have to love each other, they don't even have to like each other, but they do not to work together" and it's worked out pretty well so far.
Well, I would argue with your application of the word.
So you'd rather argue semantics than ideas? Count me out.
Also, it's a lot easier to make "difficult" characters work in fiction that is being written by one person than being played out in group story-telling but there's no point in turning this into a semantic and personal definition debate.
A lot of things are easier to do in an authored work of fiction than in a D&D game, that doesn't mean they are impossible or not worth doing in the game. If the only way you can play D&D is with a group of shiny happy PCs and it works for you then more power to you, but not all of us need to constrain ourselves to so narrow a style. I'd rather be part of an adventuring party than a hug party, thanks all the same.
It's extremely rare that you'll be counting the treasure or searching for hidden stuff with nobody else around. Forget "trust", and think "everyone likes to know what they got" and "everyone tends to cooperate while searching" - there's usually at least two characters examining any haul,
Dude, none of what you said right here is actually true. Those are all shoulds. There should always be more than one person examining a hoard. You shouldn't be searching for treasure unattended, but we all know it happens. Even so, none of the stealing in my campaigns has ever been that overt. Ever. It's not even an issue.
meaning you're rolling Thievery if you want to pocket something without them noticing you do it.
And you're still coming up with a "getting caught" result 25% of the time.
I specifically said pickpocketing your team mates was dumb. So you are not, in fact, rolling a thievery with a 25% chance. This is getting excessive. You seem to be always a post behind my most current and completely missing points. I can't believe people are agreeing with you.
You've already conceded that it's possible to have stealing in a game that isn't malicious and doesn't cause players to hate each other. That was my whole point. I'm not arguing for stealing. I'm pointing out that some people in this thread are exaggerating. That's it.
I specifically said pickpocketing your team mates was dumb. So you are not, in fact, rolling a thievery with a 25% chance.
Having just looked it up, you're right, I apologise. I thought that the Pick Pocket rolls also covered "steal something in plain sight", while that's actually a different application of the skill entirely.
I can't believe people are agreeing with you.
I like to think it's because I have good points in principle, even when I get the details of the mechanics wrong.
So, you're right, it's harder than I thought to get caught. That doesn't change my statements about the results of getting caught, only how long it's going to be before it happens.
Dude, none of what you said right here is actually true. Those are all shoulds. There should always be more than one person examining a hoard. You shouldn't be searching for treasure unattended, but we all know it happens.
... I think it *is* true.
I said it's RARE to be alone and that there is USUALLY at least two characters dealing with any search or, especially, any looting.
Seriously. How often does that *not* happen in your games?
You've already conceded that it's possible to have stealing in a game that isn't malicious and doesn't cause players to hate each other. That was my whole point.
Okay! I agree with you as well! I think it's harder than you tend to indicate to make that happen, but I do agree with you that it's totally possible.
I'm not arguing for stealing. I'm pointing out that some people in this thread are exaggerating. That's it.
Ah, and here we have the source of our confusion.
Several people earlier in the thread *were* arguing for stealing - that stealing was inevitable, that it was a class feature of the Rogue and that you weren't allowed to get mad at the character or player for using their class features, that you are a big baby if you can't handle the THIEF1!!1!!one! robbing you constantly, and at least one instance of someone claiming Rogues sucked so much mechanically that they *had* to rob the rest of the party or they just weren't worth playing.
I'm sorry to have gotten your argument confused with theirs.
So last night 3 out of our party, me, the rogue and another were searching a room. We made some poor rolls apart from the rogue, she found 2 silver statues, 5 rings and a +1 chainmail. So she declares the chain mail which i graciously accept after asking the rest of the party for my Warlord, but she keeps the other stuff for herself.
In a similar situation, if you and some of your friends are walking down the street looking for a restaurant and one of your friends spots a $10 bill on the street, picks it up and pockets it, are they stealing from you? You didn't find it. You may not have ever known of its existence.
For that matter (back to in-game, and because I find it amusing), what if your rogue companion finds a treasure chest out in the woods while he's alone? Is he supposed to report that to you as well? ei, if a rogue finds treasure in the woods, does the treasure exist for anyone else? ;)
For that matter (back to in-game, and because I find it amusing), what if your rogue companion finds a treasure chest out in the woods while he's alone? Is he supposed to report that to you as well? ei, if a rogue finds treasure in the woods, does the treasure exist for anyone else? ;)
What treasure chest? There was no treasure chest. This old thing? Had it for years, belonged to my grandfather. What do you mean "coronation regalia"? No, seriously, it's been in my family for ages, honest....
In a similar situation, if you and some of your friends are walking down the street looking for a restaurant and one of your friends spots a $10 bill on the street, picks it up and pockets it, are they stealing from you? You didn't find it. You may not have ever known of its existence.
Incidental.
We're walking down the street, not doing "Overland Travel" fending off crackheads (orcs), negotiating difficult terrain (traffic), or dealing w/ wounded PCs (drunk friends?). A stretch, I'm sure, but you get the point. This is quite a boon, but a free boon nonetheless. Not EARNED. Random.
Same thing when we were kids. I'd find a buck or something, everyone goes, "Aww, man! Hey hook me up!" But, in the end, it's 1st come 1st serve. Luck favored 'x'. Team sport, some mutual challenge and we get 1st place, blue ribbon, whatever? We all share the purse, trophy, prestige, etc...
Nobody likes a gold plated ego or dick player on their football team. Undermines effectiveness and morale. Now, imagine those linemen don't just want to tackle you but rather kill and/or eat you.
If he's lucky enough to score $10 by virtue of a simple walk, no monster, trap, or plot contingent CR to overcome, so be it. Lucky bastard. That was just a little something on the side and to the victor go the spoils.
...what if your rogue companion finds a treasure chest out in the woods while he's alone? Is he supposed to report that to you as well? ei, if a rogue finds treasure in the woods, does the treasure exist for anyone else? ;)
Situational.
Random score, entirely RP dependent taking alignment, possible party contracts, whatever, into light. No biggie. Up to him/her and their conscience, if applicable, things like that. To entertain convincing arguments, not bickering and whining, after the fact, is probably a larger bone of contention and of higher importance than PC X's sheer luck. Otherwise, taking a pee in the woods, "Oh, look gold!" Yeah, knock yourself out if you must. Bust your ass in a dungeon w/ your crew backing you? Steal? Uh, yeah, you're not likely to have gainful employment much longer. Why put up w/ a loose cannon when lives are at stake?
This says nothing of the personal play style. To each his/her own, you know? But you gotta' respect other PCs and how they might "feel" when the jig is up. Risk outweighs benefit, be it a professional group of contemporaries that may personally loathe each other, or buddy buddy grade school chums.
I'm sorry to have gotten your argument confused with theirs.
I knew that had to be it because you were mischaracterizing my arguments at every given opportunity. Thanks for trying to make me feel silly under false assumptions.
In a similar situation, if you and some of your friends are walking down the street looking for a restaurant and one of your friends spots a $10 bill on the street, picks it up and pockets it, are they stealing from you? You didn't find it. You may not have ever known of its existence.
To be *properly* similar, you and your friends would have to be a gang of thieves who are currently breaking and entering, with the intention of punishing the person you're stealing from for being bad and the expectation that all profits of the endeavour will be shared.
This isn't finding a PP on the ground while walking through town. This is something you found in the course of a group effort, in a place you would never have gotten to on your own.
Now as far as the rogue taking a few extra for herself, that's the way the Mafia operates when it comes to money laundering
As long as she's intelligent about it and doesn't take too much, it's all cool.In general, I wouldn't steal from my fellow PCs; it's just not smart as people have pointed out. Now a 50 gp gem I come across on a scouting mission, in my pocket it goes and stays :P
And dammit, "I know X out of character. I think my character should know X, because of Y, Q, and S. Is there something I should roll, or a clue I should have?" is NOT metagaming. It is NOT abuse of OOC information. It is a perfectly valid question.
If you keep pushing the issue after the roll fails, or the clue you were given leads nowhere, or the DM tells you "no", THAT is metagaming. But the initial question, with the good-faith "You know, I think my character should have a chance to notice that", is totally reasonable.
Assuming, of course, GOOD FAITH. Which is what most of the "it's my party and I'll rob them if I want to" advocates are assuming in terms of reactions!
(Also: If the party Rogue always has money when the rest of the PCs are broke? This is a problem that will often lead to acrimonious IC reactions, even if the rest of the PCs are *solely* working off the evidence that the Rogue has spent roughly 3x what anyone else has and is still living the high life. That's not metagaming, either.)
What an unfortunately narrow and limiting point of view.
Everyone is free to play their PC however they like up until the point it impinges upon the other players' enjoyment of the game. One of my few house rules is "your PCs don't have to love each other, they don't even have to like each other, but they do not to work together" and it's worked out pretty well so far.
I agree completely. Ergo, don't steal from me or the party. Do whatever you like during downtime to make the big score against some NPC.
(Also: If the party Rogue always has money when the rest of the PCs are broke? This is a problem that will often lead to acrimonious IC reactions, even if the rest of the PCs are *solely* working off the evidence that the Rogue has spent roughly 3x what anyone else has and is still living the high life. That's not metagaming, either.)
Sometimes the rogue will have more money than the other PCs without pocketing anything at all. A rogue's weapons are likely to be cheaper. Their armor is probably alot cheaper. Aside from the very expensive set of lockpicks, rogues don't have much in the way of gear to purchase compared to the other classes.
I played in a game once where every time we looted anything, I would pass the DM a note. He'd roll a random die or tell me to roll and then scribble something down and hand the note back. For months we did this. This was 2nd ed, and my thief didn't have a high enough pick pockets skill to palm anything without getting caught, but the other players didn't know that. One of the players pitched a fit to end all fits one day because his fighter was broke and the thief had money to spare.
We didn't mind losing that player after that. The group read every note that had been passed since the beginning*. He decided he wanted to quit because he thought it was terrible that I was jerking the group's chain by passing notes to the DM at looting time and playing out the downtimes in the campaign.
One positive thing came from it though. The rest of the party opted to retire to the estates I had earned in the pay of the crown and they all made Thief characters to play in the "Black Hood" thieves' campaign. We had a riot playing thieves catching thieves. We had boxmen, bounty hunters, smugglers, cutpurses and thugs, all saved from the gallows, all working for the king.
The moral of the story is simple. Don't assume anything when it comes to what a rogue does. If he or she is pocketing a bit more, there may be a reason for it that you don't know. Even if it's just greed on the part of the character, don't let it get in the way of a good story or a fun game.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
*Our DM at the time was effectively running two games at once. He learned early on that seperating the scouting party (me) from the rest of the party made it alot more fun for him because it kept the other players guessing. Most of the notes were related to the running of the High Magistrate of the King's Courts little project that involved building up a phony thieves' guild made up of volunteers from the city watch. He and I put in time outside of the regular game sessions playing out the parts of the side story and the notes usually were related to that.
This rogue wouldn't like what happened to her.
Sometimes the rogue will have more money than the other PCs without pocketing anything at all. A rogue's weapons are likely to be cheaper. Their armor is probably alot cheaper. Aside from the very expensive set of lockpicks, rogues don't have much in the way of gear to purchase compared to the other classes.
That's not actually anywhere near the case, in D&D4. D20, maybe.
I played in a game once <...>One of the players pitched a fit to end all fits one day because his fighter was broke and the thief had money to spare.
And I have very little sympathy for him, because your character *wasn't* robbing the group and you had a job on the side that you simply hadn't told the other PCs about.
But he still has a right to question your PC about it IC, since you always have spare money while the rest of the group suffers - and if your explanation was "I'm a thief, deal" he would be well within his rights to call up the rest of the group, kick you out (or leave himself) or some violent alternative. If you were to explain that you had a job on the side, he's got a right to be upset, but, hey, at least most of the time a side job means you aren't betraying the group, so that's not so bad.
He decided he wanted to quit because he thought it was terrible that I was jerking the group's chain by passing notes to the DM at looting time and playing out the downtimes in the campaign.
I wouldn't do that myself, but I can understand the attitude that might lead to quitting over another player working hard to make it *seem* like that player was ****ing over the rest of the group in a consistent and ongoing matter with GM approval and active, knowing assistance.
The rest of the party opted to retire to the estates I had earned in the pay of the crown and they all made Thief characters to play in the "Black Hood" thieves' campaign. We had a riot playing thieves catching thieves. We had boxmen, bounty hunters, smugglers, cutpurses and thugs, all saved from the gallows, all working for the king.
See, THAT is a perfect example of what I call a Game Contract - an agreement, in advance, wih regard to what kind of characters you're going to make and what their backstory to fit into the campaign is.
The moral of the story is simple. Don't assume anything when it comes to what a rogue does. If he or she is pocketing a bit more, there may be a reason for it that you don't know. Even if it's just greed on the part of the character, don't let it get in the way of a good story or a fun game.
See, while I agree with you *in principle*, I also feel it is the problem of the thief in question to provide said explanation and said good story to the people who *inevitably* catch them in the act. And if they don't have a good story and a good plot hook or two, I feel not at all sad about the other PCs hanging them by their ankles and beating them until candy comes out.
I agree completely. Ergo, don't steal from me or the party.
No, because it does not inevitably follow that a rogue pocketing loot impinges on the other players' fun. Some players don't mind it and it doesn't negatively impact their enjoyment of the game in the slightest. If it bothers you as a player then yes, your group needs to be deal with it - but as a group of players outside of the game not through your character in it.
Regardless of class, race, alignment, whether the party members are actually friends or not, on good terms or not, or player style of role-playing, isn't stealing from your own party members working against the best interrests of the party? Doesn't stealing from your own party members build walls of distrust or even outright hatred for the character in question? Doesn't stealing from your own party members cause in-game and out-of-game friction? As stated in earlier posts, a Lawful Good Paladin would probably have no problems with a rogue pilfering an evil wizard's magic wand, but would if the rogue was hoarding gold or magic items that was supposed to be split with the rest of the party. I know people will argue that's what rogue's are supposed to do, but to OTHER PEOPLE, not their own party members. It doesn't matter if the player thinks it's good role-play, stealing from your own party will cause problems in the campaign, even in a living campaign like LFR. Once the other players learn how your rogue operates, i.e. trying to steal from other party members, the game suddenly becomes very un-fun.
Think about that...
Peace.
No, because it does not inevitably follow that a rogue pocketing loot impinges on the other players' fun.
Just usually.
Feelings and sentimentality aside, if this were an equation, it would not look well in light of the obvious. This sort of thing usually sours an otherwise fun, engaging evening w/ friends at the table.
It isn't inevitable 100% as you've said, but it's bad. Basically, the short of it is, getting robbed sucks be it directly or indirectly. Not fun. Now, a good many gamers can take one on the chin and keep a brave face on things in light of many variables:
-An enemy w/ superior numbers
-An enemy that simply bests them by cunning, etc.
-Overwhelming legality, thematic development (thithing, etc).
-Situational liklihood (obvious rich PC in thieves den)
-WBL adjustment per DMs
etc.
Those factors might merit getting "robbed" and PCs might go through the motions as the ELs or thematics were/were not fun nonetheless. A "suitable challenge". Inter-party theft, that's entirely contingent on 1 PC, not the campaign arc. It is an independent initiative that wasn't planned per the DM, only 1 PC out of 'x' vs. another PC. Bit of a wildcard in other terms. Welcome to the dance party, featuring nasty surprise, cake and punch! Only makes it hurt more. Exaccerbates the pain and angst. Like getting snubbed on Christmas Day vs. a normal Friday at work.
Also, it requires extra time be carved out to deal w/ it, be it a simple die roll to determine success, or hours of intrigue to maintain discretion. That puts the larcenous PC in a position for higher, perhaps, unrelated or undeserved attention vs. other well meaning PCs, evil or otherwise. Limelighting is often a likely outcome, also, not fun. Other PCs get lost in the drift. Adventure gets less attention, stagnation results. Second, it's putting a standard upon the rest that they might not have agreed to or anticipated as a possibility, new players (often) or veteran players even. Again, not fun. Screws wealth by level ultimately too which can result in mechanical character deprepitude, also, not fun.
Closest approximation is that it's like a string of bad rolls. Not your fault, but not fun you got critted on, failed a Save, etc. It's just this was entirely avoidable. Through no fault of your own, another player has decided to take liberties against you, often the most vulnerable PC. Not a normal threat in terms of trap, monster, etc., but essentially, parasitism vs. the collective. DM didn't plan on this happening to you, but, here we are...
If the DM did this though, would it be construed as fair, let alone fun?
Seen plenty of good PCs get robbed at an inn by some nameless NPC that saw they were wild in their cups, a smithy charge more than necessary for a weapon, a rogue take advantage or even blackmail. But, it keeps the group in the forefront, stage center...not the group's star quarterback that is doing some sketchy stuff too against them. You can still win w/out having fun...
Everyone is free to play their PC however they like up until the point it impinges upon the other players' enjoyment of the game
Well said. So, why risk it? It's the footprint of a dumbass anyway. Stealing from another PC is very likely to ruin their fun. So, it goes w/out saying that the incidence of reciprocity rises considerably due to this. More diversions, less group play, more bickering/whining, all due to 1 PC, not something the DM threw at you vs. many PCs. It goes from a tight knit professional team to "Resevoir Dogs"; whole thing falls apart, no one can trust anyone, implosion is likely.
Some players don't mind it and it doesn't negatively impact their enjoyment of the game in the slightest. If it bothers you as a player then yes, your group needs to be deal with it - but as a group of players outside of the game not through your character in it.
Very few. But they do not speak for you or I, just themselves. Smart gamers know better than to pull this usually as it can undo an entire evening. They also know more money is more safely acquired w/ less risk in other venues of thievery, not poking the hornet's nest that is your party. It says more for the player than the character, so, yeah, it's personal decision that is likely to compromise someone else's idea of fun.
Just usually.
Not necessarily.
This sort of thing usually sours an otherwise fun, engaging evening w/ friends at the table.
Not necessarily. You may find this is "usually" the case, but for some it is never the case. Your experience is not necessarily universal and shouldn't be assumed as such.
My point stands that if it is negatively impacting the fun for someone in the group then it should be dealt with, but such dealing should occur out of game. Asking for rolls to detect the activity or having one's PC question the rogue about his activities when the PC has no knowledge of the need for such a roll or such an interrogation is using player knowledge, which is tantamount to cheating.
Now that that is out of the way I will admit in my days of playing roguish characters I did indeed squirrel away a little "sumpin sumpin" for myself on the rare occasion. I considered myself worthy of a little "retirement fund" so to speak but never anything overly expensive and definitely no gear that would be useful to another PC. I had no problem with this, but then again neither did any of my fellow gamers. We were all mature enough to roll with it and since I was a VERY important part of the group dynamic it was alright.
But that was us. If YOU have an issue with it there is one easy way to handle it: Sense Motive vs the rogues Bluff. Your PC should just ask the rogue flat out if she kept anything and when she answers let the dice do the deciding. Of course, since Bluff is a class skill for rogues she may well beat you. And if she does that is all there is too it.
It is sometimes difficult to keep from meta-gaming. If she beats you on the Bluff then your PC believes her; as a player though you will just have to write it off and pretend it never happened.
Just my advice...
My point stands that if it is negatively impacting the fun for someone in the group then it should be dealt with, but such dealing should occur out of game. Asking for rolls to detect the activity or having one's PC question the rogue about his activities when the PC has no knowledge of the need for such a roll or such an interrogation is using player knowledge, which is tantamount to cheating.
While I agree it's using player knowledge as a character motivation, I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it cheating. Although it's very close.
The point is, however, the rogue chooses their actions and if they choose to play their character in such a way, it's their choice. What they do with the wealth they pilfer under the party's nose is a matter of alignment. How the party reacts after they discover it is also a matter of alignment.
The one thing that does bother me about this situation is the reaction that it's provoked among the posters here. If a rogue's player has fun palming a bit of coin before the split, that's what they do. This is a game. They're playing a character that can do things that they, in real life can't and probably wouldn't. But to read the posts, most of the detractors would consider it a personal affront, almost as bad as if the player lifted their wallet while they were in the head.
Jeez, the rogue only pocketed a bit of imaginary coinage. It's not like he/she lifted your wallet, kicked your dog and boosted your car. Based on the tone of some of the posts, I begin to wonder if this is the right hobby for some of you.
I'd love to see some of the posters here play in one of the thieves-only games I've played in over the years. Lying, stealing, back-stabbing and skullduggery are the order of the day in those. It's not about saving the kingdom, at the end of the day, it's who has the biggest pile of coins and no companion is a life-long friend. Stringing up a former companion for pocketing more than his share is acceptable in those kinds of games.
Jeez, the rogue only pocketed a bit of imaginary coinage. It's not like he/she lifted your wallet, kicked your dog and boosted your car. Based on the tone of some of the posts, I begin to wonder if this is the right hobby for some of you.
Well, what happens if the rogue starts pocketing something a little more meatier than 3 gp? What if he steals a Boccob's Blessed Book that had information for one character and spells for another. What if it helped over come a difficult situation later on?
If party stealing stayed at a measely 3 gp per session, I'm sure people would have less extreme reactions to it. It does not, however, stay measely and it is not always fun.
I'd love to see some of the posters here play in one of the thieves-only games I've played in over the years. Lying, stealing, back-stabbing and skullduggery are the order of the day in those. It's not about saving the kingdom, at the end of the day, it's who has the biggest pile of coins and no companion is a life-long friend. Stringing up a former companion for pocketing more than his share is acceptable in those kinds of games.
You know, there's something different about playing a game and finding a thief in your midst compared to starting a game with everyone agreeing to play thieves and cutthroats.
The point is, however, the rogue chooses their actions and if they choose to play their character in such a way, it's their choice. What they do with the wealth they pilfer under the party's nose is a matter of alignment. How the party reacts after they discover it is also a matter of alignment.
I disagree. If a PC wants to lie to other PCs that is the players prerogative, and using methods other than RP - spells, skills, feats, etc. - to force the truth from them break one of the cardinal foundations of the game.
One of the fundamental tenets of D&D has always been that other PCs are off-limits to influence from other PCs' skills and abilities. Using PC abilities to influence or interact with other PCs effectively removes the element of controlling the actions of your own PC, one of the key cornerstones upon which D&D is built. Moreso in this case where the PC in question has no reason to question the rogue's story other than the fact the player knows what happened.
Two wrongs don't make a right (but three lefts do).
Well, what happens if the rogue starts pocketing something a little more meatier than 3 gp? What if he steals a Boccob's Blessed Book that had information for one character and spells for another.
I'd like to see the thief that can palm a spellbook. They'd have to have mitts like an ogre to pull that one off.
I'd like to see the thief that can palm a spellbook. They'd have to have mitts like an ogre to pull that one off.
Because every theft is a pickpocket?
You know, people can nick things while individuals sleep...
One of the fundamental tenets of D&D has always been that other PCs are off-limits to influence from other PCs' skills and abilities. Using PC abilities to influence or interact with other PCs effectively removes the element of controlling the actions of your own PC, one of the key cornerstones upon which D&D is built.
Is this referenced from anywhere? I wouldn't mind bringing it up at the table.
You know, people can nick things while individuals sleep...
If the rogue is stealing after the party knows about it, then he may as well slit their throats as well. But this was a discussion about stealing things the party had no knowledge of before.
Well, what happens if the rogue starts pocketing something a little more meatier than 3 gp? What if he steals a Boccob's Blessed Book that had information for one character and spells for another. What if it helped over come a difficult situation later on?
Then deal with it later on. Theoretical worst-cases scenarios are a poor justification for blanket everyday policy making.
If party stealing stayed at a measely 3 gp per session, I'm sure people would have less extreme reactions to it. It does not, however, stay measely and it is not always fun.
How do you know what will happen in the future?
You know, there's something different about playing a game and finding a thief in your midst compared to starting a game with everyone agreeing to play thieves and cutthroats.
Yes, but if the issue hadn't been discussed and decided at all then it is likely the people at the table have a different idea about what is allowable and what is not. The issue has now arisen and the players - not the characters - need to decide how to deal with it now and in the future.
And do not forget, the PCs have discovered nothing of the rogue's pilfering, just the player.
If the rogue is stealing after the party knows about it, then he may as well slit their throats as well. But this was a discussion about stealing things the party had no knowledge of before.
Well, I suppose we can get back to what the OP started.
The rogue finds said book under a bed while searching and keeps it instead of passing it on to the party. The OP did start this off with the thief taking two silver statues, a spellbook strikes me as being slightly easier to stuff away.
How do you know what will happen in the future?
Did the stealing in your group remain at 3 gp a session? I'm sure we could do a poll of thefts and I have a feeling you'll notice an escalation. I based my statement on my personal experiences and all the personal experiences mentioned in this thread. I've not seen a single poster say - 'Yup, I'm a thief. I only took 3 gp for an entire year long game.'
Yes, but if the issue hadn't been discussed and decided at all then it is likely the people at the table have a different idea about what is allowable and what is not. The issue has now arisen and the players - not the characters - need to decide how to deal with it now and in the future.
And do not forget, the PCs have discovered nothing of the rogue's pilfering, just the player.
You know, I agree that the players should discuss this outside of the game and (I believe) even said so at the beginning of this thread. However, there are situations where people disagree. Furthermore, this is a relatively minor thing - don't steal from party members. I don't see why there has to be huge allowances for the thief (and only the thief) to be allowed performing anti-party actions.
The OP did start this off with the thief taking two silver statues, a spellbook strikes me as being slightly easier to stuff away.
Depends on the size of the statue. The rogue can appraise the value of silver. Spellbooks aren't so easy. Without a bit of skill in the arcane, any rogue worth his weight would take the silver and share the book.
I don't know what you're imagining the size of a spellbook to be. Medieval books aren't the compact little things we have now. They're freakin' huge. Not something you can shove in a backpack quick and easy.
I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but everything mentioned by the pro-pilfery posters has been trinkets and baubles with a monetary value only. The anti-pilfery crowd assumes the Rogue is pocketting everything from spellbooks and vorpal swords to cathedral ceilings. There is a limit to how much a rogue can pocket, you know.
The anti-pilfery crowd assumes the Rogue is pocketting everything from spellbooks and vorpal swords to cathedral ceilings. There is a limit to how much a rogue can pocket, you know.
My next character is going to be a rogue with knowledge about architecture who's sole goal is to make off with a cathedral ceiling :P.
Well, what is the limit on size?
The book example (it was under a bed and not claimed... and is invisible, but let's not get too fancy here), was from a campaign that took place in Victorian times, so these books did tend to be compact. Sure, larger objects are harder than gold, but a thief has so many skills and bonuses that even if you have a decent spot, you're not likely to catch them.
This same campaign had plain parchment and inks as a rare item and these were some of the first things that thieves in the party nicked - severely hampering the spellcaster's abilities to scribe scrolls and copy spells in their spellbooks.
We sorted the problem out with out of game conversations, but the objects previously found just quietly disappeared instead of being shared. No blessed book and quite a few parchments were lost to inter-party skullduggery.
Did the stealing in your group remain at 3 gp a session? I'm sure we could do a poll of thefts and I have a feeling you'll notice an escalation. I based my statement on my personal experiences and all the personal experiences mentioned in this thread. I've not seen a single poster say - 'Yup, I'm a thief. I only took 3 gp for an entire year long game.'
Nope, I have, over the course of more years than I want to count gaming, stolen millions of gold pieces of treasure. Never more than five or ten coins at a tme, but, in some cases, every opportunity.
The worst offender of my characters was a well-known, well-respected and wealthy merchant that dealt in gems. The PCs never did figure out that the best of the gems were slipping into my pockets every time. They were happy to live off the wealth of my character without wondering why we never found any gems worth more than 50gp. And even those were as rare as hen's teeth.
Not necessarily.
Smart money is on the guy getting upset you just robbed him. Go figure.
Not necessarily. You may find this is "usually" the case, but for some it is never the case.
A very small minority. We work by the majority, not catering to fringe interests, especially those that detract from the gaming experience in no uncertain terms. It must be understood beforehand which is what most of these would be thieves are not establishing. ie)Unfair advantage so they are entitled to, what do you know, an unfair advantage.
Your experience is not necessarily universal and shouldn't be assumed as such.
It never was, do not imply otherwise. Irrelevant and untrue. Straying into personal territory, not impartial ones. We're? (I'm) talking simple facts.
To be fair though, since I started gaming in '83 w/ me and mine, we're talking,
My peeps of the geeky variety:
Show
-Between 10-13 competant DMs (perhaps 2X's that of poor ones) between ages 7-32 (present).
-Average 4 PC party/each, so 40-52 players of that demographic, not counting good/capable players under a poor DM's tenure (and they're myriad) that are just "gamers", not "friends I game with".
-Gencons '05, '06, and '08 w/ ALL THE RPGs we engaged therein (something like 4-5 games/day, of which the con runs for 4 days each)
-And then my personal gaming social circles past & present; current g/f, 3 ex g/f's, brother, 12 college friends (5 female, 7 male), old grade/high school gaming friends (7 male), and post undergrad (10 male), in addition to some new blood (2 female, 3 male), etc. etc.
-Then there's just the games I get invited to via brother usually; acquaintances, not necessarilly close friends (3 female, 7-10 male).
-Between 10-13 competant DMs (perhaps 2X's that of poor ones) between ages 7-32 (present).
-Average 4 PC party/each, so 40-52 players of that demographic, not counting good/capable players under a poor DM's tenure (and they're myriad) that are just "gamers", not "friends I game with".
-Gencons '05, '06, and '08 w/ ALL THE RPGs we engaged therein (something like 4-5 games/day, of which the con runs for 4 days each)
-And then my personal gaming social circles past & present; current g/f, 3 ex g/f's, brother, 12 college friends (5 female, 7 male), old grade/high school gaming friends (7 male), and post undergrad (10 male), in addition to some new blood (2 female, 3 male), etc. etc.
-Then there's just the games I get invited to via brother usually; acquaintances, not necessarilly close friends (3 female, 7-10 male).
I've never seen it adversely affect the fun of the game. It did get some player on edge or even briefly angered but knowing that they could shake down the rogue meant it wasn't a big deal. The rogue being aware that this would happen generally chose to stick with the party tend to avoid stealing noticeable amounts.
Also where do you draw the line. Is everything the rogues steals consider party loot to be split evenly. I think the rogue would disagree if they pick pocket a few nobles in the town where the party was staying and spending loot from the last dungeon they conquered.
My view of rogue is that they can't be trusted. They are thieves. Thieves steal things, this should be expected. You should also shake down a thief at the end of an adventure. If they've pocked some coin you'd probably not notice but if that spell book fell out of their pack you take it dump into into party treasure. Now the player of the thief should know this will happen and probably if they are smart wouldn't take the book in the first place but if they did they shouldn't be surprised that they were searched. That's how we play at a least. The rogues are just assumed to have stolen something.
Mate, I've played rogues or thieves for most of my gaming time. You might get away with searching my character once. The next adventure, you wouldn't make it to the end of to do so again. You searched me on principle, I cut out your kidney on principle, see, fair's fair.
The worst offender of my characters was a well-known, well-respected and wealthy merchant that dealt in gems. The PCs never did figure out that the best of the gems were slipping into my pockets every time. They were happy to live off the wealth of my character without wondering why we never found any gems worth more than 50gp. And even those were as rare as hen's teeth.
So you were taking more than 3gp worth of gems, eh? Also, the more expensive gems could probably have been used as spell components by the wizard.
Also where do you draw the line. Is everything the rogues steals consider party loot to be split evenly. I think the rogue would disagree if they pick pocket a few nobles in the town where the party was staying and spending loot from the last dungeon they conquered.
You know, we turned a blind eye to the thief at the beginning, him taking necklaces and what not from scouting and such. One of the big problems is escalation.
So you were taking more than 3gp worth of gems, eh? Also, the more expensive gems could probably have been used as spell components by the wizard.
I sold him everything he would ever need. I even gave him a healthy discount.
I sold him everything he would ever need. I even gave him a healthy discount.
I hope he charged you for the use of his spells too - at a healthy discount of course ;).
(PHB 3.5)
Sense Motive
Target wants to believe you -5
The bluff is believable and doesn't affect the target much +0
The bluff is a little hard to believe or puts the target at some risk +5
The bluff is hard to believe or puts the target at significant risk +10
The bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to consider +20
When in doubt.
Not that rogues are really credible types or anything...;)
Often, it's not even necessary over time, their larceny will betray itself.
Jayne_Cobb: One of the fundamental tenets of D&D has always been that other PCs are off-limits to influence from other PCs' skills and abilities.
See skill, combat, & ability assists, concincing others of an illusion's credibility, spell buffing, inspire courage, etc. I'd say the game depends on it often enough.
As for pocketing "a little here a little there", yeah, it can be harmless. Spread out across enough levels though...? All relative.
Still, "small". These are largely the incidents of note, yes? Not Bail-Out sized monies. I'm okay w/ that for the most part, but a good DM will take note and allow us our due, as in detection that is...provided IT WAS ESTABLISHED PRE-CAMPAIGN that these actions were "okay".
If I take an above average risk reconnoitering an area in lone scout fashion that is likely hot, it may be well w/in my purview to take something extra, but it's typically understood by the others that I'm taking extra risk. No biggie, I've earned it so to speak by skill, blade, or bluff. etc. Same thing w/ any other class that's going above and beyond. Reward that and you'll see more heroic measures. We're all Pavlovian dogs really.
However...when you start trafficing w/ Handy Haversack's, Gloves of Storing, and so on (and many rogues do [I swear by them anyway]), it changes everything/accessiblity and plausible deniability (see Sense Motive again). Again, they have an unfair advantage(s) for the purpose of gaining another unfair advantage ($).
And what of past history? Alignment? Character region? Background? Race? Other dubious activities? (see Sense Motive again). It all adds up, just like all those coppers, silvers, and golds...
Often a Search of the area yields the telling clues; dusty old tomb, convenient undusty drag marks or voids in the decrepitude might spell, "Uh, wasn't something here VERY recently?" [Insert PC doubt and suspicion here]. Cleared cobwebs, piles of shifted coins, thumb prints (did you just grab the 1st one or did you Appraise it?), etc.
Detc. Magic and things like that can inadvertantly do it too. Not even looking for a rat, these things can often betray a thief's theft. The irony being Spellcraft isn't a class skill for him just as Sense Motive isn't for many others. They just get large bonues depending on the ruse.
See how it fosters this proliferation of measure/counter-measure? Isn't this best simply avoided and applying those energies to another lucrative venture?
Mate, I've played rogues or thieves for most of my gaming time. You might get away with searching my character once. The next adventure, you wouldn't make it to the end of to do so again. You searched me on principle, I cut out your kidney on principle, see, fair's fair.
If the rogue plays that way they don't live long. After all the rogue agreed to it to join the party. Otherwise they can fight the fight on their own and that usually leads to dead rogues when they can't flank.
So I don't see why the role play should be glossed over in a hurry via die rolls,
It's only glossed over in a hurry if you allow it to be.
Depends on the size of the statue. The rogue can appraise the value of silver. Spellbooks aren't so easy. Without a bit of skill in the arcane, any rogue worth his weight would take the silver and share the book.
I don't know what you're imagining the size of a spellbook to be. Medieval books aren't the compact little things we have now. They're freakin' huge. Not something you can shove in a backpack quick and easy.
I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but everything mentioned by the pro-pilfery posters has been trinkets and baubles with a monetary value only. The anti-pilfery crowd assumes the Rogue is pocketting everything from spellbooks and vorpal swords to cathedral ceilings. There is a limit to how much a rogue can pocket, you know.
Because it never ends at the now proverbial 3gp.
The player will always try for a little more. He'll always test himself to see how much he can get away with. It doesn't end with mere treasure nor is treasure the only thing a party thief steals. Information is another major commodity. Those who would steal from the party tend to be the same ones who, given Important Information the party needs to know but only he knows, will refuse to tell the party. His feeling of superiority is proven because he knows something the party doesn't. His party members are his playthings. He cares not party members might get killed because they don't know the information. His character will live because he knows it, and that's all that matteers. He's the better player because he was the only one able to get the information. If another player is lucky enough to get the information, at least he got it first. He's the better player because he was able to get more treasure than everyone else, either taking the extra before the others divy it up with him getting his equal share from that and/or at the expense of someone else's already claimed treasure.
Players such as these are douchebags. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I have long since lost my patience with said players. I have nothing but contempt for them, and I don't give a damn how metagaming it is, my character will respond.
Blessedly my group doesn't have such a player. When I first joined the group 7 1/2 years ago, one such player joined soon after. My response at the time was to shun her, as the Amish would do to a member of their community who grossly violates their customs. I was the party cleric. The other players took my lead, and she quit after her second session. None of us was sorry to see her go.
As for someone who mentioned the fact that the rogue relies on his party just as much as they rely on him, this is true, to an extent. The rogue does however take additional risks that the party does not. In the case of traps, or locks, no one else can deal with the danger except the rogue. So put yourself in his shoes, he faces all the same combat dangers the rest of the team does, but he also faces the needle traps on locks, the pit traps that fall to spikes, the lightning floor traps and the finger of death traps that protect the gem sitting nestled in the statue. No one else faces these dangers, yet the rogue is expected to share an equal amount of treasure? Even the treasure that was acquired exclusively through the use of his unique skills?
So, I guess the fighter(tank) didn't help the rogue reach the traps by keeping the attention of any monsters onto him and taking the damage? Nor did the cleric(healer) help the rogue by healing/curing any wounds he may have suffered during combat or as the result of a triggered trap? How about the wizard(mage), he didn't help the rogue by casting invisibily here and there as needed or other such buffs and helpful spells?
Also, other classes can disarm traps. In 3.5 the scout class can find and disarm traps, just as a rogue.
Do this and you might even get some fun role-play out of it.
The only way I would make this an O.C issue is when the player in questions makes ALL his characters kleptomaniacs and goes out of his way with every character to rip the party off.
Because it never ends at the now proverbial 3gp.
Information is another major commodity. Those who would steal from the party tend to be the same ones who, given Important Information the party needs to know but only he knows, will refuse to tell the party. His feeling of superiority is proven because he knows something the party doesn't. His party members are his playthings. He cares not party members might get killed because they don't know the information. His character will live because he knows it, and that's all that matteers. He's the better player because he was the only one able to get the information. If another player is lucky enough to get the information, at least he got it first. He's the better player because he was able to get more treasure than everyone else, either taking the extra before the others divy it up with him getting his equal share from that and/or at the expense of someone else's already claimed treasure.
Players such as these are douchebags. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I have long since lost my patience with said players. I have nothing but contempt for them, and I don't give a damn how metagaming it is, my character will respond.
Blessedly my group doesn't have such a player. When I first joined the group 7 1/2 years ago, one such player joined soon after. My response at the time was to shun her, as the Amish would do to a member of their community who grossly violates their customs. I was the party cleric. The other players took my lead, and she quit after her second session. None of us was sorry to see her go.
See, here you're talking about a bad player. Sure, some people are douches and make themselves unwanted at the table. What I'm referring to are friends who have been friends for years, not freaking out when one the the friend's characters happens to palm a few gold. It's a few gold, and if another character sees it, of course that character is going to react. My point is as long as it remains a few gold and not something that would truly impact another character, and the friends are ok with it, where's the prob?
And please don't say, "It never stays a few gold", because you're really just projecting your assumptions onto my friends, who you don't know. We've gamed for more than a decade and I think every thief has palmed stuff and it has never been a biggie, because 1) the thief doesn't make it big by taking too much and 2) nobody freaks about it. Just don't say it can't happen just because you never experienced it. Maybe you've never experienced it because you're too willing to freak out about little things....
I wouldnt get mad as a player regardless though which it seems a lot of people would. In the long scheme of things, your characters abilities should prove to be more valuable than your characters treasure. Sure you could have bought something with that gold the rogue stole, but its not like his treasure directly gives him combat advantage. (If by chance it does however, the GM should find ways to make sure the other party members dont get left behind).
I noticed someone saying that in every adventure they play, they automatically assume the rogue is a filthy thief and shake them down afterwards. I think this is very bad gameplay no matter how long you've been doing it.
1. I dont think every character you make should believe the same way.
2. Logically, your character would repel any rogue wanting to adventure with you and you would have to disarm the traps and scout ahead yourself.
Basically you shake down rogues without proof so for all you know, theyre innocent. Are all your characters chaotic? Time for a change i think. Either that or you use ooc knowlege EVERY TIME. In that case, you should be ashamed.
I noticed someone saying that in every adventure they play, they automatically assume the rogue is a filthy thief and shake them down afterwards. I think this is very bad gameplay no matter how long you've been doing it.
1. I dont think every character you make should believe the same way.
2. Logically, your character would repel any rogue wanting to adventure with you and you would have to disarm the traps and scout ahead yourself.
The one rogue I played only stole from party members before they had joined up as a party. Once he was in a party with them he would not have stolen from them since he was loyal enough to not do that sort of thing and would have been really mad if a party member had accused him of stealing like that without pretty concrete proof.
Do these people threaten the LG rogues in the party with this treatment?
Do these people threaten the LG rogues in the party with this treatment?
That would prove interesting. The only LG rogue I've ever played is the one I'm playing currently and I fairly certain he could take the rest of the party right now*.
*A couple levels of fighter mixed in with rogue will do that.
That would prove interesting. The only LG rogue I've ever played is the one I'm playing currently and I fairly certain he could take the rest of the party right now*.
*A couple levels of fighter mixed in with rogue will do that.
I'm assuming this is 4e?
4e should be a little different to handle. With the way they do skills, anyone could be a thief. Auto-shakedowns would be little less than molestation.
Two wrongs don't make a right
They make it even :D
Sorry, couldn't resist
I'm assuming this is 4e?
3.5 actually.
Our DM told me that based on where the party was at the time when my last character died, that the only race that made any sense to rejoin the party right away was a goblin or orc. So I created a goblin that was a slave before escaping with an NPC dwarf. At the point where he joined the campaign, he'd been scouting/raiding the orc strongholds that the PCs are heading for.
I was late getting to the session that I joined them with my new fighter/rogue, so I arrived just as it was turning into a TPK. Since the only one that I was able to save was the wizard, the other three players have since made the rest of the scouting party*.
With the right combination of feats and skills, I can manage a 28 AC as a full defense, 25 fighting defensively and a 21 normally. With Move Silent and Hide both at 15 (modified) and weapon finesse to make sure I can score a hit, I made one heck of a tough goblin. But I can't do sleight of hand and Bluffing is out of the question.
*The other players loved the detailed history I wrote so much that they jumped on the bandwagon and made dwarves to accompany my goblin that acts more like a dwarf than dwarves do.