In your campaign, which is worse: killing or stealing?

First of all I just want to say that I have always been impressed at the maturity level of everyone here at EN World. 'nuff said.

Next let me say that I believe, as a person and in real life, that stealing is wrong but taking a life is much worse. I will leave it at that.

My question is for what is acceptable within your RPG campaign and what is considered acceptable for the characters or NPCs that you play.

In your campaign, which is worse, killing or stealing?

This came about in an old group when I played a rogue-type character who had reached a fairly high level along with some decent magic items. Based on his skills and equipment, he could be a fairly accomplished cat-burglar or thief.

To make things clear, my character had never played such a role in the past, but with the advent of my skills and equipment, I was more than up for such a role. I have always enjoyed playing stealthy-like characters and encounters.

During a session, I brought this up with the DM and the group, asking if I could attempt to play in such a manner, attempting to steal from crooked rich merchants or evil characters. My character's alignment was Chaotic Good, so I felt that stealing from crooked merchants would fit within my alignment. However, my main goal for wanting to steal was more for greed, but I would only target those who deserved it: crooked merchants, evil bad guys. On the other hand, my motivation was greed, but if it hurt the bad guys, so much the better.

Once I brought this before the entire group, the general response was stealing is a wrong and evil act. One player stated that anyone stealing from him (his character) would immediately attacked and killed. This was not in reference to my character, but just an example of his strong dislike for stealing. The DM agreed that stealing, especially for greed and even from "evil" characters, would still itself be an evil act.

However, I then brought up the arguement of "what about all those people we kill just because they are evil or think that evil?" My arguement was that taking a life is worse than stealing. The group still felt differently. So I basically said (something along the lines of):

"So it's better for us to gather information about an evil merchant, prove that he is evil, then storm into his house, and kill him because we have undeniable proof that he is evil (which is usually the case)? It would be more evil to steal from him causing his business to collapse while making some profit, but allowing him to keep his life."

This was met with "I don't know" and "if anyone steals from I will kill them with no problem" and "it's different when your fighting somone", etc.

In the end, I agreed to go with the group on this one, but it still sat wrong with me that "taking a life" is more acceptable than "stealing".

How is this handled in your campaign?

there are only 3 alignments in my campaign.

lawful
chaotic
neutral.

thieves can not be lawful.
assassins can not be lawful.

so theft and assassination/murder are non lawful acts. ergo... punishable by the law.

its worse to kill, but stealing is not taken lightly. That will get you stiff fines and possible time in the work camps.

While killing the victim causes him more harm than stealing from him (at least in the real world, where we don't have raise dead spells), an individual gains very little from killing other people -- but stealing from other people benefits the thief tremendously.

Thus, if you accept that both killing and stealing are sometimes justifiable, you'll find a lot of borderline-justifiable theft going on. As a society, you'd want to punish theft of 100 gp more than an assault requiring 100 gp of magical medical expenses, to take into account the incentives involved.

Killing cold-blooded murder not defending self or at war or evil creature - as defined in my campiagn.

Stealing is a crime that only applies in lawful areas. Barbarians steal all the time, horses, cattle, as part of their culture, breaking your word is a greater crime.

The surprising thing is most adventurer's kill then steal/loot.

I think Killingis worse. No chance of correcting the situation by the characters power alone. Yeah you can raise dead etc but that falls under a god's power not the players. That is for the most part (wishes and such break that general rule)

Stealing can be fixed survived. Think would I want my wife/child/husband mugged or murdered?

Later

IMC theft has always been considered "worse" by the players primarily because the victim was able to do something to rectify the situation.

This, to me, is one of the problems with the alignment system like it stands.

Does a person's general disposition on his sheet make him evil, or his actions?

You could have a person who is a city bureaucrat, a petty and selfish little man who uses his position for gain at the cost of others but still manages to perform his job. He hasnt done any outright acts of total evil, mostly abuses of power for small material gain in the gray areas of his job and occasionally disgracing a rival in the system, and while not being liked because of his snivelling ways is respected by his superiors and peers as an efficient civil servant. He would be considered 'evil' by the definition of the alignment system, even though he has not committed any seriously evil acts. Does that make it ok to kill him and take his property? It says evil on his sheet.

A paladin believes it is his deity-given right to punish the wicked, sometimes at the cost of innocent life. He decides who is guilty and who is not, and he has tracked down and slain ordinary men who have broken the law, say for instance they stole to feed their family, even beaten a fat selfish merchant when caught. He broke the law, and paid the price. Does that make the paladin good, that he wantonly killed an ordinary man who fell upon hard times? Is says good on his sheet.

Sometimes the view of alignment can be a bit too cut and dried in D&D while it really isnt. It's not the viewpoint of the person that makes them truly evil, but their actions and the motivations behind them. Not everyone plays it that way, but it can be too easy to fall into that IMO.

Anyway, to answer your question, I don't believe that stealing is worse than killing in most cases; I would look to the motivation and the circumstances. True to the game, often it is justifiable, but there is always a fine line that most folks dont worry about with either. Relieving a man of his property is much less of a moral or lawful quandry than relieving him of his life; he can always get more property while he only has the one life. If a thief steals from an 'honest' merchant to benefit himself it's an evil act; if he steals from a crooked merchant the money that the merchant in turn swindled from poor peasants, it is most likely less so IMO.

Just my 2 cents.

Hand of Evil said:

Stealing is a crime that only applies in lawful areas. Barbarians steal all the time, horses, cattle, as part of their culture, breaking your word is a greater crime.

Click to expand...

Barbarian tribes steal from other tribes all the time.

Stealing is not always evil... in many cases, it is caused out of desperation and necessity. As a matter of law, it's bad.

But, when done in a pressing circumstance, it can be considered an absolute necessity. Think, Aladin... *cue music*
"Gotta eat to live, gotta steal to eat... tell you all about it when I've got the time!"

Cheers!