How do YOU play a rogue?

[Tessarael]

Remember that a rogue doesn't have to be a thief. In a party of paladins and clerics, I would play a rogue as a detective, scout and investigator, with skill ranks in Gather Information, Sense Motive, Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Listen, Search and Disable Device.

The problem is that other players can be very suspicious of someone who's put levels in Rogue. Say you present yourself as a lightly armored fighter with two shortswords. Fine, no problem. Start showing you can sneak, and suspicion comes from nowhere sometimes.

It really depends on the players. In an ideal world, even in a Lawful Good party, if your character acts nice around them, they _should_ treat you well, but often they won't ... because _you might_ steal something, or get treasure and not share it or whatever. Blah. I don't like that sort of attitude, and I do like playing Rogues.

It really depends on the roleplayers and the group. With a mature group of roleplayers and a DM who's happy with other alignments, I'd be quite happy to play a Rogue of any alignment in even a Lawful Good party. How I act around them, what I do because I'm adventuring with them, may well be Lawful Good - or at least not directly evil, but that doesn't mean my character is good all the time, law-abiding, or well-intentioned. (By the same token, my character might be. )

Example:

Realms campaign where I played a Lawful Evil fighter. The rest of the party were approximately NG or CG. My character looked down on peasants, didn't care about slaves, etc. Now if the party wanted to kill Drow who had slaves, no problem ... but my character would kill the Drow in preference to saving the slaves lives ... and besides the other guys will save most of the wretched slaves anyway. When the party Bard decided to sing about our exploits, my character politely requested to not be included. When the Bard continued, my character picked the Bard up and threatened bodily harm. LE = I'm stronger than you, so you better do what I say.

It seemed to work ok, though caused the party trouble sometimes. But it's also useful sometimes to have a character who doesn't mind bullying, torture, death of a few hostages, etc. I think that got them out of one bad spot.

Just my thoughts ...

 

[Len]

The problem is that other players can be very suspicious of someone who's put levels in Rogue. Say you present yourself as a lightly armored fighter with two shortswords. Fine, no problem. Start showing you can sneak, and suspicion comes from nowhere sometimes.

This is true. The other players in my game, and even the DM, keep referring to my character as "the thief" even though he's never stolen anything (since they met anyway). His background is more to do with assassination, but somehow that's not an issue.

 

[I'm A Banana]

How do YOU play a rogue?

While a bard is a string intrument, rogues are more woodwind, so I play them by blowing into their mouthpeice.

 

[Particle_Man]

Well, I once played a "straight" rogue that became an absolutely fanatical follower of Pelor. He was CG, so was impulsive, and tended to leap into combat when he shouldn't have (trading 3 hp damage to a mummy for mummy rot from said mummy didn't work out too well), showed great respect to all pc and npc priests of Pelor, was always willing to scout ahead, look for dangers (traps, etc.),mix it up with the "Bad guys", etc.

But yah, I guess if the players are going to say "thief!" all the time, then maybe play an LG rogue with a level of paladin just to shut them up.

 

[Armadon63]

They do have a good aligned assassin in the BoED.

 

[FireLance]

The problem is that other players can be very suspicious of someone who's put levels in Rogue. Say you present yourself as a lightly armored fighter with two shortswords. Fine, no problem. Start showing you can sneak, and suspicion comes from nowhere sometimes.

It really depends on the players. In an ideal world, even in a Lawful Good party, if your character acts nice around them, they _should_ treat you well, but often they won't ... because _you might_ steal something, or get treasure and not share it or whatever. Blah. I don't like that sort of attitude, and I do like playing Rogues.

Right, which is why you have to play the rogue against type, and really ham it up. Rub the noses of the other players in the "Lawful Good" entry under the "Alignment" section of your character sheet. Be as or more lawful good than the paladin, and watch their minds crumble from the trauma of shattered prejudices.

Seriously, if there's this kind of intra-party suspicion and lack of trust just because someone wants to play a character of a particular class, it can't be very much fun to game with them.

 

[Dirigible]

Like a thieving porn star.

Wait, did I do this joke already?

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

My favorite rogue character in D&D3 was a self-proclaimed professional adventurer; he could fight, he could sneak, he could talk, he could use magic items, he could do it all. For him, it was all about getting fortune and glory, so he was generally up for most good-oriented quests just because that tended to bring in the most fame (and avoided working for evil goals because infamy wasn't the same thing). He was a relentless self-promoter, a fearless scout, a decisive leader, and a very quick thinker. Also, the only time he'd ever shut up was if he was being stealthy, and there was something very off-putting about just how desperately he was pursuing fame.

He was kind of like a very talented musician who works twenty hours a day trying to become a superstar...and treats everyone like they're dying to either be his groupie or be part of his backup band. You sort of liked him and you could see that he had the potential to really succeed, but you suspected there might be something very wrong about the way he was going after it. Overall, though, he tended to be the first and most decisive voice in party discussions, and generally got the Most Valuable Character nod at the end of each adventure.

Even so, it still took about a half-dozen sessions before the other players (not the other characters, oddly enough) were willing to admit that he wasn't a thief character. You wouldn't think it would take that long, considering that he never stole anything and had nothing but scorn for thieves in general, but I guess old AD&D habits die hard.

So based on that, I'd say that I like to play rogues as flamboyant, swashbuckling, masterful, wannabe superstars who look for a way to leverage every situation to their advantage through wits or agility. Forget playing rogues as dour, vicious assassins or shifty-eyed double-dealing thieves: rogues are the rock stars of the D&D adventuring world. They're Indiana Jones plus Zorro plus James Bond, only cooler.

--
and obviously, rogues don't need to maintain a particularly firm grip on reality
ryan

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think we never had a real problem with rogue != thief.
Okay, when someone says he wants to play a rogue, we always expect him to be the one to find and disable traps and open locks, but that is just because no other class can do it. Very similar to that you expect a fighter to swing a big sword or a cleric to heal wounded party members.

In this situation, I might have have played a Rogue/Paladin. A charismatic and gentle person that has a good way with people. A little bit Bluff, much Diplomacy, Gather Information and Sense Motive, and the rest is open to discussion. After a few levels multiclass into Paladin.
A possible background: The character might be the heir of an old/lost/dying kingdom or something similar, and he wants to prove to himself and other that he would be worth such a title, and obviously he wants to help the common man.

A rogue could also be a good Inquisitor (even Good churches might need someone who asks the right question, even if they don`t use torture) - Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive are once again the best skills for this character.

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[ThoughtBubble]

I play rogues like they're bards, but have to make up for my lack of spellpower with generally being more useful (but less flashy). They're charming, personable, and they've got a whole bunch of other useful skills too, when they decide to show them.

Anyway in the good cleric/ paladin group, I would have gone one of two routes. Either the pious rogue, or the vagabond child who was taken in by the church, but never really lost his wild streak (or something between the two). But with the loads of skill points, I'd definately pick up ranks of Knowledge (appropriate religion) and Heal. That seems appropriately Clerical.

Either way though, I'd present myself as a scout, and a general aide. Sometimes violence isn't the best answer, and I woudln't have been given such nimble hands, if not to use them in service. And generally, I'd be friendly, happy, and so typically lawful good that I could pass myself off as an odd sort of Paladin.