Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6577627" data-attributes="member: 4937">Most interestingly, in 1e/2e AD&D a thief was still a thief even if they never stole anything.  It was more the capacity for skullduggery that defined the class, than the actual immorality of it.  I suspect that was part of the thinking that got the class name changed from thief to rogue.   In 2e, not every rogue was a thief - some were bards.In any edition, there are examples of thieves or rogues that aren't criminals (necessarily at least).Circus acrobats, clowns, jesters, spies, sentinels, courtiers, courtesans, actors, and detectives could all be rogues or thieves - even though their own society might not consider them criminals.  Additionally, the criminal trade implied by 'thief' or 'rogue' isn't necessarily limited to pickpocket, mugger, burglar, bandit, pirate, cutpurse, and similar trades of overt theft.  There are thieves or rogues who are smugglers, con-artists and various specialists in larceny (diplomats?), gamblers, forgers, fences, prostitutes, beggars, and pretty much any trade where dishonesty could be part of the job description (sales-person?, advertising executive?, lawyer?, politician?).Of course, class is not profession and profession is not class, so any given thief need not have the thief class.  Muggers, bandits, highwaymen, pirates and similar thugs might well be fighters or some other more martial class.  In 3e, there is a high likelihood that most of the professions for which the rogue is well suited, are more commonly simply experts of some sort and in some cases even commoners.   In 1e there was a high likelihood that someone had developed a specific class for any given profession and had it published somewhere.</blockquote>

Verification