Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="aboyd" data-source="post: 4806239" data-attributes="member: 44797">That doesn't seem odd to me in some ways.&nbsp; First of all, &quot;killing githyanki&quot; may be done as part of a war or in isolation from the rest of gith civilization.&nbsp; In those ways, the characters may be able to escape consequences.&nbsp; If they kill a wicked powerful gith, it may be that no other gith stand up to retaliate, or that no other gith even see it happen.&nbsp; The dead may be written off as casualties of combat, and the leaders may soldier onward with grim determination rather than taking it personally.However, with thievery, you risk getting caught by everyone and jailed.&nbsp; It is essentially a social crime rather than a war crime.&nbsp; Because of this societies tend to view them harshly in the sense that &quot;it hurts all of us&quot; (as opposed to &quot;honoring our fallen&quot; in a war sense).Also, you kill some monsters and likely the whole party is on board and ready to oppose enemies with solidarity.&nbsp; You pickpocket your way into jail behind the other players' backs, you have no solidarity.&nbsp; You may rot in jail while the rest of the group goes after hobgoblins.&nbsp; That's not just a metagame consequence, that's an in-character reality, too.Of course, if the DM is cool with it and the players are on board, I think becoming thieves sounds fun.&nbsp; I've often daydreamed about a low level game where wizards &amp; rogues &amp; bards coordinate -- the wizards using Mage Hand and Open/Close to aid rogues who snatch what they can, and the bards using social skills to talk their way out of jail time if caught.So, I think your way of looking at it is reasonable, but I think this is also a valid perspective:Using teamwork to overcome monstrous enemies who endanger civilization (and who write off their dead as &quot;cost of war&quot;) - sensible.Splitting the party so one player can hog the spotlight and make enemies of entire towns - injurious and stupid.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="aboyd, post: 4806239, member: 44797"] That doesn't seem odd to me in [i]some[/i] ways. First of all, "killing githyanki" may be done as part of a war or in isolation from the rest of gith civilization. In those ways, the characters may be able to escape consequences. If they kill a wicked powerful gith, it may be that no other gith stand up to retaliate, or that no other gith even see it happen. The dead may be written off as casualties of combat, and the leaders may soldier onward with grim determination rather than taking it personally. However, with thievery, you risk getting caught by [i]everyone[/i] and jailed. It is essentially a social crime rather than a war crime. Because of this societies tend to view them harshly in the sense that "it hurts all of us" (as opposed to "honoring our fallen" in a war sense). Also, you kill some monsters and likely the whole party is on board and ready to oppose enemies with solidarity. You pickpocket your way into jail behind the other players' backs, you have no solidarity. You may rot in jail while the rest of the group goes after hobgoblins. That's not just a metagame consequence, that's an in-character reality, too. Of course, if the DM is cool with it and the players are on board, I think becoming thieves sounds fun. I've often daydreamed about a low level game where wizards & rogues & bards coordinate -- the wizards using Mage Hand and Open/Close to aid rogues who snatch what they can, and the bards using social skills to talk their way out of jail time if caught. So, I think your way of looking at it is reasonable, but I think this is also a valid perspective: Using teamwork to overcome monstrous enemies who endanger civilization (and who write off their dead as "cost of war") - sensible. Splitting the party so one player can hog the spotlight and make enemies of entire towns - injurious and stupid. [/QUOTE]

Verification