Romnipotent said:
Theres consequences of course, its a dangerous thing to skim the top off but its still a decent roleplaying thing if it fits in.
But, IMO, it does not ever (or virtually so) fit in. PC's are, as a rule, formed into a party that is first and foremost expected to work together willingly, relying upon each other for their very lives as well as combined fortunes. Unless it is the very concept of the campaign to actively encourage intra-party subterfuge and violence, or if it is known at the very outset that players must expect to possibly defend their characters at every moment from other PC's, you must accept that not all character concepts are equally valid. Not every action that is POSSIBLE, is appropriate, acceptible, or will have the same, "Oh, it's all good because it's all just roleplaying," reaction from other players.
So a greedy and miserly hobgoblin who sells everything for the party has no reason to take some extra gold as long as no one gets hurt?
That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that, as a rule, the player should not be allowed to introduce into the party a character that the player INTENDS to use to deprive other PLAYERS of rewards to which their characters ARE otherwise entitled. It would be no different than allowing a player to introduce into a good-aligned party an evil character with the assassin prestige class with the intent to murder another players paladin. You could allow that sort of thing in VERY narrow circumstances when all players are aware of at LEAST the possibility going in. However, players should otherwise NEVER EVER have to EXPECT other PC's to cheat theirs or be in any way antagonistic. It requires something more than, "I CAN, so I WILL," as a valid roleplaying motive for doing it.
PC's work together and trust each other AS A RULE. Do as you will, but I for one will not allow a rogue to skim off the top without VERY good reason to do so - and, "The other players/PC's should have mistrusted me in the first place so it's their responsibility," is NOT a good enough reason. Even if I did allow rogues to freely steal from other PC's for whatever reason, simply skimming off the top because the PLAYER is given control of dividing treasure is being a meta-gaming jerk. Again, IMO and IME.
A PC who steals from other PC's IMO first needs an in-game occurrence, something that happens after play begins, as an incitement to this kind of thing before I as DM will allow them to go down that road. In such a situation I will deny that PLAYER, the responsibility for treasure distribution - even though the PC might still be given total control IN-GAME for handling the party funds. Even if it means I have to do it myself it is just that kind of situation that makes an exception to the rule that I otherwise advocate that the DM has no business getting involved in treasure distribution among PC's except placing it in a dungeon. As DM it is my responsibility in such a situation to retain full control over how and when other PC's or NPC's may/may not notice what's happening, how difficult it might be for the PC to get away with it, how much money he actually CAN get when he does it, and so forth.
It is also my responsibility to ensure that if/when the embezzling PC is discovered that the fallout REMAINS an in-game issue. Everyone is rightly saying that if the theft is being done in-character that they WILL have their own characters respond in-game with violence, up to and including the death of the thief. However, I don't see those same people acknowledging that there is every possibility (given that the player can, and sometimes will, do this without ever bothering to inform even the DM) that the PLAYERS who discover their characters have been stolen from on a routine basis by another character may RIGHTFULLY consider it a purely meta-game issue and NOT an in-game issue. As DM it is your responsibility to be aware of what the PLAYER is doing, WHY their character is doing it, controlling the entire situation as regards other players and their PC's, and in general assuring that the whole affair is kept IN-GAME where it belongs.
Now if you have mature players, if everybody knows that a little intra-party violence or antagonism can be a rich source of roleplaying opportunities and will handle it appropriately, if other players DON'T mind their characters being shortchanged on a regular basis, don't let ME stop you. But I still don't consider it a particularly clever, useful, or valid bit of roleplaying any more than I consider it particularly clever, amusing, or skillful for the banker in a game of Monopoly to keep grabbing extra 20's and 50's when other players aren't looking. There are OTHER ways in which you can repeatedly roleplay your greedy, miserly hobgoblin rogue PC without needing to stiff other players to prove your roleplaying superiority.
Frankly, it hasn't even been necessary for me to get all authoritarian about this kind of thing because none of my players have been immature enough to try it for the last 15 years or so.
*snip*
