In your campaign, which is worse: killing or stealing?
- Thread starter dreaded_beast
- Start date
Terwox
First Post
I think it depends on the type of DM you've had.
If you've had a DM who is reluctant to kill people, but a bit new, gives out equipment that is too good, and then has hordes of mirror imaged leprechauns run screaming with hands outstretched at the party to take back that sunsword that it's ok if it's a longsword so you can be an elven cusinart... well, stealing stinks when you think about people robbing your characters.
I think Henry is right, too... we're used to whacking people, and people who want to steal invariably -rob the party- because "I'm evil so I take the fighter's sword!" or blabhalh. I think the hatred of stealing in D&D players is because they've gamed with someone who wasn't trying to make the game fun for everyone, just for themselves.
That's my idea, at least. I've played a chaotic good rogue/paladin of Oliddammara or however you spell that darn guy... sort of a robin hood type guy... I dunno, the alignment was wavery at best, but it was a fun character and game.
Heh, another reason not to steal from villians is everyone knows that if you steal from villians and don't instead kill them and burn their ashes that they'll come back to haunt you. Alas..
If you've had a DM who is reluctant to kill people, but a bit new, gives out equipment that is too good, and then has hordes of mirror imaged leprechauns run screaming with hands outstretched at the party to take back that sunsword that it's ok if it's a longsword so you can be an elven cusinart... well, stealing stinks when you think about people robbing your characters.
I think Henry is right, too... we're used to whacking people, and people who want to steal invariably -rob the party- because "I'm evil so I take the fighter's sword!" or blabhalh. I think the hatred of stealing in D&D players is because they've gamed with someone who wasn't trying to make the game fun for everyone, just for themselves.
That's my idea, at least. I've played a chaotic good rogue/paladin of Oliddammara or however you spell that darn guy... sort of a robin hood type guy... I dunno, the alignment was wavery at best, but it was a fun character and game.
Heh, another reason not to steal from villians is everyone knows that if you steal from villians and don't instead kill them and burn their ashes that they'll come back to haunt you. Alas..
Thanee
First Post
dreaded_beast said:
Stealing is not as bad as killing.
As a very rough statement, stealing is chaotic and killing is evil.
Of course, this is not always true. Stealing from a poor family would certainly be an evil act as well, while killing an evil demon is certainly more a good act, than an evil act. It always depends on the situation.
My CG rogue with high pick pocket skill only stole from those who could afford it, for example. That's surely anything but lawful, but it can't really be seen as evil as well. It led to some interesting situations, like when she met her future romantic interest. She stole his purse on a market and after checking the loot, discovered a signet ring (the man who the ring rightfully belonged to was a noble of rather high standing), which in that country could be used for quite a bit, if you were unscrupulous enough. Since her primary alignment is good, she didn't want to do any harm to him and gave it back, altho she could net quite a sum for the signet ring of a high noble. Of course, she bluffed him into believing, that he actually lost it and she spotted it and picked it up.
In another situation, when the party came across an overturned stage coach, which must have been attacked by bandits, she climbed inside to help the two women that were lying there unconscious, a younger woman and her rather corpulent governess, who was almost suffocating her protege with her weight. So, while the paladin and LG cleric were right outside of the coach, she picked only the governess' jewelry - hey, it didn't suit her anyways 
- to "punish" her for almost killing the other woman indirectly.I think that is within the limits of CG behaviour, altho certainly stressing it a bit.
Bye
Thanee
Nope, they steal from the armies that have been coming into their lands too.mmadsen said:
This all goes back to my soapbox, defining evil in your game and building cultural taboos (which I will not go into).
Last edited:
Painfully
First Post
It's important to look at the motivation behind the stealing or killing.
There can be good reasons to steal, and bad ones too. Stealing for the sake of greed is bad. Consider Robin Hood. If he kept the money he stole to himself and his men, then he'd be just another criminal. What he did with the money instead was help the poor community.
Since the beginning of human society, stealing is recognized as something "wrong." There's just no way around it. The only time it is right is as a punishment for some wrongful act or behavior, or if you can find a way to create something more essentially good. "Essentially good," could be anything from saving a life, to releasing a captive princess from the castle of an abusive king. There is still that, "two wrongs don't make a right" thing going on though. YMMV.
Your admission that you steal for greed makes you evil.
Fighting and killing are different, in that it takes two people to fight, and one person to kill. It must be both sides that are willing to commit to peace. Defending one's own life is something every living thing has a right to do.
In game terms, we seek to kill "evil" monsters. The DM defines what that is for his own campaign. It can be many different shades of grey, or it can be black and white. It can also include a combination of those types. Many interesting plots can be developed by going against the stereotype. Killing a dragon that hasn't bothered anybody for 1,000 years is probably evil. Killing an kobold that only uses insults is probably evil.
B&W good/evil can often feel too much like a fairy tale at times, but it also requires less thought from players and DMs. Some creatures are always harmful to peaceful community living. Those creatures would be killed for the sake of preserving the community. In some campaigns, that would include all orcs, ogres, dragons, etc., because they ALWAYS cause harm to peaceful living.
It's really up to your DM to determine when killing is appropriate or not. People prefer not to make too fine a point of it, because this is a game.
If you get really into it, then soon you'll be into politics and the death penalty, etc.
There can be good reasons to steal, and bad ones too. Stealing for the sake of greed is bad. Consider Robin Hood. If he kept the money he stole to himself and his men, then he'd be just another criminal. What he did with the money instead was help the poor community.
Since the beginning of human society, stealing is recognized as something "wrong." There's just no way around it. The only time it is right is as a punishment for some wrongful act or behavior, or if you can find a way to create something more essentially good. "Essentially good," could be anything from saving a life, to releasing a captive princess from the castle of an abusive king. There is still that, "two wrongs don't make a right" thing going on though. YMMV.
Your admission that you steal for greed makes you evil.
Fighting and killing are different, in that it takes two people to fight, and one person to kill. It must be both sides that are willing to commit to peace. Defending one's own life is something every living thing has a right to do.
In game terms, we seek to kill "evil" monsters. The DM defines what that is for his own campaign. It can be many different shades of grey, or it can be black and white. It can also include a combination of those types. Many interesting plots can be developed by going against the stereotype. Killing a dragon that hasn't bothered anybody for 1,000 years is probably evil. Killing an kobold that only uses insults is probably evil.
B&W good/evil can often feel too much like a fairy tale at times, but it also requires less thought from players and DMs. Some creatures are always harmful to peaceful community living. Those creatures would be killed for the sake of preserving the community. In some campaigns, that would include all orcs, ogres, dragons, etc., because they ALWAYS cause harm to peaceful living.
It's really up to your DM to determine when killing is appropriate or not. People prefer not to make too fine a point of it, because this is a game.
If you get really into it, then soon you'll be into politics and the death penalty, etc.
Li Shenron
Legend
This is the most interesting topic I have recently read on these boards, good thoughts! 
I think that indeed it's very common in RPG that stealing is considered wrong, and often associated with evil and chaotic alignments (tolerating it for CG and more rarely for LE).
I believe the reason is because also often in real life stealing is percieved as a worse offense. First thing that came to my mind when I read your thread was how horse-stealers were punished with the gallows pole in the past, while perhaps murderers were simply imprisoned, and rapers were often ignored until not so long time ago. History is full of examples of laws or habits that (my) property was more worth than (your) life. I am not a historian, nor a sociologist or psychologist, but I have seen many more people enraged by a theft happened to them than for any other reason.
I toss in a couple of spare and inarticulated thoughs about this subject
Maybe #1
Who is the typical victim of a theft? The rich obviously, since the poor doesn't have much to be stolen. The rich is at the same time the powerful. It has power to claim the thief's life and does so to vengeance the affront against him. He is more rarely the victim of a murder, since with power he can better defend himself, and when it happens it is typically because he is killed by someone more powerful than him.
Who is the typical victim of a murder? The poor, since his life is less defended both physically and by the laws. In the real world of the past (and not so "past" after all...) there were big differences if you killed a rich or a poor, a noble or a peasant and so on.
Even if we believe that our contemporary world works much better, the view still lingers on, and after all the laws are still written on the majority by the rich and powerful. In fact it still happens to see examples of powerful people getting away with serious crimes (my God, being Italian I could name thousands of cases, but I would be banned for speaking "political"
) while immigrant or gypsy wallet-stealers go straight to jail.
Maybe #2
Killing has still an ancestral feel of being a display of power. If you kill it means you are strong, and the more you kill the stronger you probably are. When the law - both in the form of legislators, of judges, and of guards - goes after a killer, it is going after a tough target. If the guard catches the killer, who knows how the killer may react? It's likely that the guard risks his own life, therefore it may be better to unconsciously go easier with it. If the judge gives the multi-murderer gangster a serious prison sentence, who knows how the boss may retaliate against the judge's family? Better not to consider it such a serious crime after all.
On the other hands, thieves are weak. If they were strong, they would probably not need to steal, they would have found another way to get what they want, either lafwul of unlawful. The strength of the thief is her stealthiness, agility, quickness and smartness, but once you put your hands on her, she's so easy to crush.
Let's exploit this facts, put theft on top of the most dishonorable crimes, and see the people praise the rulers of the land about how good they are in fighting evil.
Maybe #3
Where does property come from? The world had a beginning when no one owned anything, so when did someone start owning the land for example? Private property is one of the most (if not THE most) radicated concept in our real life, but if you think about it, it must have started at some point with some kind of sopruse. Questioning the true rights for property means questioning why the lord is the lord, and not someone else; if the first origin is negated, the whole reason for him to be in charge is as well (hence some attempts in history to backup a king's position with a divine rights, which provides another option).
Property is also the source of power, and the other way around is also true: defend your property and increase your power even if it costs the life of others, tells the lord to his son; incidentally, make sure you write laws to support your defense and gliss over your offense.
Obviously these notes of mine are voluntarily provocative, they want to blow on the fireplace of discussion. They may be exaggerated, but they are not completely made up. Consider them like a jester's speech, apparently of a fool but perhaps after all not completely...
dreaded_beast said:
I think that indeed it's very common in RPG that stealing is considered wrong, and often associated with evil and chaotic alignments (tolerating it for CG and more rarely for LE).
I believe the reason is because also often in real life stealing is percieved as a worse offense. First thing that came to my mind when I read your thread was how horse-stealers were punished with the gallows pole in the past, while perhaps murderers were simply imprisoned, and rapers were often ignored until not so long time ago. History is full of examples of laws or habits that (my) property was more worth than (your) life. I am not a historian, nor a sociologist or psychologist, but I have seen many more people enraged by a theft happened to them than for any other reason.
I toss in a couple of spare and inarticulated thoughs about this subject
Maybe #1
Who is the typical victim of a theft? The rich obviously, since the poor doesn't have much to be stolen. The rich is at the same time the powerful. It has power to claim the thief's life and does so to vengeance the affront against him. He is more rarely the victim of a murder, since with power he can better defend himself, and when it happens it is typically because he is killed by someone more powerful than him.
Who is the typical victim of a murder? The poor, since his life is less defended both physically and by the laws. In the real world of the past (and not so "past" after all...) there were big differences if you killed a rich or a poor, a noble or a peasant and so on.
Even if we believe that our contemporary world works much better, the view still lingers on, and after all the laws are still written on the majority by the rich and powerful. In fact it still happens to see examples of powerful people getting away with serious crimes (my God, being Italian I could name thousands of cases, but I would be banned for speaking "political"
) while immigrant or gypsy wallet-stealers go straight to jail.Maybe #2
Killing has still an ancestral feel of being a display of power. If you kill it means you are strong, and the more you kill the stronger you probably are. When the law - both in the form of legislators, of judges, and of guards - goes after a killer, it is going after a tough target. If the guard catches the killer, who knows how the killer may react? It's likely that the guard risks his own life, therefore it may be better to unconsciously go easier with it. If the judge gives the multi-murderer gangster a serious prison sentence, who knows how the boss may retaliate against the judge's family? Better not to consider it such a serious crime after all.
On the other hands, thieves are weak. If they were strong, they would probably not need to steal, they would have found another way to get what they want, either lafwul of unlawful. The strength of the thief is her stealthiness, agility, quickness and smartness, but once you put your hands on her, she's so easy to crush.
Let's exploit this facts, put theft on top of the most dishonorable crimes, and see the people praise the rulers of the land about how good they are in fighting evil.
Maybe #3
Where does property come from? The world had a beginning when no one owned anything, so when did someone start owning the land for example? Private property is one of the most (if not THE most) radicated concept in our real life, but if you think about it, it must have started at some point with some kind of sopruse. Questioning the true rights for property means questioning why the lord is the lord, and not someone else; if the first origin is negated, the whole reason for him to be in charge is as well (hence some attempts in history to backup a king's position with a divine rights, which provides another option).
Property is also the source of power, and the other way around is also true: defend your property and increase your power even if it costs the life of others, tells the lord to his son; incidentally, make sure you write laws to support your defense and gliss over your offense.
Obviously these notes of mine are voluntarily provocative, they want to blow on the fireplace of discussion. They may be exaggerated, but they are not completely made up. Consider them like a jester's speech, apparently of a fool but perhaps after all not completely...
Last edited:
Quasqueton
First Post
Actually, horse-theft was considered very bad (in the American Old West) mostly because it could leave the victim to a slow death. Left in the wilds, many, many miles from any safety, a man without a horse was probably going to die slowly and alone.
And murderers have only been imprisoned instead of executed in more civilized areas where prisons can be maintained. In frontier lands, punishment was sometimes binary (death or nothing) mainly because of the lack of organized law enforcement.
Murdering a man in frontier lands would usually bring a death sentence.
Stealing might bring death, a "sancitioned" beating from the victim, forced servitude to the victim, or banishment from the group (be it a town or a ranch). Severity depended upon the value of the stolen item(s) and the standing of the victim in the society.
Rape would bring punishment directly from the relatives of the victim, who might kill or severly beat the perp. Severity depended upon the capabilities of the victim's relatives.
And as some here have pointed out, "killing" does not necessarily mean "murder", and is not necessarily a crime or evil. "Stealing" on the other hand, is a crime and is evil. Its like saying which is worse: eating or canabalism. One is a much more generic term than the other.
Quasqueton
