In your campaign, which is worse: killing or stealing?

[Carrion]

Killing and Stealing shouldnt be labeled as good or evil. Both are neutral acts. The reason behind the act gives a moral slant to it.

Adventurers kill all the time, then steal the possessions of their former owner. To players of this game, it seems more insulting/painful to steal from someone because "they" have no way to defend themselves from a skilled thief; while being killed by something, they have active defenses (armor class, hit points, spells, magic items, etc.). A sense of powerlessness develops followed by rage against the offender or anyone similar to the offender...."Get that halfling! We all know they are thieves!....And that guy in leather armor! Only thieves wear leather armor!!"

But back to the matter at hand. Stealing for personal gain is still a neutral act. You are stealing to better your position in life/the game. Killing sentient life, like people....and halflings for personal gain is evil (See Assassin PRC). Killing for a cause can reduce it back to a neutral act, but never a good act. The ends should never justify the means. Peace, Diplomacy and non-violence are the hallmarks of goodness. It is better to convert than to kill; redemption is what goodness strives for, anything less is a loss to neutrality. :\

 

[ARandomGod]

Killing and Stealing shouldnt be labeled as good or evil. Both are neutral acts. The reason behind the act gives a moral slant to it.

Adventurers kill all the time, then steal the possessions of their former owner. To players of this game, it seems more insulting/painful to steal from someone because "they" have no way to defend themselves from a skilled thief; while being killed by something, they have active defenses (armor class, hit points, spells, magic items, etc.). A sense of powerlessness develops followed by rage against the offender or anyone similar to the offender...."Get that halfling! We all know they are thieves!....And that guy in leather armor! Only thieves wear leather armor!!"

But back to the matter at hand. Stealing for personal gain is still a neutral act. You are stealing to better your position in life/the game. Killing sentient life, like people....and halflings for personal gain is evil (See Assassin PRC). Killing for a cause can reduce it back to a neutral act, but never a good act. The ends should never justify the means. Peace, Diplomacy and non-violence are the hallmarks of goodness. It is better to convert than to kill; redemption is what goodness strives for, anything less is a loss to neutrality. :\

I agree in most part with the above.

I feel that it's important to point out here that killing IS stealing. Theft of life. And stealing is at it's base always neutral. Asking which is worse is really only attempting to put a monetary value on life. Which, indeed, if you read the majority of responses thouroughly is what's going on when people attempt to answer it.

The only part I actively disagree with is the thought that killing sentient beings is inherently evil. It is also inherently neutral. Assassin PRC statement or not. That bit of prose only goes to show that the writers also have their own predjudices. As a support for my opinion in this I'll point out that all dragons, and a good number of "monsters" are sentient. And yet the very backbone idea of this game is "good" adventurers going into a (sentient) dragons lair for the sole purpose of killing it for personal gain. An act that, if you were to accept the above definition, would have to be classified as evil.

I also feel compelled to point out that not ALL theft is considered unlawful. And, to support that I have the examples of taxation and execution. Clearly if these things were inherently unlawful, then noone who belonged to a "government" with espoused those laws could be considered lawful. So theft, and theft of life are neutral on that plane as well.

Good vs. Evil, law vs. chaos, these are more complex concepts than "killing, bad" or "stealing wrong".

 

[Kormydigar]

there are only 3 alignments in my campaign.

lawful
chaotic
neutral.

thieves can not be lawful.
assassins can not be lawful.

so theft and assassination/murder are non lawful acts. ergo... punishable by the law.

Hey. If you are playing OD&D where are thieves and assassins coming from? I thought there were only cleric, magic user, and fighting man.

 

[VirgilCaine]

My CG rogue with high pick pocket skill only stole from those who could afford it, for example. --Thanee

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

In my "interpretation" of the above quote from the SRD, stealing is Evil. You wouldn't be Good for long IMC.


The moral relativism displayed here is appalling. Stealing is neutral?

 

[Parlan]

In my "interpretation" of the above quote from the SRD, stealing is Evil. You wouldn't be Good for long IMC.


The moral relativism displayed here is appalling. Stealing is neutral?

I agree with your position except for one big exception:"robin hood" type theft ie stealing from the rich to give to the poor would be Good IMC. To stay within in the bounds of Good though, the PCs would have to be sure to:

1. Find out who was actually a Bad Guy. I m sure every peasant hates paying taxes, but the assumption on which the myth of Robin Hood is based is that the taxes of Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham were oppressive and demanded more than the peasantry COULD pay.

2. Actually GIVE the proceeds back to the peasantry. Sure, if the Pcs "liberate" a +2 longsword from the Sheriff I would expect them to keep and use it. (the peasants have no use for it) However, I would expect MOST of everything else to be sent back to the peasants.

Now that I think about it, as a second exception, a CG thief could get away with pilfering the occassional item from a wealthy noble. Yes, its an Evil act, but I wouldn t consider isolated instances of it to cause a change of alignment. Usually IME, the thief is also Saving the World etc., which would more than compensate for a few minor Evil acts.

 

[Thanee]

In my "interpretation" of the above quote from the SRD, stealing is Evil.

That's fine. I surely wouldn't consider it hurting, oppressing or killing, tho.

You wouldn't be Good for long IMC.

I just stated how we see it in our campaign, since that was the initial question.

And besides, even if stealing would be evil, few (mildly) evil acts still do not constitute an alignment shift, if the majority of your actions are primarily good.

But there are certainly a lot of different views on this topic and pretty much all of them are valid.

The moral relativism displayed here is appalling. Stealing is neutral?

It's chaotic and neither good nor evil by itself, so yes neutral would fit here.

Bye
Thanee

 

[ARandomGod]

In my "interpretation" of the above quote from the SRD, stealing is Evil. You wouldn't be Good for long IMC.

Perhaps not, but then it's unlikely I would play a good character in your campaign, and I don't generally play rogues that steal, or other characters that do. And, if you actively punished non-good characters, I wouldn't play in it at all. If there is only black and white morally, if there is NO neutral, and if additionally alignments matter in the campaign, then I don't like the person running it. Not saying that all these things apply to you, mind.

The moral relativism displayed here is appalling. Stealing is neutral?

Yes, completely. Only reasons can push stealing into good or evil.
Hell, if you go far enough, EATING is killing. A person can take morality to any level of extreme fanatisism that they want to.

What, really DO you define as neutral?

Generally I've noticed that people who define stealing as evil define good as neutral, and saintly as good.
Sort of in a "sure you did that nice thing, but that's neutral, anybody would have". Evil isn't just not good. it's an extra deminsion.

Of course, I've also found a tendancy in those to cut out neutral completely, assigning either good or evil to every neutral act, and I've also found these "There is no neutral." type people to seriously be lacking in imagination as to what true evil IS.

Evil is opression, forcing yourself on another, to hurt, harm, or destroy for your own pleasure, or for the "greater good".

A great example of what I would personally define as evil, in a "road to hell is paved with good intentions" sort of way:

I live in Texas. In Texas it is illegal to not wear a seat belt when in a moving vehicle (with certain exceptions). Sure, it's a good idea to do it. Yes, it helps people who might otherwise NOT do this thing to do it. Indeed, it practially forces them to do so.
It's forcing outside beliefs on them.
THAT, my friend, that is evil. It's active and willful forcing someone to do and act as YOU see fit. It's forcing your own belief of what is right on them, in a manner that is not there to protect anyone other than the person being forced. You're not "helping" anyone but the one being coerced. Pure evil.

I pick this one because it's such a "good" act... or one that people often mistake as good. But then, the spanish inquisition and the crusades were good too, as were the salem witch trials. Sure, people look at them now and say they they weren't good, that they were indeed evil. And I'll agree. Forcing yourself or your beliefs on another never is a good thing, but evil in the poise of good.

And evil poses as good very, very well. Whereas it really doesn't fit into neutrality at all.

Stealing, on the other hand, you're doing for a specific reason, sure, you're forcing a person to lose property, but... Define: "property", "ownership".

THAT person would probably think what you're doing is a "bad" thing. And indeed it is bad for that person, but not evil. I want a thing, there the thing is, I take the thing. It's a very basic natural impulse. There can easily be many moral concepts wherein this is completely justified. And it can indeed be within good belief systems.

The best most well known example I can think of is Dragonlance. Kinder were in no way evil. And they took things all the time.

At it's core, with no other considerations, stealing is neutral.
Generally speaking, stealing is much, MUCH less bad than killing, whether we're talking about bad evil, bad neutral, OR bad good.

And, as for those characters who think that they'd kill anyone who "stole" from them....
I ask. 1) Are they considered "good"
2) what does the GM think of alignments? Will he switch them, is there any downside to being switched?
3) would the GM be willing to go along with a little moral "game".

I'm reminded of one time, back in second edition, where the theif character did indeed steal from another PC, a mage who was being annoying and arrogant and hoarding things that the party needed... one who was technically listed as good. The thief stole in such a way as to make it seem that a beggar that the character had given (quite generously) money to did the stealing.

The mage later went through the streets hunting the beggar down. When he saw the beggar in the distance, he let loose a lightning bolt blast, killing him and traumatizing the locals, children who were playing in the street running crying... the beggar died with a smile of recognition and a wave of gratitude to the mage, then burnt and floating down the river.

I was running that one. And the thief used the money to buy the beggar a burial, and looked for a widow or family. The mage just left it at that. The thief used the rest of the money to buy healing potions for the party, who really needed it. The thief was good, and did steal occasionally... and I left the thief good, indeed gave him extra good points for the encounter. The mage, on the other hand, lost the good part of his alignment shortly after that. That alone wasn't enough, I didn't think, but that was a big part of it. And it was definitely an evil act. And the mage was given chances to discuss his characters feelings, motivations, was warned that we all thought that was evil. Was even told (in character, by a fortune teller later) that the beggar wasn't the one who stole from him. No atonement or remorse.

So, I suppose what I'm saying is that I do see killing as much, much worse than stealing.

And, for that matter, later in the campaign the mage was killed in a different encounter, by a good NPC, and I personally deemed it a good action. Even though the mage was only neutral, not evil himself.

 

[Dogbrain]

Murder by lying-in-wait or other cowardly means (poison, trap, hiring an assassin) is punished by slow, painful, publically entertaining execution or outlawry.

Striking someone dead in an argument can merit outlawry or the maximum wergild.

Demanding a fair fight and killing someone in it is a sad thing, but it was entirely with honor--unless the fight wasn't actually fair, then it's a form of murder by lying-in-wait.

Stealing cattle in a raid is just part of living in the tribes. Stealing cattle at night by stealth is punished by being trampled to death by cattle. Horses have similar status.

Stealing food is punished by imposed labor unless during a famine, then it is punished by starvation to death.

Stealing goods or other livestock is punished by a fine, by lashes, enslavement, or mulching, depending upon the influence of the victim and how much is stolen.

Stealing a man's personal weapons merits being slain with those weapons.

There are other punishments, and they depend upon all kinds of minute details regarding the goods, the manner of theft, what damage accrued from the theft--all that sort of exception after exception that one finds in a system of customary and uncodified law (old Common Law, essentially).

In many of the above cases, the aggrieved may instead refuse the legal penalty and declare feud.

 

[Carrion]

You are correct. Killing of all sorts is truely neutral. The reason i used the Assassin PrC as an example was to place the argument within the context of the game: Killing people (innocent or not so) by way of stealth and guise for the coin alone has been "labeled" evil by the game designers (from 1st edition through 3.5).

One could easily envision a world where assassination is one of the highest of public services (Remo Williams), but the majority of the people would be appalled at the idea and would not turn in their resume for the job.

This subject is very complex and wont be solved to everyones liking. To this day, the best philosophers and scholars occasionally stir this stew of morality and ethics. How this simplified structure (D&D game) deals with the subject at hand is probly the most important point....and since the gamers make the game, Dreaded Beast and his fellow gamers will have to reason this problem out between them, which will probly vary by who runs the game.