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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 1540151" data-attributes="member: 17296">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.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.</blockquote>

Verification