Ransacking and rummaging rogue - is he evil?

[takyris]

For someone who tells me "don't be silly" you sure like to use illogical arguments to make a point. In both cases, you tell us that by our logic we can perform a deed which itself is evil because we can justify it with our logic for the theft of goods.

The key here is "which itself is evil". Actions don't actually have any inherent evilness or goodness until we judge them. Your argument, if I am reading you correctly, essentially reads as, "Murder is inherently evil, so applying the logical standards I used to say that theft isn't evil is stupid." Do you understand how that doesn't hold up logically?

You are saying that murder is inherently evil, and that theft is not, as part of your argument for logically proving that one of these is evil and the other is now. As a logical strategy, starting out with the thing you're trying to prove taken as a given is really, uh, giving yourself a boost.

Neither killing (murder, with the judgment value taken away) nor theft is inherently good or evil. Killing an ax murderer as he's about to hack up your spouse is killing that can be considered either Neutral or Good, under normal circumstances (well, as normal as ax-murder-circumstances ever get, anyway). Killing someone for being in your way is usually considered Evil.

The question is not whether something is inherently good or evil -- because most actions aren't inherently anything, and you can't use "it's inherent" as part of a logical discussion -- but what degree of harm it inflicts on another person and what extenuating circumstances can affect an individual instance of the action.

That is specious reasoning because you cannot use the same logic to justify theft that you can to try to justify murder/bodily harm. The events are too extreme from one another to do this.

I disagree. Back in college, I gave blood regularly. The difference between giving blood and being attacked by someone who intends only to cause you to bleed is that the assailant causes you 1) mental distress, 2) loss of something that was yours involuntarily, 3) loss of time or energy as you recoup this loss, and 4) loss of trust in mankind as a result of the assault.

You take those four factors and add them together, and it's pretty obvious that the person who attacks the other person, even if it's for nothing more than a slightly bleeding wound, has harmed them. We agree on that, right? Assaulting someone in such a way that they bleed, but that's about it, is still harm, right? Not as bad as murder (duh), but still harmful? And, if unprovoked, you might consider somebody who did that to innocent people a lot to be evil?

Now, apply those four factors to theft -- or, to strip it of its inherently judged term, "taking".

Does this form of taking cause mental distress to the person?

Yes

Does it cause you to involuntarily lose something you had?

Yes

Does it force you to either accept this loss or lose time or energy recouping the loss?

Yes

Does it cause you to come away from the experience with a less trusting and happy view of mankind?

Yes

I'm happy to drop this line of logic if you can show me an action for which i will agree that the answer to each of the four questions is "yes" but cannot concede is harmful -- not evil, mind you, but harmful. (Executing a condemned criminal is almost always painful and causes him to lose something, so it's definitely harmful, but it has extenuating circumstances that make it not-evil.)

If you cannot come up with such an action (and the fourth question is sort of sticky, so fudge it if necessary), then you should concede that because you accept that logic, then theft, as defined as "involuntary taking of something belonging to someone else, which causes mental distress as a result", harms people.

I am somewhat distressed at the number of people who don't believe that theft actually harms anyone.

Please note the number of times I said "not as bad as murder, question of degree, extenuating circumstances" and such. If you can't concede that theft is harmful, then I don't think we have anything to discuss.

If you do concede that theft is harmful, then please explain how someone who willingly and knowingly does something harmful to another person for the stated reason of "greed" is not commiting an evil act.

As for the theft itself, I think you're starting to use personal experience to make a judgement of a fantasy character.

I don't apply real-world politics to the game -- not when kings and queens abound -- but I think applying some degree of real-world ethics to the game is vital. I set up games where Chaotic Good rogues steal stuff from the evil overlord to foil his schemes, or from pompous merchants to help the needy. I set up games where everyone is a shifty antihero, and pickpocketing during a raucous party is expected in a kind of "if you don't like it, don't carry anything valuable on you, you gullible sap" way. In the former, they're good, and in the latter, they're antiheroes operating against evil people, which is murky but really not horrific by any stretch.

This guy is traveling in a group with a paladin, and he's robbing innocent people because he's greedy, and leaving his allies unconscious and possibly dying in order to do it.

If my group said, "Haha, today I want to go into the jeweller's shop, take the biggest necklace I can find, and tell the merchant to stop me if he's man enough to try," then I'd ding them down a notch or two on the alignment-meter. And doing that is pretty much the same as looting the luggage of an innocent person, except that the thief is being more sneakier about it. I don't see "sneaky" as a good extenuating circumstance.

Your argument appears to be that "This isn't real" is an acceptable reason for a character to, through his actions, knowingly and willingly cause harm to innocent people with no consequences to his alignment as a result.

Again, don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that this shifts his alignment all by itself. I'm not saying that by a long stretch. Blink once if you understand the concept of degrees. I'm saying "This was an evil act." That's all I'm saying. He caused harm to innocent people knowingly and willingly without an extenuating circumstance. One evil act doesn't make you evil. Heck, several evil acts don't make you evil. Only when you make a lot of evil acts over a period of time are you in danger of sliding from Neutral into Evil.

In D&D, there are guidlines set up to help us decide what is good and what is evil. While not black and white, there are general guidelines, as has been pointed out before.

Would those guidelines be anything like:

"Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."
-- the SRD

So, if you agree that theft harms people, then the first line, as a general guideline, would seem to apply.

In Eberron, as the first poster noted, it's possible to have the Evil alignment without being a puppy-kicking demon-consorting villain. Cruel shopkeepers and unsavory guards can be evil while still serving the community and not running around on murderous rampages.

In this campaign, a cruel shopkeeper can get slapped with "Evil" even if he doesn't go around murdering people. Is the shopkeeper who overcharges people or works his apprentice too hard more evil than the person who robs complete strangers rather than attending his injured-and-possibly-dying friends?

 

[caudor]

I gotta say, I'm surprised how many people don't consider stealing from innocents to be an evil act. Honestly I gotta say I don't have a personal problem with playing with minor evil in the party, though I don't prefer it. The reason it is a major issue for me is because there is a paladin in the group.

Class-wise, he is a rogue.

By action, he is a thief.

I think what folks are missing is that nuetral is also an alignment in the game. If stealing is evil, then what do all the nuetral people do? They are neither good nor evil...they are self-interested. Lawful neutral people will obey the law and work for gain within it. So where does that leave chaotic nuetral people?....I would think it would leave them stealing stuff from people off of trains. Again, I believe the rogue was acting within his alignment.

The evil folks are the ones that left all the dead bodies to steal from.

 

[takyris]

Part of the problem, is that are a number of actions that hurt people, that likewise wouldn't be evil in the D&D sense.

Or in the real world. Harmful only indicates the potential to be evil. It's the degree of harm compared to the degree of extenuating circumstances.

-Your husband and I get into a duel, and I come out on top - he, by comparison, comes out a corpse. I have just killed your family's sole provider. This understandably hurts you. Is it evil? Nope.

I'd disagree on multiple levels here:

1) It could be evil in a D&D world. Your fighter could have challenged this guy to a duel, knowing that he has no choice but to accept, and also knowing that the fighter outclasses him with room to spare. This essentially becomes legalized murder, if the court allows duels. "Goading the supporting character into a duel that he can't win, and then killing him in the duel, so as to avoid murder charges" is an evil-person trick used several times in fiction.

2) It could be not-evil in real-life. A boxing match where somebody accidentally gets killed is a legalized duel, albeit with money rather than honor at stake. That's harmful, but not willingly or knowingly undertaken by the duelist.

-You and I live down the street from one another in a city that is quarentined due to plague. Food stores have long since run out and people all over are starving to death. One day when I return home, I find a dog rummaging about in my backyard. Thanking the gods for smiling on me, I kill and eat it. Turns out that dog was yours, and therefor my actions have hurt you. Is it evil? Nope.

Harmful to the person, but the harm is outweighed by the mitigating factor that you're going to starve to death if you don't do that, and you didn't know that the dog didn't belong to an already-dead plague victim. Turn "pet dog" into "pet cow" and this isn't even distasteful, just an unpleasant and unfortunate turn of events -- because of the extenuating circumstances mitigating the degree of evil associated with an admittedly harmful act.

-You're a supervillain, and I break into your base and pilfer the plans for your Galactic Death Ray. And also your coffee mug. Now not only do you not have a way to destroy the universe, you also can't have any coffee. This hurts you. It is evil? Nope.

Tweaking the nose of a supervillain is almost never evil. On the other hand, if a hero breaks into the supervillain's lab, sees a picture of the supervillain and his family, breaks the picture, and grinds it under his heel while saying, "How's it feel to have something of yours damaged?", I'd argue that the hero is starting to cross that fine line in his anger. The difference here is the degree of harm being inflicted.

(And yeah, if the mug were a handmade mug by the supervillain's dead daughter, the only thing he has to remember her by, and the hero knew that and broke the mug on purpose just to hurt the supervillain, I'd say that is coming closer to malice, not tweaking.)

Anyway, all I'm saying is that it's not always cut and dry. There's really no single criteria that can be applied universally to answer a question of whether something is evil or not.

Well, "Degree of harm knowingly and willfully inflicted, compared to any extenuating circumstances that might exist for that action" seems like a start. I wholeheartedly agree that it's not cut and dried.

 

[coyote6]

If I were GMing, I think my off-the-cuff reaction would be to err on the side of the PC's stated alignment, and call it "barely neutral, but if it keeps up . . ."

If the PC otherwise acts non-evil, the occasional laps into concerted larceny would keep him neutral.

Another thing to keep in mind -- in Eberron, IIRC, the lightning rail is a fairly expensive way to travel. Thus, the passengers would most likely be wealthy; since the thief was targetting the nicest looking luggage, he's probably hitting the richest of the rich. His intention could therefore have been to lighten the pockets of those that could afford the loss, or even been to "strike a blow against the wealthy, who care nothing about the little people."

Here's an idea, though it's a bit of metagaming: Have a little girl -- perhaps a recently orphaned child on her way to her new caretakers' home -- crying over some trinket that was stolen, that was her dead mother's, her last, most favorite link to her past. Said bauble is, of course, now in the thief's pocket.

Does he slip it back to her somehow? If so, he's probably not as evil as he might look.

If you want to know if he's evil, test him.

OTOH, that is rather metagame-y.

 

[green slime]

Good and evil are not black and white. If it was that easy, the world would be a much different place.

When I was younger, I got caught stealing from people's homes. Did that make me an evil person? No. Misguided? Yes.

AS the poster above stated, in DnD, it is very much black and white. That is why there are spells and other effects that do that sort of thing, affect only evil, or only good.

As to your second statement; No the fact that you got caught wasn't what defined you as evil.

Thieves do far greater harm to people than they realise. Many items may have a personal value that far exceeds the monetary value of the item stolen.
I would suggest that it was more than merely "misguided" youth. The message is pretty clear anywhere you care to look. Theft is wrong. Theft is a crime that scars the victims. It invades their privacy, and leaves them feeling unsafe. You can claim "but hey, I was merely misguided, it wasn't my fault, I didn't really do it..." You did it. You knew what you were doing. You profited from it. Mayhap you even gloated over the gullibility of your victims, and how stupid they were not to look after their stuff better. It was, like, asking to be carried away? You can create all sorts of reasons as to rationalize your behaviour. Most people do.

So did Nazis. It started with euthenasia for horribly deformed/mentally handicapped babies and crippled elders with dehabilitating mental and physical handicaps. Then in small steps.... and suddenly you have a whole group of people defined as undesireable and are standing there with gas chambers, and ovens in a Polish forest. Read Gitta Sereny's "Into that Darkness".

There are degrees of evil. Theft may not be high on the scale, but on my scale, it registers.

 

[Raven Crowking]

While your tone is completely unnecessary, and frankly a bit unwarranted, I pretty much reconsidered on this already. I don't want to screw the paladin, so I will probably interpret it as "knowingly associating with evil" would be cause for a breach in his vows. I'll definately give him a chance to detect if any evil is growing in the rogue.

This would be my call. I would also be of the "rogue's actions are unlawful, but not necessarily evil" school, and if the paladin found out about it, I would require the paladin to do something about it to meet his Lawful requirement. Even if it is only to have the rogue donate said loot to an orphanage and perform some small penance. IMHO, a paladin must hold his companions to a reasonable standard of behavior.

He pretty much knows exactly what he is doing, though I don't think he quite understands what could be the full ramifications of it. He says he likes being the "sneaky, greedy, sometimes selfish rogue". While nothing in that description says "evil" to me, this is why I have to examine his actions closely.

Personally, I think that CN is the hardest alignment to play. Most players, in my experience, think that CN is a way to act CE without being considered evil. Hurting others for selfish reasons is evil. However, if you are looting dead bodies, who exactly is being hurt? Their relatives and heirs? Tax collectors? This is distant enough for me to call in Neutral.

On the other hand, if these are murders, as you say, then the rogue has interfered with the bodies, and if there is a murder investigation you should take this into account. From your description of events, it seems unlikely that anyone would catch the rogue (he has been clever), but the authorities will probably suspect that "there was an accomplice on the train."


Good luck, and let us know where it goes!


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Personally, I always find these "Good vs. Evil, or is it Neutral?" threads interesting, both from a philosophical and a gaming point of view. Of course, real-world moral philosophy and game-world moral philosophy are sharply divided by the nature of the game. In D&D, there are evils that have to be combatted, and killing evil things is simply not evil unless there extenuating circumstances, at least not in most games. Likewise, cleverly looting the goblins of their weapons is not going to be considered an evil act by anyone...except, maybe, the goblins!

That said, stealing from innocents, or those you have no reason to suspect as villians, is evil. There really should be no question that theft harms people. If anyone out there really believes that stealing causes no harm, I'll be happy to offer an address, and you can send me your wallets.

Actually, in a game not long ago, I had exactly this discussion, and when the player argued that stealing doesn't cause harm, I did request his wallet. He immediately "got it". No more arguments that stealing doesn't cause harm.

However, while committing evil acts is what makes one evil, committing a single evil act is simply not enough. Most people who are neutral are simply not committed to good or evil. They do some good, some evil, and it balances out. If they lean heavily to one side or another, then indeed they may not be neutral any longer.

In the case of the CN rogue stealing from the richest people on the Lightning Rail, what would your call be if he redistributed that wealth to the poor? That would be "Stealing from the rich to give to the poor," which is the classic Robin Hood-style good. Or was Robin Hood evil? Neutral?

By stealing from the rich, he is minimizing the harm that he is doing. These are the people who can afford it the most. Sure, it is an evil act, but it isn't an EVIL ACT in big flaming scary letters. This sort of theft would not make one evil IMC. It would, however, violate the paladin's code if he learned of it and did nothing.

RC

 

[Felonious Ntent]

Ok if stealing from innocents is evil that must mean stealing from non-innocents isn't. Sorry I don't buy that. I also see people think it is ok to steal from the rich but not the poor. Sorry don't buy that either. Theft is an act regardless of victim. Wether you steal from the poor or the rich, A sheriff or the big bad guy it is still the same thing. This is why I say it is not an evil act. Chaotic yes evil no. If it was an evil act there would be no such thing as good adventuring parties anymore. After all if you attack the evil guys minions and take the gear he equiped them with you have efectivley stolen from him. How can some justify this but not justify stealing random peoples luggage from a train. It is inherintley the same act. It is indeed a harmfull act no arguing that. But harnfull doesn't equal evil. Theft is a chaotic act and in this instance a CN act as he did it for greed alone.

 

[reveal]

Ok....

After some looking into it, I have come to the conclusion that *gasp* I was wrong. The character, indeed, performed an evil act. I think this definition from the SRD fits very well.

Neutral Evil, “Malefactor”: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.

I would say the character did what they could get away with "darn the consequences." So defintely a NE act.

Sorry it's not about Nazi's or theft in the real world, but that's not what the original poster wanted... I think...

 

[Felonious Ntent]

Cool love the SRD.

GOOD VS. EVIL
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

LAW VS. CHAOS
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful–chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.

Bolded points I think aply to this situation. To me this sounds like CN

Chaotic Neutral, “Free Spirit”: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.
Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.

Actions of Thief match this Alignment. IMO.