Ransacking and rummaging rogue - is he evil?

[Corsair]

Peter Ellis - This post is about our game, you may wish to stop reading at this point. It pertains to some events which occured after you left, but events which none of the PCs would have been able to witness in any case.



















Last chance to leave Pete!









I have a player in my Eberron game playing as a CN halfling rogue. After a recent fight, the halfling shows up late to the action. The foes have already been chased off.

The fight occured on the lightning rail, and the rogue heads forward, ostensibly looking for the guys who were chased off. The rogue ends up in the car which serves as luggage and crew quarters. He finds two crew members (a steward and the cook) dead, killed by the raiders. He decides to rummage through the luggage in the luggage car, looking for nicer luggage (taking 10 on search) and once he finds some expensive-looking bags, he plans on taking 20 searching them for loot.

Once he is done with this, he plans on looting the dead steward, and dead cook. Once he is done with this all (should take about 10-15 minutes in game time), he plans on returning to his downed comrades, and using his once per day Cure Light Wounds dragonmark on the cleric.

Oh, and I neglected to mention: In the fighting 3 of the 5 party members were dropped into negatives.


While this is a relatively new character, I have a hard time NOT considering these evil acts. Stealing from other people's luggage, looting someone who is basically a murder victim, etc, THEN coming back to heal a party member... and a quote from the player himself: "makes sence to heal the cleric, since he might be able to heal others i reckon, but of coarse thats not for awhile, cause more awake people means more witnesses lol"

How long should I put up with his antics before having him slip to CE? (Also it should be noted that the party has a paladin in it, and the paladin may not approve when he suddenly loses his powers... especially since if he loses his detect evil, he won't be able to determine WHY he lost his powers, since he won't be able to detect the rogue's evil!)

It should also be noted that at character creation, I specifically stipulated "non-evil". Is looting murder victims and stealing from bystanders' luggage evil? How can I not screw my paladin player?


The party:

LN (I think) Human Psion (House Orien)
Unknown Alignment Human Swashbuckler (House Deneith)
LG Shifter Paladin of the Soveriegn Host
NG Changeling Cleric of the Traveler
CN(?) Halfing rogue (Mark of healing, not a house member though)

 

[Hammerhead]

So hold on? Why would the paladin lose his powers? Because one of his "friends" becomes an evil sociopath? That's quite possibly one of the lamest DMing calls I've heard of.

From what I see, however, I would warn the player that his actions were evil before changing his alignment. This is one of the starting sessions, from what I can gather, and he still might not have a handle on what kind of character he wants to play. Furthermore, while looting a body found on a train is definitely chaotic, it's not very different from looting a dead adventurer found in a dungeon. It's not like those dead people are going to need their pocket change anyway.

It's ultimately your call on whether or not his actions are evil, but I don't see what he does as "that" wrong, certainly not enough to warrant an immediate alignment shift.

 

[Tiberius]

Well, I think this question hinges on the status of the PCs with negative hit points. Are they stable (likely, if they had any action points left), or are they still bleeding out? If they are stable then their condition will not deteriorate before he gets back to heal the cleric. Leaving them with the intent to return and heal the cleric is certainly not nice, but not evil either. I'd call it a neutral act. If they were still bleeding out, though, he'd be leaving them to die. That'd be evil.

As for looting the cabins and bodies, I'd say that that action carries no moral weight in the context of the D&D paradigm. If pressed, I'd also call it a neutral act. D&D is, in many ways, predicated upon advancement through the looting of dead things. I find it difficult to penalize an opportunistic character (assuming you consider an alignment change toward evil a penalty) for acting in accord with one of the basic tenents of the game. If it is evil, then adventuring paladins wouldn't exist. If they did, they'd be very poor indeed.

Stealing the items in question from the bodies and cabins is certainly not a lawful act, but I suspect a chaotically-aligned character would not be troubled by this fact.

 

[Corsair]

So hold on? Why would the paladin lose his powers? Because one of his "friends" becomes an evil sociopath? That's quite possibly one of the lamest DMing calls I've heard of.

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.

From what I see, however, I would warn the player that his actions were evil before changing his alignment. This is one of the starting sessions, from what I can gather, and he still might not have a handle on what kind of character he wants to play.

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.

Furthermore, while looting a body found on a train is definitely chaotic, it's not very different from looting a dead adventurer found in a dungeon. It's not like those dead people are going to need their pocket change anyway.

My main problem is the difference between a dead adventurer and a murder victim. Basically a bunch of hooligans rode up alongside the train in the early morning, boarded it, killed the steward and the cook (both of whom did try to fight back with improvised weaponry to give two waitresses time to run for help). Also it should be noted that the rogue also was stealing from other people's luggage, and has also inquired about raiding the weapons locker (where the train staff stores passengers weapons. No weapons are allowed onboard.)

It's ultimately your call on whether or not his actions are evil, but I don't see what he does as "that" wrong, certainly not enough to warrant an immediate alignment shift.

I completely agree that there will be no IMMEDIATE alignment shift. However if he continues to head down this track, eventually the paladin will notice. We've only had two sessions so far, so I want to give it more time to play out in game. The RP results should be catastrophically humorous, once the shift is enough to be noticable to the paladin.

 

[Kirin'Tor]

I agree with teh previous posts: The rogue, assuming the party members weren't left to die, committed no evil acts.
Looting is neutral (who doesn't steal from the evil dragon the party just whipped), and stealing is usually chaotic (taking from a live person is different, the dead own nothing by most customs).
Even if he left party members mortally wounded & dying, that's only one evil act: that doesn't make looting evil.

Moreover, I don't understand at all why the party paladin would loose his powers because someone else comitted an evil act (which, IMO, didn't happen anyway).
Even if the rogue did something horribly evil (mauling a baby with a fork, and then sacrificing it to a demon) the paladin wouldn't be affected, unless he had a chance to stop it and didn't (and it sounds like the paladin wouldn't have seen the looting, so he's clear even if you do decide that looting is evil)

 

[Corsair]

Well, I think this question hinges on the status of the PCs with negative hit points. Are they stable (likely, if they had any action points left), or are they still bleeding out? If they are stable then their condition will not deteriorate before he gets back to heal the cleric. Leaving them with the intent to return and heal the cleric is certainly not nice, but not evil either. I'd call it a neutral act. If they were still bleeding out, though, he'd be leaving them to die. That'd be evil.

All downed party members are stable. In fact, most of them were healed by one of the raiders themselves. Apparently the raider leader (who turned out to be a fighter/cleric of the silver flame) didn't want to KILL them for some reason, and hit them with a cure minor each, once they were down. It should be noted that the player told me that he is specifically not healing anyone until he is done rummaging because he wants "less witnesses".

As for looting the cabins and bodies, I'd say that that action carries no moral weight in the context of the D&D paradigm. If pressed, I'd also call it a neutral act. D&D is, in many ways, predicated upon advancement through the looting of dead things. I find it difficult to penalize an opportunistic character (assuming you consider an alignment change toward evil a penalty) for acting in accord with one of the basic tenents of the game. If it is evil, then adventuring paladins wouldn't exist. If they did, they'd be very poor indeed.

Good points, however this isn't just being "opportunistic". The character is taking the time to open and search through the luggage of other passengers on the train, in search of valuables. This is pretty simply straight stealing from innocent bystanders, for no reason other than greed.

Stealing the items in question from the bodies and cabins is certainly not a lawful act, but I suspect a chaotically-aligned character would not be troubled by this fact.

But if it is an evil act which the character isn't troubled with, that is more of what I'm concerned with. The question I guess becomes, how evil is stealing from innocents?

 

[Corsair]

Moreover, I don't understand at all why the party paladin would loose his powers because someone else comitted an evil act (which, IMO, didn't happen anyway).

Quoting the SRD:

Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.

 

[Tiberius]

Moreover, I don't understand at all why the party paladin would loose his powers because someone else comitted an evil act (which, IMO, didn't happen anyway).
Even if the rogue did something horribly evil (mauling a baby with a fork, and then sacrificing it to a demon) the paladin wouldn't be affected, unless he had a chance to stop it and didn't (and it sounds like the paladin wouldn't have seen the looting, so he's clear even if you do decide that looting is evil)

I think any justification for this would hinge upon the "May not knowingly associate with evil people" aspect of the paladin code. However, IIRC, the "knowingly" component is in there, so even if the thief in question were to sacrifice, dismember, and eat a baby, and then desecrate a holy altar with the resultant waste on his off hours, the paladin wouldn't be held liable for his association with the character unless and until his various maladjustments were made clear. Fortunately, Corsair seems to have discarded this option in this case.

EDIT: Or, I suppose you could just quote the SRD to make yer point. Me type too slow.

 

[caudor]

My test for the rogue would be: did he intend to cause harm by his actions or allow harm by his inaction? If so, he was evil. If not, he was neutral (mostly definately chaotic though).

 

[Corsair]

I always hated having DMs who seemed out to screw me when I played a paladin, so I specifically don't want to make life any more difficult for the paladin than his code already makes it for him!

I don't want to force the party to play a bunch of knight in shining armor goody two shoes types, but at the same time I did specifically specify no evil characters to start.

Now as is, I agree the character is not evil. However if he willfully continues down this path (primarily the robbing and stealing whenever he has a chance, without regards to others), then I am going to be forced to take action.

I want to make it clear that alignment change is not something I take lightly, which is why I am looking for other opinions.