Ransacking and rummaging rogue - is he evil?

[Corsair]

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).

My only problem with that is again, when it comes to stealing. The rogue isn't intending to cause harm. In fact he isn't intending anything in regards to others, which is the problem! When he came into the luggage area, basically the only thought that came to mind was "OOO! Free stuff, and no one around to see me take it!".

This really focuses mostly on his selfishness and greed. Thus far, he basically is taking whatever he wants from whoever he wants, without regard to others.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

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.

As you quoted yourself, the key is "knowingly." A paladin could travel with a pit fiend without losing his powers, so long as the pit fiend managed to successfully hide its true nature from the paladin. It's when he chooses to associate with evil that he breaks his code.

My main problem is the difference between a dead adventurer and a murder victim.

There is no difference, though. An act's moral implications remain constant, regardless of who the victim is. Murdering a serial killer is no more morally clean than murdering a fine, upstanding citizen who gives to the Red Cross. It's the murder that's morally significant, not whom you kill. Likewise stealing from harmless passengers is no more despicable than stealing from villains.

That said, you need to decide, for the sake of your game world, what the moral implications of theft are. As a DM, I usually rule theft as Neutral and Chaotic, unless there are extreme circumstances. You are free to rule otherwise, but if you do, you should have already discussed this point with the rogue's player the instant he told you he wanted to play a "sneaky, greedy, sometimes selfish rogue." If you haven't, you'll need to do that now so that the player understands that his character concept is one that--in your campaign--cannot exist in a Chaotic-Neutral state, but will invariably slide into Evil through the commission of evil acts.

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.

Certainly he will, but I'd advise you to discuss this with the player before it gets to that point. If the player wants to play into that sort of conflict, great. But if he doesn't, then he's not going to enjoy being blindsided when you tell the paladin his character is evil, even though he hasn't committed any acts that he thought were evil.

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".

This isn't evil. Harming someone so there are less witnesses is evil. Not healing someone and taking advantage of less witnesses is not. It's certainly not good, but then this rogue isn't a good character.

 

[Corsair]

Pendragon: The player in question is playing a rogue in another game I play with him, where he, while greedy and perhaps less than ethical in his business practices, doesn't actually STEAL anything. So when he came up with a chaotic neutral rogue, I wasn't really expecting this. His previous characters tend to follow common themes, often questioning authority (chaotic) and looking out for themselves (neutral), but he's never played anything that I could ever consider even close to evil.

When the guy made his character, he knew there would be a paladin in the party. I also made it clear that in my game, being evil was completely possible without being a baby-killing devil worshiper. I intentionally played this up as an example of why a paladin couldn't just go around decapitating people who detected as evil. I even gave the example of unscrupulous business people or inn keepers who won't stab you in your sleep, but certainly won't hesitate to overcharge you if they can.

Now that being said, I also have shown examples where good and neutral characters can do bad things without being evil. So far, at least one neutral NPC has commited a murder, though because it was a one time deal for the NPC, she didn't slip yet. Another example are the raiders who boarded the train. They are LN members of a religious order who were attempting to recover an evil artifact on board the train for the purposes of destroying it. They had no qualms about cutting down anyone who got in their way, but their leader did make sure to take the time to stabilize most of the people they knocked out. They weren't there to kill people, just to get the artifact.

Summation: I don't plan on springing anything on the player immediately. Perhaps he just had a one time weakness and won't keep it up. However if he does keep stealing simply out of greed, I can't ignore that. I'll check back with you folk in a couple months and tell you how its going. (we only play every other week)

 

[Sejs]

While this is a relatively new character, I have a hard time NOT considering these evil acts.

Stealing from other people's luggage,

(edited following some thought) Not evil. Definitly not good, but also not evil. Stealing is one of those grey areas; you're inconveniencing someone for the benefit of yourself, but in this instance it's not done out of malice. Besides, look on the bright side - someone who can afford to have really swank luggage can likewise afford to lose it. Least he didn't rob some poor schmuck who packed all his worldly possessions into his case in hopes of starting a new life or something. That, and of corse someone who can afford that same swank luggage can also afford to take steps to get it back...

looting someone who is basically a murder victim,

Not evil. Dead people don't own anything so it's not even stealing. Falls into the category of "socially frowned upon, but not evil". By the player's own admission he is sneaky, greedy and sometimes selfish.

etc, THEN coming back to heal a party member...

If he's impulsive and runs with the first thing that pops into his mind - like many a CN person tends to, then he's just being who he is. Taking care of your friends first would be the nice thing to do, but by the description he's not that nice a guy. He looks out for Number One first and foremost.


Anyway. He's impulsive and selfish. But not evil. He's not malicious enough to be evil.

And if he does take that extra step, don't yank the rug out from under the paladin. Let him deal with it on his own when he finds out Stubby Stickyfingers has slipped over to the dark side. It's been my experience that most paladin players handle those kinds of situations just fiiiiine without any DM nudging needed.

 

[caudor]

This really focuses mostly on his selfishness and greed. Thus far, he basically is taking whatever he wants from whoever he wants, without regard to others.

I suppose it depends on how you look at, and I suppose we differ on how we judge his motives (as opposed to his actions). Wouldn't you expect a chaotic neutral rogue to be a tad bit selfish or greedy...out to make a quick gold piece without risk to his own hide...while not hurting his pals? One could argue that he represents the typical greedy little halfling rogue. I'm sure the rogue would not call it evil; he would call it motivated self-interest. Or maybe he believes that snapping up easy wealth will not only benefit himself, but his entire party by extension.

Of course, if the Paladin finds out about it, the little guy might get spanked. You are the DM, so it is your view that is important in this matter.

 

[Captain Tagon]

I'm the dissenting voice here, but I would call his actions evil. In my definition, the root of evil is selfishness. Taking stuff from the two dead men is a bit of a grey area, though I wouldn't condone it as whatever they are carrying might be vital to their families and this item could be easily returned to said families since the victims aren't in some deep out of the way dungeon.

I do however consider out and out stealing from other passenger's to be an evil act.

 

[Clint]

I think the rogue's behavior is appropriate, and I'd probably give the player kudos. Sneaky, slightly selfish antihero? Remember, you greenlighted that original character description. If the party is not in danger of dying, then the rogue is free to loot away. There's a big difference between illegal, distasteful and evil. If you're uncomfortable with that act, then you should reevaluate your acceptable PC morals range and figure out what you want.

-Clint

 

[green slime]

hahaha! Another "What is evil thread?"!

I love these!

IMO, the thief committed an evil act, when he stole from the dead and pilfered the suitcases of others. This doesn't mean he should fall into the pit of evilness and the paladin fall from grace. Everyone succumbs to temptation on occassion.

People here may claim that there is a difference between what is "illegal" and what is "evil". That may well be. I would ask them to remember, though, that we have inherited our legal system from the ten commandments handed to Mr Moses. These ten commandments have been the basis for legal systems thoughout the western world and the middle east, being part of our common heritage (Judaism-Christianity-Islam).

The Eighth Commandment is: "Thou Shalt not Steal".

Obviously, in our world, some big kahunas thought it important. Not merely "not nice".

Now, how this applies to your game, is your own cup of tea. (Especially given the 6th commandment, Thou Shalt not Kill, and the typical body bag count after just one evening's session).

Good Luck and Good Gaming!

 

[Southern Oracle]

It sounds to me like you need to write up a brief document explaining to all the players what you consider to be evil and what is not, what actions will cause the paladin to lose his paladinhood, and anything else that might impact alignment shifts and/or the loss of class abilities. As the DM, you certainly have the right to institute whatever rules/guidelines you want for your campaign, but obviously your definition of what is evil and what affects paladinhood differs from most other DMs. As long as the players know ahead of time the guidelines you'll use to judge their actions, all is well. If you didn't make it clear to the player ahead of time, however, then deciding he's slipping into evil is unfair in my opinion.

 

[Captain Tagon]

Thou Shalt not Kill

Usually I just take that one is Thou Shalt not Murder which has completely different connotations.