Ransacking and rummaging rogue - is he evil?

[takyris]

Of course, reveal. If you dance around enough, you can work the moral relativism pitch enough to make a case for just about anything. I'm not saying there isn't a line. I'm not saying that the line isn't fuzzy. I'm not saying that there isn't gray territory. I am saying that based on what we have here, this guy's actions are firmly on the "Evil" side of that line. Not as evil as murder, not as evil as rape, not as evil as selling your children into slavery, no. But on the evil side, yes.

He robbed innocent people, taking the opportunity to do so specifically because his comrades were unconscious (and possibly not knowing whether they were unconscious or dying -- we're unclear on character knowledge here). He is not trying to save his starving family, from what we understand here. He does not have massive extenuating circumstances that can create gray room. His character concept was "sneaky and greedy", and he is choosing to follow through on that concept by stealing from innocent people.

By the same logic, I could say that my character concept was "bloodthirsty and short-tempered", and then it doesn't really affect my alignment if I get angry and kill a man who didn't get out of my way fast enough. That'd just be Neutral, then, right?

From an alignment perspective, he's acting evil -- as I said, not murderously evil, but evil -- which is fine in an evil game, heck, fine in an antihero-neutral game, but not good if what the game called for was heroes (which it seems to have done, based on the paladin in the party). From a gaming perspective, he just dropped to the bottom of my "people to help in combat" list, since I know that he's gonna wander off and steal things from innocent people while I'm lying on the ground bleeding.

Bad decisions.

 

[reveal]

By the same logic, I could say that my character concept was "bloodthirsty and short-tempered", and then it doesn't really affect my alignment if I get angry and kill a man who didn't get out of my way fast enough. That'd just be Neutral, then, right?

Wrong. Stealing != Murder, no matter what the circumstances.

BUT I will say that, given the characters motivation, I can see why people could see this as an evil act. However, I still think he was just being greedy. But that's just MHO.

 

[Captain Tagon]

In my eyes, greed of that level IS evil.

 

[kirinke]

in my eyes, theft of stuff isn't evil. you can always earn money to buy more stuff.

so what he did wasn't evil. Not good, perhaps. But not evil. Consensus would seem that the guy is acting in character as a CN theif type. But like others say, he has to live with the consequences of his actions.

No one lives in a vacume you know. Play with it. Have somebody recognize the glitters he stole and call him out on it. And then throw him in the pokey for a coupla days.

In our society, what he did was pretty much petty larceny. At most a coupla months in jail without probation. With a good solicitor, 2 days with a few weeks of community service.

Now, the greedy and selfish part. Hmmm. Now that's sticky.
I'd warn him about that and be careful with his actions and the wherefors of said actions.

 

[painandgreed]

My vote is Neutral but signs that he needs to be watched. As I play it, good and evil is a matter of intent as much as anything else. Commiting evil acts makes evil people happy and commiting good acts make good people happy. If the guy stole simply because he had the opportunity, I wouldn't really call it evil. If he thought it was funny that the guys he was chasing killed the staff thus allowing him to steal, that might be. Finding humor, pleasure, or enjoyment in killing or stealing (as opposed to merely having more stuff) is when it becomes evil. When the reward is not the immediate return for your actions but the pain and suffering they cause. Even stealing from the innocent isn't really evil merely low empathy. The trouble with saying "It says 'thou shalt not steal' so stealing is evil" is that the commandments are not a guide to not be evil, but a guide to be good. This system allows for neutral so such guidelines don't apply.

My big problem is allowing him a take 10 and a take 20 action in 10-15 minutes.

 

[evileeyore]

My impressions:

Looting=Neutral, unless there is a Law (or social taboo) in place about violating the dead. Then Chaotic as needed.*

Theft (stealing from the luggage)=Chaotic and Evil. His deeds are purely selfish in these regards. If the theft serves a higher Good, then I would drop it to Neutral. Theft is never Good.

Leaving Comrades to Die=Evil. Even if they are stable, not healing the Cleric in order to gain time without witnesses, is Evil. The Marauders could return while his comrades are done. (IN fact I would nudge things that way as a DM-but I am a Rat Bastard)

I would note the alignment of these actions and let the player know he is getting tallies in these regards. Enough black marks and he slides, but this one set of acts are not in themselves enough for me.

As a side note, I don't require my Paladins to Detect Evil. If the character suspects someone is evil, or going evil, and does not intervene, they get marks too. Enough tallies and I count them as 'knowingly associating'.

Of course thats because there are ways to fool the Detect spells...

Rat Bastard, with a fair and balanced approach--EvilE

*In some of my campiagns, Looting the Dead is also Evil. Necromantic Practices and all. Besides in those worlds, messing with the dead is ussually a surefire way the create restless spirits.

 

[takyris]

Wrong. Stealing != Murder, no matter what the circumstances.

Don't be silly, reveal. I wasn't arguing that stealing was equivalent to murder. I was saying that trying to justify a character's actions with "Oh, but it's just what my character concept says I do" is a stupid idea.

I will agree that any action that could be considered a crime could also have potential extenuating circumstances that can lessen or remove the severity of the moral or ethical transgression. If you steal in order to save your family, or in order to hurt a corrupt merchant and save a starving peasant family, one can argue that you are effectively putting enough extenuating circumstances on your theft to render it not-evil. I don't debate that. Heck, you can put extenuating circumstances on killing someone -- self-defense, war, and lawful execution of someone who tried to kill the king are three easy ones that would turn it from something-evil to something possibly not-evil.

You can put extenuating circumstances on just about anyone or anything.

BUT I will say that, given the characters motivation, I can see why people could see this as an evil act. However, I still think he was just being greedy. But that's just MHO.

I suppose that the opinion of a theft victim and the opinion of someone who admits to stealing stuff from people's homes in the past are bound to differ. It's possible that everyone on that train had so much money that this crime is no more than an inconvenience. It's possible that many of them even got their money in unsavory ways and deserve to lose their ill-gotten gains. But all we really have to go on is the fact that his allies lay unconscious, possibly dying as far as he knew, and he decided to spend ten to fifteen minutes carefully looting the baggage car for no reason beyond simple greed... instead of helping them.

 

[takyris]

in my eyes, theft of stuff isn't evil. you can always earn money to buy more stuff.

By this logic, I can stab you in the arm a few times per month. Sure, you'll bleed, but your body will naturally produce more blood and heal itself. Nothing's permanently lost, right? How about if I come out of the blue and punch you in the stomach once or twice a week? No long-term harm done.

Knowingly, intentionally, and willingly hurting people without an appropriate extenuating circumstance is an evil act. Theft hurts people. If you don't believe me, please consider getting robbed and tell me how it feels. Let me know how much you enjoy working to buy back the things you already paid for once. Tell me about the joy of losing your sense of security and your faith in your fellow neighbors.

I'm not arguing that things are more important than people. I'm not saying that it's as bad as murder. I believe it's possible to say that theft is bad without saying that it's bad as murder. I also believe that stealing somebody's boots as a joke is different from stealing his ATM card and using it to go to Vegas. Yes, degrees exist.

But if y'all don't think that theft hurts people, then please, send me your money. I've got bills to pay and a kid on the way, and having my car's broken into because somebody playfully wanted my radio and everything I had in the backseat is not a petty inconvenience for me.

The question here is whether the action had an appropriate extenuating circumstance. The only extenuating circumstance offered was "I'm greedy." That doesn't qualify for "Should get off the hook for a crime of convenience".

 

[reveal]

By this logic, I can stab you in the arm a few times per month. Sure, you'll bleed, but your body will naturally produce more blood and heal itself. Nothing's permanently lost, right? How about if I come out of the blue and punch you in the stomach once or twice a week? No long-term harm done.

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. 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.

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

Please do not make this a personal argument against the evils of theft in the world. This thread is not the place for that.

 

[Sejs]

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.

-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.

-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.

-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.

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.