Ransacking and rummaging rogue - is he evil?

[Raven Crowking]

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.

D&D draws a fairly sharp distinction between, say, killing the orcs in the dungeon and killing the peasants in the field. Both are the same act -- killing -- but the choice of victim determines the ethical nature of the act. Killing the orcs is neutral. Killing the peasants is evil. Whether or not this is supportable in real-world ethics is questionable, but it is the ethical structure inherent in the D&D rules.

Note that killing the orcs is still neutral. It is not a good act.

Bringing harm to the harmful is acceptable in D&D. Not good, but not evil either. Sometimes, bringing harm to the harmful is necessary to prevent evil, in which case it is a neutral act that good characters will perform.

Harming others for your gain is, however, pretty much the definition of evil in D&D. The questions become:

(1) Are you harming others?

Stealing from the rich causes less harm, one could argue, than stealing from the poor. So, by choosing his victims, a thief can actually mitigate his slide to evil, IMO.

(2) Are you out for your own gain?

Giving a portion of the loot to those who truly need it, ala Robin Hood, is another potential mitigation. Or, for example, stealing the goblin's swords not because you want swords, but because the goblins were planning on using them to raid the peasants in the fields.

As the difference between "killing" and "murder" is found in the motive and circumstances, so is the difference between "neutral theft" and "evil theft". One is opportunistic, perhaps misguided, but not out to screw someone else over. The other is screwing someone else over. Simply put, when the harm you are causing is fairly severe, and fairly obvious (i.e., breaking into cars, mugging, stealing some poor shmo's television), then it is an evil act.

Where the harm you are causing is mitigated by circumstances, inclusive of (but not limited to) the relatively small amount of harm you are doing vs. the relative amount of good your acts may bring about for you and (especially) for others, then it is a neutral act.

At least, IMHO, and in the way that I read the alignment descriptions in the rules. Of course, YMMV.


RC

 

[Felonious Ntent]

SNip, lots of good stuff
As the difference between "killing" and "murder" is found in the motive and circumstances, so is the difference between "neutral theft" and "evil theft". One is opportunistic, perhaps misguided, but not out to screw someone else over. The other is screwing someone else over.

But wouldn't the Thief in question fallunder the first catagory. He is acting opportunuisticly. He is not doing it with the express intent to harm. He is doing it just beacuse it is there and he can. He stated he was doing it for greed not to cause distress to the victims.

Therefor he is acting to his alignemt CN.
You could argue if he did it with the express purpose of causing discomfort he was being evil in his actions. WHich goes with what i am saying the act of stealing is not evil it is chaotic. The reasoning behind it determines if it is evil.
Last i checked greed wasn't evil.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Actions of Thief match this Alignment. IMO.

Felonious, I agree. CN characters will end up doing both good and evil acts. Saying that this act was an evil act is not the same as saying that it makes the character evil by extension.

Or, at least, it shouldn't be. Earlier editions of the game warned DMs against making alignment changes based upon single actions (as opposed to patterns of action) a bit more strenuously, perhaps.


RC

 

[ARandomGod]

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 don't see the acts as evil now, nor do I see a future filled with such acts as evil.

I'll agree that the paladin wouldn't associate with someone who continues to act like this, assuming the paladin knows. But that's the violates code part, not the evil part. And, of course, it says consistently, so he could see it several times, and try an unspecified number of times to "correct" the actions.

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.

I have to agree with this part too. Stealing from harmless passengers is no more evil than from villians. And no less chaotic.

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.

Yea, if you're going to have issue with this character type, it should be discussed soonest. I don't think it's the definition of evil, others obviously don't either... I can see him not thinking it's evil.

I CAN understand how this type of thing can hurt the party, especially if it's going to be the rogue stealing from the party (which this character type could do, and still non-evilly). On the other hand, there are ways to allow even this without truly hurting the party... if you (all) talk about it and make attempts to incorporate it appropriately into the campaign.

But, regardless of whether this IMO choatic behavior can be or even wants to be (by you) accomodated in the game, no amount of stealing for profit is evil.

For that matter... even if the party was bleeding and he left them... that's not necessarily "evil". That could easily be self centered and thoughtless/impulsive. It's possible and even probable that the type of character described is thoughtless and impulsive.

A key point here... is that there ARE grey areas. There IS an alignment called neutral. And it's not good. It's not even a little good, or else it would be called "a little good". It's also not evil, however. And a lot of people have a hard time distinguishing between not good and evil. Many people also have problems understanding the law/chaos axis as a different entity. Stealing, however, falls pretty firmly on the law/chaos axis, and not anywhere on the good/evil axis.

But, once again, there's still the fact that the paladin won't associate with THAT type of behavior either, as it violates his codes, evilness or not aside.

Here's a quote I find quite appropo:

In a D&D game, good and evil are black and white. That being said, there are degrees of good and evil, which is why some definition from the DM is always essential, to set out exactly where the boundaries lie in his campaign.

In a D&D game, I would personally see stealing as low-grade borderline evil, but evil nevertheless.

Saying that good and evil are black and white is tantamount to saying that there IS no neutral alignment. There is no grey, as it were. And a lot of people think this way. It's patently not true, as right there in black and white is a neutral alignment. Two, in fact, one good/evil and one lawful/chaotic.

A "low grade, borederline evil" is practically the definition of neutral. Not that whole definition, sure. It also encompases low grade borderline goods. As well as large, obvious evils tempered with large, obvious goods. It is, in short, neutral.

However, that being said... sure, you can break EVERYthing down into quantum minutia of good and evil. But then you have to realize that the neutral alignment is there for a reason, which is that people who do "evil" but less than X amount of evil, are not evilly aligned. And people who do "good" but less than X amount of good, are not goodly aligned.

Sure, you'll have to define this, each individual has to define this. But, in general, the very fact that this question is questionable, that so many people are saying that it's not evil... that's pretty good evidence that, whether it contains quantum bits of Evil or not (and anyone person good at debate can come up with quantum bits of Good in the act as well if he/she tried)... whether or not that is, it's obviously neutral to at least some, and likely neutral to the character in question.

I also *have* to add this quote:

In my eyes, greed of that level IS evil.

And my own opinion, which is that, in my eyes, forcing your own moralistic opinions on others is evil... which really, to me, seems to be what the Captain is suggesting people should do. Put there mostly as an interesting example of different people's definitions of evil.

Both Good and Evil would like to take up all of neutral, if you look at good and evil as a force. One main difference, in my opinion, is that forcably classifying a neutral person as evil is an evil act when done by a good person... whereas an evil person can forceably classify anyone as anything while remaining evil.

Which is interesting, IMO, because under that definition items such as a "Helm of Alignment Opposition" is evil, whether used on a good person or an evil person.

 

[takyris]

Hey Reveal,

For the record, I'm open to compromise. CN doesn't look like an awful fit for his actions, and I could see that difference depending on the GM's thoughts at the table, that line between CN and NE... because a lot of the terms are questions of degree and are pretty close, honestly.

 

[green slime]

Last i checked greed wasn't evil.

Man, this comment is just too funny....

The seven deadly sins:
Pride, Avarice/Greed, Envy, Wrath, Lust, Gluttony, Sloth.

Checking the Alignment section of the PHB 3.5:
Chaotic Evil, "Destroyer": A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust drive him to do.

Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit": A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individual first and foremost. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom.

IOW, neither will the CN character deprive others of their freedoms (Steal). IMO.

Of course, how this fits into your game is your decision. Which is what we are all discussing here.

IMO:
Overtaxation is evil, as it is theft. (LE: the kind opposed by Robin Hood)

Taking arms and armour from defeated foes is not an act of evil of itself, as it is an act of disarming. Note that "defeated" is not neccessarily equal to "dead". Good characters should also strive to avoid unnecessary deaths in those that are redeemable, but are of course expected to defend themselves and their charges to the best of their abilities. Being good is not about doing what is expedient.

 

[green slime]

A key point here... is that there ARE grey areas. There IS an alignment called neutral. And it's not good. It's not even a little good, or else it would be called "a little good". It's also not evil, however. And a lot of people have a hard time distinguishing between not good and evil. Many people also have problems understanding the law/chaos axis as a different entity. Stealing, however, falls pretty firmly on the law/chaos axis, and not anywhere on the good/evil axis.

I agree that there are grey areas. I disagree with the stealing as non-evil.

Jay-walking is not evil, but chaotic behaviour. Grabbing an old lady's handbag is evil.

Firstly, it completely disregards the individual whose property it is.

Secondly we are then in a "might makes right" situation. If stealing is ok, as in "only chaotic", then there is nothing wrong with the chaotic good thief stealing from the poor.

Stealing from harmless passengers is no more evil than from villians. And no less chaotic.

Somehow, that logic seems flawed to me. So stealing from rich or poor makes no difference. According you it is just "chaotic".

"Yeah, I got these three farthings from a blind cripple I kicked in the teeth on my way to church. Just the cash I was missing for that Holy Avenger I need to slay demonkind."

Robin Hood did not steal from the Rich to give to the Poor. He took what was wrongfully taken from the people in the first place (over taxation) by someone who had ursuped power from the rightful ruler. These nuances are not unimportant. Once King Richard returned to throne, did Robin continue stealing from the rich? No because King Richard was a "just" king. Or so the story goes.

Stealing is evil, whether done by individuals, governments or corporations. Whether it is an act on the spur of the moment, or legally allowed through loopholes or design. However, its "evilness" can be mitigated by circumstances.

 

[Malic]

Does anyone else think there is a big difference between 'not evil' and 'ok'? I don't see anyone saying that theft doesn't cause harm. Theft is not ok by a long shot. It's bad, it's wrong, it deserves to be punished appropriately. But to me it is not 'evil' except in special circumstances - where the theft was done specifically to cause pain and suffering, or if it was carried out in full awareness that it would cause specific pain and suffering.

Ordinary stealing like this, IMO, is just neutral. Selfish and thoughtless and probably hurting people down the line, yes, but not evil.

This kind of rogue is pretty much a D&D archetype, and the paladin trying to get the rogue to take some responsibility and mend his ways is a classic situation too which can spark some good roleplaying if handled well by the players.

I like the suggestions others have made about bringing the thief face to face with the harm his thefts caused. If he is happy about it or doesn't care, that is evil.

Leaving people to die is evil. If the thief knew the party was in no danger, it's a stupid idea to anger people he's going to depend on, but not IMO evil.

There should definitely be in-game repercussions for this kind of act, and there are some great suggestions in this thread. But for in my game, at least, that wouldn't include an alignment shift.

Of course anyone else's MMV and likely does

PS. I think, Robin Hood wasn't Good because he stole from the rich, but because he gave to the poor. The stealing was neutral like most.

 

[swrushing]

Each Gm defines his alignments and how important they are. he needs to get those across to his players as much as possible and as quickly as possible. This is particularly important BEFORE he starts making alignment an issue at all and absolutely emphatically before he starts hitting characters core basis and such.

One thing to look at is what singles the setting sent...

What gods are in use in your campaign? Which ones have roguish and thiefy elements in their makeup and what are their alignments?

I tend to downplay alignment in my games.

My opening statement on alignment is always... "Play your character, not some alignment. Alignment is derived from the character's actions and should not drive the character's actions."

For everyone except the religious types, its not going to be critical to them what tag is placed on their character for alignment.

For the religious types, there is always a brief discussion on "the church's teachings and dogma." During play, before he does something i see as a "sin" for that religion, he gets a "you realize this is outside/against the normal teachings?" type of warning. Repeated infractions or grievous departures will be dealt with by the church or by higher authorities if needed.

FWIW, in a fantasy environment which includes a wide range of thief types like Matthew Broderick's character from LadyHawk as heroes or heroic sidekicks, I would NOT expect players to understand that thievery will be considered "evil" by default. "Unlawful"? Sure.

 

[Captain Tagon]

And my own opinion, which is that, in my eyes, forcing your own moralistic opinions on others is evil... which really, to me, seems to be what the Captain is suggesting people should do. Put there mostly as an interesting example of different people's definitions of evil.

Both Good and Evil would like to take up all of neutral, if you look at good and evil as a force. One main difference, in my opinion, is that forcably classifying a neutral person as evil is an evil act when done by a good person... whereas an evil person can forceably classify anyone as anything while remaining evil.

Which is interesting, IMO, because under that definition items such as a "Helm of Alignment Opposition" is evil, whether used on a good person or an evil person.

By that logic then laws are evil because all laws are are just enforced value judgements from one person to another.