Ransacking and rummaging rogue - is he evil?

[reveal]

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.

Like I said before, I can see how it's NE. But I can also see how it's CN. Heck, one could even argue for CE.

It's just a matter of perspective and interpretation. This is why it's so important for DM's and players to know where the other stands on moral actions. In this case, the DM thinks it's evil and the player may or may not. It's up to them to work it out.

 

[reveal]

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

Not entirely true. All laws are NOT value judgements. True, some are, but most laws are on the books because of past experiences by those who create said laws.

 

[ARandomGod]

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.

...

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.

This I like. Stealing from the poor beggar, as exampled above, wasn't evil. Kicking the beggar in the teeth was evil. (Was there a subconcious desire to add real evil in to justify that?)
"Those beggars secretly make more money than merchants!"
(And if you haven't heard that line before, you should come visit my hometown, it's a commonly held belief)

Now, bring the thief to SEE the harm he's caused, and have him not care, that could be evil, at least a little bit. Or a great bit, depending on situation. Sure, if YOU stole it would be evil. You're more developed emotionally. All these people who are arguing about the "eventual harm" done by these thefts have thought about that. This thief hasn't.

Scenario:
If you had to stopped this morning at the donut store for breakfast, it would have been a great evil. It would have done much harm down the line... due to circumstances you did not see or think about.

Would you be evil for stopping? No. Not unless you DID see and think about it. If you knew that events springing from this would lead to the long suffering deaths of several innocents because you wanted that coffee, well, sure, you're evil. How does this relate? That thief *doesn't see*.

Amoral and spiritually undeveloped? Sure. Evil? no.

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

Not all laws are evil. And not all laws do this. Some laws are evil, inherently. Some are evil due to lack of forethought and planning. I, personally, IRL tend to be lawful good. As such I notice a lot of the evil inherent in the laws that exist. Because I feel compelled to follow those laws (similiar to other law/chaos good/evil threads that meantion paladins dissatisfaction with existing laws... or even books to similiar effect). It's amusing and frustrating when I point out some of these evils to my more neutral or even chaotically minded friends, and they just say: "Oh, well, I ignore that". Or even worse, I'm thinking of a specific event wherein a person was *for* a certain law which both of us agreed was wrong, and he consistently and blatantly ignored (feeling above the law himself). He didn't think that the law really applied to HIM, he just felt it should exist.

Not all laws are about value judgements. Many have other impacts and foci There aree a number of books and treatisies on this subject. Only those laws that are about forcing one person or groups values on another are evil.

Edit: Aaargh! Beaten to the reply! ~_^

 

[Felonious Ntent]

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

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

Christianity has no bearing in this discussion.
However I should point sin does not =evil. It is only a transgression.

Also note in your religion you may concider greed a sin. Me I don't believe in Sins. there is only right and wrong as defined by the society I live in and my upbrining. Therefor I don't fall under your definitions of evil so why should a pc be forced to or the palyer of him which ever way you look at it.

 

[Felonious Ntent]

I have a question that hopefully someone can answer for me. Actualy hopefully more than 1 person.
To me theft is theft wether it is a beggar or a rich merchant. The act and end result are the same you are taking something from someone.

Why do so many people seem to think it is ok to steal from a rich person but not a poor one? I am realy having trouble understanding how one act of theft can be ok and not the other?

Now as was pinted out Robinhood didn't realy steal from the rich and give to the poor he just took back from the rich and returned to the poor that which was theirs to begin with. So please don't use his actions as an example.

 

[TheYeti1775]

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!

By the Stealing equals Evil quoted above, Robin Hood is Evil.
Did he not take advantage of those passing through Sherwood Forest?
And he openly flaunted the Law, so would a Paladin fall from grace for associating with Robin Hood?

I have a question that hopefully someone can answer for me. Actualy hopefully more than 1 person.
To me theft is theft wether it is a beggar or a rich merchant. The act and end result are the same you are taking something from someone.

Why do so many people seem to think it is ok to steal from a rich person but not a poor one? I am realy having trouble understanding how one act of theft can be ok and not the other?

Now as was pinted out Robinhood didn't realy steal from the rich and give to the poor he just took back from the poor and returned to them that which was theirs to begin with. So please don't use his actions as an example.

Sorry Felonious Ntent, but the last part would only be true if he stole only from the King's Men and the King Himself. But in the good majority of the tales and even robbed merchants passing through. Using the "Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves" move as an example, they were originally going to ROB Little John of his goods, and he was portrayed as a simple "priest". Yes he gave most of it to the Poor, but still it was theft of property.

I would say he is really playing a Chaotic Neutral alignment. The party was all at least stable (key is did he check them), does this Rogue even have points in Heal? If caught he has a really vialible excuse, he is looking for something to heal the party or bandage their wounds. I think he might have to be awarded good roleplaying experience for fulfillig the concept that had already been approved.

 

[green slime]

Christianity has no bearing in this discussion.
However I should point sin does not =evil. It is only a transgression.

Also note in your religion you may concider greed a sin. Me I don't believe in Sins. there is only right and wrong as defined by the society I live in and my upbrining. Therefor I don't fall under your definitions of evil so why should a pc be forced to or the palyer of him which ever way you look at it.

Of course Christianity has a bearing on the subject. Our entire legal systems in the western hemisphere and the near Middle East are based upon those tablets that Moses was given.

It is not "only" a transgression. It is a transgression. They are the seven "deadly" sins. Theft is a transgression. Giving in to greed is a mortal sin, and you should fear for your soul!

Me? I have no religion. I'm what is known as an atheist. But I admit to having a strong moral upbringing. I believe there are wrongs that are wrong not because society says so, but because they are against principles that I hold fundamental. If you accept the fact, for instance, that, as per the American constitution, that all men are equal then there are certain logical conclusions that one must make from this, regardless. One of these conclusions led to the slaves being freed. It took a while, but that is because there were powerful forces at work, and people are only human, and fallible. Even the best of them. IIRC, at least one of the founding fathers had a slave.

Do you think Gygax was unaffected by his upbringing? That subsequent writers of the rules threw the shackles of their own private moralities away? Of course not.

In the game, PCs have an alignment. This alignment is not set in stone. The actions of the PC define the alignment of the character. This alignment will cause him or her to suffer/benefit from various in-game effects. The definition of alignment is not relative in the game.

Per the RAW, a PC cannot claim, "I'm good because my parents taught me that killing slaves, and eating their intestines is a good act, in service of the beneficial, blissful and harmonious deity Demogorgon."

Per the game, the character may well believe that his actions are good, that he is doing good in the service of a good deity, yet, what he believes is of no consequence when within a holy word spell.

 

[Felonious Ntent]

Of course Christianity has a bearing on the subject. Our entire legal systems in the western hemisphere and the near Middle East are based upon those tablets that Moses was given.

We however are not or shouldn't be talking about our legal system. This thread is about whether it is evil to steal or plunder in a fanatsy role playing game.
Some one said it a long time ago in this thread don't take our current RL beliefs and values and force them into the game. That is why said religion has no bearing. I guess I should have said current religous beliefs have no bearing.

 

[ARandomGod]

To me theft is theft wether it is a beggar or a rich merchant. The act and end result are the same you are taking something from someone.

Why do so many people seem to think it is ok to steal from a rich person but not a poor one? I am realy having trouble understanding how one act of theft can be ok and not the other?

Ah! And a good question it is. Why do so many people think that stealing from the rich is OK and from the poor is not? Justifications include, but are not limited to
1) They can afford it
2) They don't need it anyway
3) They'll be reimbursed for it
4) They'll never miss it
5) They probably stole it in the first place
6) If I don't take it someone else will
7) It would only have been wasted
8) I need it more

etcetera.

But why? The why is simply that these people either don't see or don't look at the harm that these thefts produce. And theft hurts the "wealthy" and the poor alike. In fact, a good look at economics will show that theft from the wealthy often hurts MORE people than theft from the poor would.

People think this thing for the same reason I quoted that stealing isn't "evil" above, that they don't really think, or they don't see the harm. Or even they won't see the harm.

Now as was pinted out Robinhood didn't realy steal from the rich and give to the poor he just took back from the poor and returned to them that which was theirs to begin with. So please don't use his actions as an example.

Nope, I'm using him as an example anyway.

Actually, Robis is a myth. Obviously. The type of myth thieves tell to themselves. There likely was a Robin Hood, there have been documented real life people like him. (Look up Pretty Boy Ffloyd for example). The "poor" that he gave to were his people, and his followers people. His family and friends, and the family and friends of the thieves town that he belonged to. The taxes that he liberated from the locals were likely lawful taxes... possibly more than in the past, and probably more in large part because of depredations due to robber barons just like the Hood. You can't really argue that Hood didn't hurt anyone. He stole from the whole kingdom, and gave only to his little community. Those taxes became more and more burdensome on everyone, including those who didn't have their own robber town supporting them. Robbing from the rich does hurt the poor.

 

[green slime]

I have a question that hopefully someone can answer for me. Actualy hopefully more than 1 person.
To me theft is theft wether it is a beggar or a rich merchant. The act and end result are the same you are taking something from someone.

Why do so many people seem to think it is ok to steal from a rich person but not a poor one? I am realy having trouble understanding how one act of theft can be ok and not the other?.

IMO, theft is evil. No matter who gets stolen from.

But there are mitigating circumstances. "Mitigating" meaning that it lessens the evil somewhat. Someone who has gained their wealth through illegitimate means of their own; theft, corruption, bribery, blackmail. This person, in a lawful society, could be completely untouchable by the law. He bribes police and officials. Stealing something from such a person would be perceived by many as "Them getting their just desserts. My granny used to say "Two wrongs do not make a right." But I can see how people desire to see a form of temporal justice when faced with such slimey vileness.

Secondly there is the issue that life itself is plainly unfair. If it were fair, we would all be happy, wealthy and wise. Which is not the case. Some people feel, that others do not "deserve" their wealth. While those that are pitifully poor... I mean you really want to steal that moldy bread crust from that blind beggar in Delhi? It is the only food he has seen for a week...

Stealing $2 from a rich person with billions and who tax-plans to take advantage of loopholes in the law, and stealing 50 cents from that beggar in Delhi. Who is going to miss it most? Both acts are wrong (evil). One is just so wrong the mind boggles that anyone would actually commit such an act. Most thieves could easily rationalize taking $2 from the rich guy "He won't even notice."