Ransacking and rummaging rogue - is he evil?

[Valiantheart]

Well to skip the 5 pages of argument....

I dont see the theives actions in this instance as evil. His intent is not to cause harm to others merely to benefit himself. In that respect its a purely neutral activity. Also, the dead are dead. What do they need money for anymore. Thats pretty much the standard means to acquire loot in D&D.

If the thief knew all of his comrads where ok and not bleeding out on the floor then again I see nothing wrong with his actions. He merely wished to avoid the messy moral intanglements that this thread has spawned.

I would consider the thieves actions evil if he:
1) Threatened someone guarding the luggage with bodily harm if they didnt leave him to it.
2) Finished off the not quite dead yet train passengers
3) Knew his buddies were potentially dying as he looked for loot.

 

[Sejs]

OK. And I don't view it as excessive for me to tax those people of thier luggage. Once again, it's merely a matter of justification and viewpoint.

Er, taxation without representation. A government taxing its citizens, in theory, has a right to that money because it provides something to the people it's taxing in return. Roads, public works, defense, etc, etc. Infrastructure.

You're not taxing those people of their luggage, because they're not getting anything in return for it. That's the deal - taxation is a standard financial transaction: money in exchange for goods or services. Theft isn't. Theft is money in return for nothing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Some acts harm no one (directly) but benefit the person performing them. Some acts harm others, but benefit the person performing them. Other acts harm the person performing them, but benefit others.

Personally, I see the first as neutral, the second as evil, and the third as good.

How you define harm and benefit, of course, may vary. Also, some acts harm others and help others, such as killing orcs to save peasants.

Going back to the orgininal question, if the CN thief in question had not looted the luggage, but rather rendered aid to the passengers, would we all be saying that his alignment has to change because as CN character cannot do good deeds?

RC

 

[ARandomGod]

Er, taxation without representation. A government taxing its citizens, in theory, has a right to that money because it provides something to the people it's taxing in return. Roads, public works, defense, etc, etc. Infrastructure.

You're not taxing those people of their luggage, because they're not getting anything in return for it. That's the deal - taxation is a standard financial transaction: money in exchange for goods or services. Theft isn't. Theft is money in return for nothing.

Are you saying that there is no such taxation in government? History seems to indicate otherwise.

For that matter... I can easily look in my own city, which has the ability to annex any unincorporated area without it's consent, and without granting any services. It recently did so with a wealthy area who complained a LOT. It still did. Now those people are paying city taxes for all sorts of things, and they aren't getting any city services.

All in all it's just what justification you use. Someone who wanted to badly enough could come up with a justification of what service he's providing his victims.

 

[ARandomGod]

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

And I understand your point of view. You're wrong, of course. It's only evil when I am stolen from. Or someone I care about. However, when it's you... or one of the faceless masses, it is instead patently neutral. Unless, of course, I am benifiting from this theft, at which point it "obviously" swings right to good.

Clearly.

However, as I said, I understand and indeed encourage "your point of view".

That point of view makes better victims...

(PS: Not actually a belief of mine, but instead a character concept. Demented? Perhaps. But still...)

 

[Darkness]

Hey green slime, I'd like you to use fewer real-world religion (commandments, deadly sins) / real-world politics (Nazis) examples to make your point. Thanks.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Law: Following what is laid out as law. Doing what is set out to be done. Tradition.
Chaos: Specifically flouting what is laid out as law. Flouting tradition merely because it is tradition, not because it's bad or wrong.

Good: Acting for the benefit of others at the expense of oneself
Evil: Acting for the benefit of oneself at the expense of others

Hence - Stealing from someone who is living for your own personal benefit is neutral evil.

Stealing from someone who is dead for your own personal benefit is neutral unless you know it will have a deleterious effect on someone in the future.

Stealing from someone in order to upset the order of things is chaotic. If you keep the stuff, it's evil. If you give the stuff away, it's good. If you steal from someone who can afford it, that probably stops it from being evil. If you give it away because you can afford it, it stops it from being good. At a guess, robin hood falls in as chaotic and very slightly good. He stole, kept a 1/3rd (evil) gave 1/3rd to the poor (good) and gave 1/3rd back, because primarily he was making a point. He deliberately stole from those that could afford the loss (which ameliorates some of the evil, leaving a minor good balance).

If, on the other hand, he'd given it all to the poor and stole primarily to help the poor, it would have come out as a good action with no law-chaos balance at all. If he stole from thieves to give to the poor and reinforce the local order of things, then he'd be leaning towards lawful good. If he stole from thieves and kept it - lawful neutral. If he stole from poor people to keep them poor and kept it for himself - lawful evil.

 

[green slime]

Hey green slime, I'd like you to use fewer real-world religion (commandments, deadly sins) / real-world politics (Nazis) examples to make your point. Thanks.

I will be happy to do so when we all have relevant experiences in non-real world religions and non-real world politics that we can refer to with mutual understanding.

Note taken, Darkness.

 

[Malanath]

Is it evil?

I read most of the posts in this thread and I decided to weigh in with my own thoughts.

I believe the Thief (and that's what he is) is playing his character consistently with his alignment and his description of him. What the Thief did was certainly Chaotic Neutral and very borderline evil. However, I still feel that it was within the realm of his alignment.

That being said what he did was most certainly a crime. As the DM you could punish him for his actions in many different ways. You could have one of the wealthy people he stole from send out Bounty Hunters after the Thief. You could have the Guards/Police/Investigators somehow link the two murders to the Thief. (Would seem like they were robbed then murdered to them.) It will certainly send a message to the Thief: There are consequences to your actions. It would also inform the Paladin about what is going on and create some interesting inter-party conflict. It might make the Thief reform his ways, or at the very least be more careful and cautious about his habits.

Bottom line is to have fun with it. Remember that it is a game and that everyone is there to enjoy it. His actions were certainly morally questionable, but his character by definition is morally questionable as most CN Characters are.

Alignment is based off several factors in my opinion: Motive, Intent, and Prospective.

I think the person who gets robbed would certainly see the characters actions as evil, but of course they are not looking at it objectively -- they were the victim. However, what about the Thief’s prospective? What was his motive and intent? I see his motive as self-serving and greedy. Trying to make a quick buck. Was his intent to steal to purposefully cause harm? It doesn't sound like it. In fact how it would affect those he stole from likely didn't even cross his mind. (That's why it's a grey area.) From his prospective he simply saw an opportunity and took it. As a Chaotic Neutral Character it is very conceivable that it in no way shape or form was against his morals. He isn't playing a character of upstanding morals. Nor is he playing a character that follows the law. As the DM you have the ability to create a consequence for his actions by having the 'law' find him and allowing the Paladin deal with him on a moral level.

Was Robin Hood evil because he stole from the rich to give to the poor? No, he was seen as a hero or antihero. Some might consider him Chaotic Good while others might consider him Chaotic Neutral. Although I am certain that some of the Nobles he stole from saw his actions as reprehensible and morally bankrupt at the very least while the majority of Nobles likely saw him as evil. I'm certain Robin Hood himself as a Chaotic Good person as he saw his actions as doing illegal things (robbing the rich) to help people (giving it to the poor).

From the Paladins prospective he'll likely be mortified. He'd likely call it evil. However he has a different set of moral values than does the Thief. If the Paladin preformed these actions then yes, I would consider them evil as they go heavily against his alignment and set of morals. However, considering the characters alignment I think it falls well within the "safe" range. My suggestion is to have fun with it and have someone come seeking retribution against the Thief. It’ll inform the Paladin of what he has been up to.

 

[tonym]

...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.

Running a "sneaky, greedy, sometimes selfish rogue" is mega-fun.

A CN rogue should be given lots of leeway by a DM when it comes time to assess the 'evil' in his nature, IMO. Rogues are rogues, after all; they should be given really low standards. Unlike paladins, fighters, and every other class.

If the rogue is bugging you, ask the player to be a tad more loyal to the party. But I hope you stay away from his alignment. If the player wanted to run an EVIL rogue, I'm sure he could do it in a way that leaves no room for doubt about his alignment.

In other words, the player seems to be running a solid CN rogue to me.


Tony M