Theft and Alignment
- Thread starter GakToid
- Start date
Depends, I'd say that Robin Hood was true neutral.GakToid said:
I consider that stealing from evil rich people to help good poor people is neutral or chaotic good act.
Stealing from rich for own profit is neutral or evil and any of l-n-c act.
Stealing from everybody can be any non-good and any l-n-c act.
and so on...
FreeXenon
American Male (he/him); INTP ADHD Introverted Geek
GakToid said:
If we look at the General Principle of Stealing: taking something from another for personal gain - That is inherently Chaotic.
However, if we really break it down, it depends on the motivation.
A standard cut purse or cat-burglar would be Chaotic - stealing for personal gain.
If a person steals for survival, because they have no other choice or means, that would be Neutral.
A Lawful Rogue, hired by the Lawful to return religious artifacts that have been stolen from them would be Lawful. They would have a code of conduct and very defined strictures to follow and sanctioned by a lawful organization.
That's taking a look at the Law/Chaos/Neutral Axis.
If we analyze it from the Evil/Good axis it will boil down to the moral ramifications of doing so.
If stealing the item the result in the suffering of many, and the person did it to cause the suffering of many that would be evil.
If stealing the item would cause the suffering of many, but also prevent the rise of an evil power (demon - evil prince - or the like) that would cause even more death and destruction in the long run then it would Good. It is done for the good of the many and not the good of the few.
I hope this helps a little bit...
Please correct me if I am off base here...
Thornir Alekeg
Albatross!
FreeXenon said:
I think you broke this down very well. I would only take exception to your analysis of when stealing would be considered good. I would say that if it caused the suffering of many but also prevented more death and destruction, it would be more of a neutral act. I have difficulty in assigning anything that caused suffering as "good", unless the suffering would only be upon those who might deserve such suffering as just payment of prior acts.
ARandomGod
First Post
FreeXenon said:
I disagree with this statement. Stealing to thwart laws would be inherently chaotic... or stealing for no reason at all, say on a whim or for joy, *could* be inherently chaotic. Stealing for personal gain is inherently neutral. You need something, you take it. No regard for the law, or for the good or evil consequences of the act.
Simply disregarding the law is not chaotic. That's looking at things too black and white. You are NOT: 1) obeying the laws and lawful or 2) disobeying and therefore chaotic. That's the very REASON for the neutral axis. There is indeed a third option. You might simply not CARE about the law. That's neutral. Breaking the law is only chaotic if you do is because you care.
Is following the law only lawful if you care as well? Yes. If you're simply doing it out of ignorance or because the laws where you happen to be are good, and you're good (or they're evil, and you're evil) that's neutral. If, on the other hand, you're rebelling against law(s), that's Chaotic.
"Why are we breaking into the Mayors house again?" --Fighter
"Because that bastard locked me up for stealing. I'll teach him to think I can't steal" -- Rogue.
THAT's chaotic. (And vengeful)
If he simply said it was because he could get a lot of money, it would be potentially neutral. If it were to help others, it could be good.
AND, for that matter, if it were because he belongs to a lawful organization from another state, and was on a mission/quest... he might be lawful.
Remember, and this is very important. Breaking the law is in no way inherently evil. So many people confuse the lawful/choatic axis with the good/evil one.
FreeXenon said:
For instance, these two are not necessarily any different.
Remember, survival IS personal gain. And "Having no other means" is simply justification. And some people can justify a LOT.
Agreed.FreeXenon said:
Now, if the stealing would cause the suffering of many, or few, or any, and the person just did not care one way or another... That, my friend, is the very definition and the heart of neutrality.
Or, if the stealing would cause the suffering of only one, and it was done for the sole purpose of causing suffering, that's evil.
If the stealing might cause suffering or might not, and the person did it to help another... that's iffy... But basically good. It was done with good intentions and poor forethought. It was done to help someone in need, and the thief just didn't really think how it might hurt. Low wisdom maybe, but good.
If the thief stole the "bread of ages" that would prevent the destruction of a continent and all on it, in order to feed an orphan, well, that's good, right?
Of course, as long as you didn't know what havoc you were unleashing.
If, on the other hand, you were simply hungry... or no, simply greedy. And you took the holy seal of Antioch, which was Sealing up the Evil Rabbit for all eternity
But was also made of pure mythril
Because you wanted that mythril, and you couldn't care one way or another about the residents of that contenent. "Hey, they can go get their OWN!"
That's neutral. Even though it dooms thousands or millions to potentiall horrible deaths.
Now if you just smashed the seal to watch them scream and burn. That, my evil compatriot, is pure genius...
Wait! I mean evil.
tonym
First Post
I like rogues, so I like them to have as much room as possible to be themselves, whatever their alignment. So I'd say stealing is neither chaotic nor evil when it comes to rogues. This way a rogue can be good and/or lawfully aligned and still be able to steal stuff under certain circumstances.
Tony M
Tony M
Sejs
First Post
Stealing as an act, at its core is a Neutral act. Same as killing.
The motivations behind -why- the act is done are what would impact alignment.
I'm stealing from this cruel baron to feed these starving villagers - good act.
I'm stealing this key to get my friends out of the cell where these badguys put them - neutral act.
I'm stealing this guy's medicine because I'm a right bastard - evil act.
I'm stealing back this ring so I can return it to its rightful owner - lawful act.
I'm stealing this bread so I not starve to death - neutral act.
I'm stealing this guy's purse, not because I need the money, but just because I want to - chaotic act.
The motivations behind -why- the act is done are what would impact alignment.
I'm stealing from this cruel baron to feed these starving villagers - good act.
I'm stealing this key to get my friends out of the cell where these badguys put them - neutral act.
I'm stealing this guy's medicine because I'm a right bastard - evil act.
I'm stealing back this ring so I can return it to its rightful owner - lawful act.
I'm stealing this bread so I not starve to death - neutral act.
I'm stealing this guy's purse, not because I need the money, but just because I want to - chaotic act.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Indeed, let's not confuse breaking a law with being chaotic, here. Doing something that is against the laws of the kingdom need not be a chaotic act, just as following them fully may not be a lawful act.
An alignment refers more to the way a person looks at the world, and less to the specific things they do (though what they do certainly stems from the way they see the world). Lawful people are organized, ordered, rigorous, thoughough, and thoughtful. Chaotic people are free, instinctive, impulsive, emotional, and curious. (more or less.
)
An alignment refers more to the way a person looks at the world, and less to the specific things they do (though what they do certainly stems from the way they see the world). Lawful people are organized, ordered, rigorous, thoughough, and thoughtful. Chaotic people are free, instinctive, impulsive, emotional, and curious. (more or less.
)
Sejs
First Post
Right, you can be a throughly chaotic person and still follow the law of the land. Just because you follow the law, doesn't make you a Lawful person.
Being of a Lawful alignment is about how your character tends to act and hold the world in their outlook. A lawful person is ordered, structured, organized, and reliable - even if they're regularly doing stuff that would get them thrown in jail. If a Lawful rogue helps rob some moneylender, and tells his compatriots that they'll meet at the Purple Monkey Club at 8pm to divy up the loot, and that it'll be split equal portions between all of 'em, then he intends to do just that. He intends to be at that place at that time, because that's where the meeting is set, and intends to split the loot evenly, because that's fair. He may be a low-down no-good rotten sneakthief, but if he gives you his word, he'll intend to keep it.
Being of a Lawful alignment is about how your character tends to act and hold the world in their outlook. A lawful person is ordered, structured, organized, and reliable - even if they're regularly doing stuff that would get them thrown in jail. If a Lawful rogue helps rob some moneylender, and tells his compatriots that they'll meet at the Purple Monkey Club at 8pm to divy up the loot, and that it'll be split equal portions between all of 'em, then he intends to do just that. He intends to be at that place at that time, because that's where the meeting is set, and intends to split the loot evenly, because that's fair. He may be a low-down no-good rotten sneakthief, but if he gives you his word, he'll intend to keep it.
blargney the second
blargney the minute's son
Bilbo was a lawful rogue. He eventually repaid the elven king for the things he pilfered while trapped in the palace.
-blarg
-blarg
