Theft and Alignment

[Ovinomancer]

Had a character once, by the name of Franco. Franco worked for the king, and did what he was told. His job was 'troubleshooter.' The king would send him out to fix a problem with special dispensation to do whatever he felt neccessary to accomplish it. Franco was careful, intelligent, cunning and extremely organized. He put everyone into catergories as per their general usefulness to his mission. He also stole whatever he could not acquire that was needed for his mission, would bribe, threaten or blackmail any individual that he thought could help, and would eliminate potential risks without thought or concern. He also would go out of his way to protect innocents, tithed to good churches, and assisted the locals in any way that did not threaten his mission.
Franco was LN. He had dispensation to break those laws he deemed neccessary from the highest authority in the land. He would commit evil acts in the pursuit of his mission, but gained no satisfaction from them. He helped members of his country in any way he could, but would stop if it threatened the mission his was on.

So, no, I do not believe that stealing or breaking the law is entirely dependant on Lawful/Chaotic. Chaotic characters may be more likely to do it, but the act does not require chaos.

 

[Shuffle]

Had a character once, by the name of Franco. Franco worked for the king, and did what he was told. His job was 'troubleshooter.' The king would send him out to fix a problem with special dispensation to do whatever he felt neccessary to accomplish it. Franco was careful, intelligent, cunning and extremely organized. He put everyone into catergories as per their general usefulness to his mission. He also stole whatever he could not acquire that was needed for his mission, would bribe, threaten or blackmail any individual that he thought could help, and would eliminate potential risks without thought or concern. He also would go out of his way to protect innocents, tithed to good churches, and assisted the locals in any way that did not threaten his mission.
Franco was LN. He had dispensation to break those laws he deemed neccessary from the highest authority in the land. He would commit evil acts in the pursuit of his mission, but gained no satisfaction from them. He helped members of his country in any way he could, but would stop if it threatened the mission his was on.

So, no, I do not believe that stealing or breaking the law is entirely dependant on Lawful/Chaotic. Chaotic characters may be more likely to do it, but the act does not require chaos.

I would say that since those are all done in the kings name ( and therefore with his permission) then yes Franco was lawful ( since permission comes from the king he's broken no laws). But I would argue that Franco was actually evil (blackmail, general disregard for people around him). The good deeds don't affect his alignment since if they're inconvenient he will stop doing them. But he won't go out of his way to not perform an evil act.
Since D&D is black and white in its outlook, stealing isn't inherantly evil but it does break laws which is generally chaotic. ( A lawful character would attempt to change the system from within rather than resort to theft). Killing isn't inherantly evil either... but killing innocents always is, so is causing the suffering of innocents. Personally in my opinion I think its best to let the heros save the village, city, world, plane of existance, or universe without sacrificing innocent NPC's; because in general thats what D&D is about (officially anyways).

But Stealing isn't evil or chaotic --- its the intent of the action that makes it chaotic or evil or both

ie. stealing the peasents tax money to buy a sword ---- chaotic evil
stealing the barons tax money and giving to the poor --chaotic good
unless of course you've attempted to have the taxes lowered first
taxing the peasents to death -- Lawful evil
not stealing and getting taxes lowered ---- Lawful Good (assuming that you don't kill said baron in his sleep. But the stealing from the dea issue? thats a bit much unless it wasn't an abandoned area (The kings ancestral crypt may be stealing)

whew... hope that made sense, time for bed

 

[Sejs]

Since D&D is black and white in its outlook, stealing isn't inherantly evil but it does break laws which is generally chaotic. ( A lawful character would attempt to change the system from within rather than resort to theft)

Apples and Tires.

Legislation has nothing to do with a character's alignment.

 

[Wombat]

Hmmm

Looks like more fuel for my Anti-Alignment jags

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Theft and Alignment

Assumption: We are working in a generic D&D, black and white morality system. I'm interested in the D&D answer, not the real world one.

Stealing is definitely not a Lawful act.

But is stealing a Chaotic act?
But is stealing an Evil act?

-Gak Toid

Why can't it be a Lawful act? I don't view Lawful as meaning law abiding as Lawful Evil villans would never break the law if they were living in a mostly good kingdom. I believe Lawful means you prefer an ordered approach to life. You are the thief that will go in with a plan rather than one who deals with problems as they come.
I view the Neutral alignments as the Selfish ones. You don't care about the good or evil (order or chaos on the other axis) implications of something... you do it if it benefits you or your goals. I can see someone with a Good alignment stealing from evil types and giving to the poor. Neutral would steal from whomever not out of malice but just to get what they want. Evil would steal from the poor because it gives him pleasure to see them suffer.

Just my personal take on alignments. My players like it and it has worked for me for many years. I think the descriptor of "Ordered" would have been a better term for the alignment than "Lawful".

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I'm continually surprised by the number of people who still equate Lawful alignment with following laws. I almost wish the alignment were named something else, like 'Orderly' - but then it sounds like the paladins should be wearing hospital scrubs.

Anyway, the Mafia is a great example of a group that is generally Lawful Evil: they're organized. They have a distinct and defined hierarchy. They have traditions. They have codes of honor. But they sure as heck don't follow 'the law'.

J

At least there is one person who seems to agree with me.

 

[heirodule]

"property is theft"

 

[tonym]

...Now I'm wondering if I (as a chaotic good character) would have a problem robbing from a tomb.

IMHO, a CG cleric would 'not' have a problem with looting a tomb. Nor would a paladin, for that matter. In a D&D world, taking stuff from a tomb is like picking-up a gold bracelet off the ground: You'd be crazy to just walk by and leave it there.

Of course, a paladin or good-aligned cleric would give much of their loot to his or her temple...but they'd still take it from the tomb to begin with.

There is one clarification and three exceptions to this tomb-robbing:

CLARIFICATION: It's not called robbing, it's called looting. Robbing is bad. Looting a tomb is like or mining for gems.

EXCEPTIONS (For Good-aligned PCs):
1) Do not loot your mother's tomb.
2) Do not loot a tomb within city limits that is well-maintained by taxpayer money (neglected, overgrown cemeteries are fair game).
3) Do not loot a tomb within the traditional 10 Days of Respect following the burial of the deceased.

EXCEPTIONS (For Evil PCs)
1) None.

Note: I made-up the 10 Days of Respect. In your campaign, feel free to change it to 5 days or whatever seems more realistic.

Tony M

 

[Krinkle]

Theft and Alignment

Assumption: We are working in a generic D&D, black and white morality system. I'm interested in the D&D answer, not the real world one.

Stealing is definitely not a Lawful act.

But is stealing a Chaotic act?
But is stealing an Evil act?

-Gak Toid

Since you want D&D and not real world we need to get past this real world subjective morality.

Presumably your campaign has gods and that everyone knows empirically that they exist (Divine spells, Planar Allies, maybe even avatars.) Because of this there is likely an objective moral framework. Motivations are mostly irrelevant. The gods have determined what is right and wrong, lawful and chaotic. Though this might differ from god to god. I suppose it is up to the Gamemaster to determine what the God's think, do they have a unified vision of what is good and what is evil. Do the evil gods think of themselves as evil or is committing an evil act "good" if done by a whorshipper of an evil god? (Probably not, otherwise be prepapared to get rid of Detect Evil)

Unless you want to bust out "Beyond Good and Evil" and devote way more than time than necessary, I would make a decision on each act based on how you think the Gods view it, either in a unified fashion or how the relevant God views it.

For instance, in our FR campaign we play Bane more as a God of Fascism rather than a generic God of Evil. Bane and Banites believe they are good, and that if power was given to the mightest and if the weak would just shut up and do what they are told the world would be a better place. However, since Good and Evil exist, as a thing-in-themselves, as objective realities, Bane is evil.

 

[Angcuru]

D&D alignment and real world morality are completely seperate. In fact, I think it would be a good idea to rethink the Lawful and Chaotic elements of D&D alignment. Lawful is not entirely 'LAW Law-Following', but rather having a set way of doing things, a code of conduct-type-of-thing. Chaotic is not 'rebellious' but rather CHAOTIC, which is unpredictable, unreliable, etc. Stealing is not chaotic, in fact, it could be argued that it is lawful for the thief, in that theft is a set mode of conduct for that person.