Theft and Alignment

[ARandomGod]

There seems to be a lot of posters maintaining that if you steal for your personal gain, it's a chaotic and neutral act. This seems to me to ignore the reality that theft generally has a victim. Stealing for personal gain indicates a willingness to hurt other people (the victim(s) of the theft) for personal gain or alternately a desire for personal gain that offsets any consideration of who might be hurt by the act. Either way you describe it, you're paraphrasing the PHB description of evil.

Just because theft for personal gain is an accepted trope of gaming doesn't mean it isn't evil. It just means that some of the accepted tropes of gaming are evil. (Come to think of it, "to crush your enemies, drive them before you, and hear the lamentations of/ravage their women" (alternatively the Conan and Genghis Kahn versions of the quote) describes an evil view of the good life too).

Sure, theft has a victim. On the other hand, how motivated are you by that person? Really, being motivated entirely by self can only be neutral. That's what neutrality IS. If you just don't care, one way or another, it's neutral. You don't care who or if it hurts, who or if it benifits. For it to be evil, you have care.
Just because personal gain hurts somebody it doesn't have to be evil. It just can't be good.
Or, really, it CAN, if you're doing it for good, depending on who and how much and why.
Seriously it could be a desire for personal gain that doesn't "offset" anything, isn't a willingness to hurt another for it, but simply does not take that other's feelings into consideration in any way. That indeed is also in the PHB as a direct description of neutrality.
Hell, the PHB descriptions have become quit vague, if you actually read and analyse them.

As for the original question, ANY of the aligmnents could potentially be OK with stealing from the dead. That is, indeed entirely up to the characters point of view.

Does the character seriously think that stealing from the dead would harm that dead? If so, and he's good, he would be against it.
If so, and he's evil, he'd want to do it whether or not he'd personally gain from it.
If so, and he just don't care, or perhaps if he just doesn't think about it --he's neutral.

If he doesn't think it'll harm the dead, what, exactly, is his motivation for wanting to not do it? Whatever that is, it's not from a good/evil axis alignment.

It could be from a lawful/chaotic alignment... But even then, a lawful person could take it. Does the law that the character is aligned to have rules about property and death? Can the dead be considered to "own" property? If not, then the lawful person shouldn't have any qualms with taking anything there.
In fact, the paladins actions described above ("To which the paladin responds, "Here, let me help you open that so you can skull $#%$# the corpse." ") could actually be taken as chaotic evil. Chaotic, actively disobeying laws that very well might say that physical property belongs to the physical world (and a sensible, lawful, and GOOD law that would be. It's kind of evil to tie up wealth with the non-living, who should have gone on to their reward or punishment already). And evil... threatening a companion and forcing him to loose livlihood for no other reason than wanting to see him hurting. Yes, unless that paladin can actively explain away that malignant act (and it does sound like 1) he cared and 2) he was coming from a negative emotion and possibly even 3) he enjoyed the discomfort of the rogue, I'd say that the paladin could be up for an alignment audit.


Additional point.
Many seem to believe that stealing is inherently chaotic. This is simply not so. Claiming it is a lack of understanding of the word "law"
A law is a set of rules. Nothing, other than a desire to live in an ordered and ruled way, is inherently lawful. There is no law saying that laws have to be against stealing. (Unless you make one, but that's by definition not an inherent part of law). In fact, there can be, and have been, cultures in which "stealing" is written into the law as something which is to be done, and therefore NOT stealing could and would be non-lawful.

Actually, what exactly do you think taxes ARE?

 

[Angcuru]

You are correct, sir!

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Sure, theft has a victim. On the other hand, how motivated are you by that person? Really, being motivated entirely by self can only be neutral. That's what neutrality IS. If you just don't care, one way or another, it's neutral. You don't care who or if it hurts, who or if it benifits. For it to be evil, you have care.

I disagree with this entirely, and I would say the system does as well. The allignment descriptions indicate that hurting someone because you don't care about them is just as evil as doing it for that purpose. "Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others..." While they only spell out the details of good vs evil in terms of killing, it still argues against your point. Being motivated entirely by yourself is not neutral. Neutral people connect to people through personal attachment and have compunctions against doing overt harm to those who don't deserve it. They lack interest in overtly acting to HELP others, but to hurt others just to get one's own way is evil, not neutral. What you are describing - hurting others if needed to get what you want, but not caring - in fact has a description right there in the SRD :

Neutral Evil, “Malefactor”: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience.

Why do people have to rewrite the allignments just so they can call their characters neutral rather than evil? Its just a game description, let it be evil.

Kahuna Burger

 

[ARandomGod]

I disagree with this entirely, and I would say the system does as well. The allignment descriptions indicate that hurting someone because you don't care about them is just as evil as doing it for that purpose. "Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others..." While they only spell out the details of good vs evil in terms of killing, it still argues against your point. Being motivated entirely by yourself is not neutral. Neutral people connect to people through personal attachment and have compunctions against doing overt harm to those who don't deserve it. They lack interest in overtly acting to HELP others, but to hurt others just to get one's own way is evil, not neutral. What you are describing - hurting others if needed to get what you want, but not caring - in fact has a description right there in the SRD :
Why do people have to rewrite the allignments just so they can call their characters neutral rather than evil? Its just a game description, let it be evil.

Kahuna Burger

I have no problem with there being an evil. I only have a problem with people actively pushing evil, as if there were no non-good alternative. And neutral people are not always evil. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes a person isn't being mean, just wanted or need that gold more than you did... in his opinion.

Having no compassion simply means having no good. Evil people shouldn't, but neutral people don't need to have it either, as long as they don't have evil, they're still neutral.

A neutral person could even have some compassion and take it anyway. I mean, "I hope he didn't really need that, but it would be too much to check, and besides, I know I DID need it."

And I'd say the system does indeed agree with me:
"Neutral, “Undecided”: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion." --PHB

A neutral character doesn't feel strongly one way or the other. Doesn't care really that it's hurting the other person, didn't really think about it. And doesn't feel too strongly about the "minor" incovenience of that person having to deal with the loss of that item. --Me

And actually the first quote is more precisely:
"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships." --PHB
It does not say "...to hurt others just to get one's own way is evil, not neutral." Of course, there are definitions and degrees of hurt. --Me
And, more importantly:
"While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them." PHB
Meaning something that is slightly on the evil side is still a neutral thing. As is somthing that's slightly good. Even things that could be highly good or highly evil CAN still be neutral. Depending.

So, back to what I was describing"
As opposed to Neutral evil "malefactor (Which I don't have a problem with, if that's who your character IS
There's also the :
Neutral, “Undecided”: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. (I think it would be a good idea for me to have that thing. A good idea,, in this context, does not mean having a motive for "good") She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil (He might want it? Meh, So do I.) or law vs. chaos. (It's illegal? So? It's legal? Did I ask??) Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones (Sure I wouldn't want anyone taking things from ME) . Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. (But still, really, I want that thing a lot, and I don't really care that the other person might. If they do, they can go get another one.)
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. (I've actually played one of these. Now that's an interesting and really rather difficult concept) Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion (Except in the second case, in which you DO have both predjudice and cumpulsion... ah, the dicotomy of life)

But... without prejudicedly deciding that it's "wrong" or "illegal" for me to have a thing I want just because someone else wants it and just because it might "legally" belong to them. Right there, in actual black in white, a description of grey.

Possession baybe.
When I want somethin, man, I don't want to pay for it. I walk right -- through the door. If I get by, it's MINE! Mine all mine.

Anyway, like I say, Evil is fine, in it's place. BUT, there simply IS a grey area. It's right in the description of alignments. It has it's own slots, definitions, and everything. My only issue really is with people saying that it cannot be, that there is no neutral, that you must align yourself with something or another.
Now, sure, there is an alignment just for taking that neutrality away. Lawful, to want everything neatly lined up, and Evil, to want everyone under their control and power.
And that's fine too. Lawful Evil is also a defined alignment. But you should realize this for what it is, and any chaotic good cleric should do zir best to expunge such things from the world.

Of course, they'll fight back. That's what they do, they're the enemy.

OK, fine. It's in all the forces interest to chew up neutral, to try to claim here or there. Law wants you or hates you. Good entices and evil seduces.
But some people just aren't any of that. Or either. OR all. And, no matter which of those they are, they're neutral.

 

[ARandomGod]

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.

I think that
Order -- Chaos would be a more accurate description.

Of course, part of the reason Order would be more accurate ithan Law is that it includes some concepts Law does not, and excludes some concepts included within Law.

I mean, there are some inherently chaotic "codes of conducts"
(Well, more guidelines of conduct, really)
And rogues are a class built for such distinctions.

Generally, however, in the Law / Chaos axis that's currently active, I will only let someone be lawful to an organizations laws, to a set group's laws.
For, as anyone who thinks ahead can easily see, someone who really thinks "lawful" means always following the laws of the land is going to quickly be a very chaotic person, as he changes rapidly in character to suit the laws of the lands he travels through.

IE, I won't let someone just come up with a law set that he follows. I might let him come up with an organization, and we discuss laws. But be careful to completely map out laws of any lawful person before they get into any potential alignment conflicts.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That said, Lawful people generally respect the laws of the lands they move through, not because they are obedient, but because they realize that social organization is better than anarchy. They do tend to follow the rules, as long as it does not interfere with what they do, and when it does, they would rather keep the code intact and work within it, or offer an organized alternative, rather than shaking up the system.

They don't have to follow the laws of the land, but they do realize that laws are things they like, in general.

 

[Urbannen]

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

As defined by the Book of Vile Darkness, stealing is an Evil act. Since the BoVD is an official WotC product for the Dungeons & Dragons d20 game, that means in the D&D game, stealing is an Evil act.

 

[Djeta Thernadier]

The reason I brought up the topic was because of the last session I played in. The important characters are:

Lawful Good Paladin
Chaotic Good Cleric - ME!
Chaotic Neutral Rogue

So we're in this tomb and kill a ghost. The rogue then wants to go rummaging through the sarcophagus looking for stuff to take.

The Paladin and I take offense at this idea. The rogue then makes a comment along the lines of, "I can't wait to play in a campaign that isn't ruined."

To which the paladin responds, "Here, let me help you open that so you can skull $#%$# the corpse."

Our session ended soon after and we all went our ways.

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

-Gak Toid

Well, first , it sounds like your group may have deeper problems than this one incident if this caused you to go your seperate ways. (is that what you meant? I was not too clear on that...). If one player wants to play a character who has a very different vision on what the goals of the party should be, perhaps that person should seek a group more their style?

I think in this case, you would probably not have seen any greater good in stealing from the tomb, and probably would have a had a moral issue with it.

However, there are plenty of reasons why good people rob tombs. The people IRL who robbed the tombs of ancient civilizations did so to better us all and so we could learn about our ancestors. In a case like that, tomb robbing is not really as bad. But if you were stealing to sell the stuff you found for profit out of greed, that's pretty wrong. (if you were stealing it to sell and get money to feed a family of starving toddlers, it might not be as bad.)

 

[Parlan]

Sure, theft has a victim. On the other hand, how motivated are you by that person? Really, being motivated entirely by self can only be neutral. That's what neutrality IS. If you just don't care, one way or another, it's neutral. You don't care who or if it hurts, who or if it benifits. For it to be evil, you have care.
Just because personal gain hurts somebody it doesn't have to be evil. It just can't be good.
Or, really, it CAN, if you're doing it for good, depending on who and how much and why.

According to your logic, killing people is a neutral act as long as you are motivated entirely by self/don t care that you re hurting other people.

Sorry, I can t agree with that interpretation, at least in a DnD setting.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. --PHB

I can t follow your argument for the above PHB description either. The PHB blurb seems fairly clear to me.

A. If you ask a neutral person whether killing people is good or bad, they ll say its bad. So if they see an innocent person getting killed on the street, they ll think it it’s a bad thing.

B. However, if saving that innocent person requires some kind of sacrifice on their part, for example a chance of getting killed too, the Neutral person won t do it.

C. Unless they have a close personal relationship with the innocent. For example, a Neutral man would probably risk death to prevent his daughter from being murdered

So to try to try to get back on topic, a Neutral person will think that stealing is bad and SHOULD be avoided, but would do it if sufficiently motivated

 

[Sejs]

According to your logic, killing people is a neutral act as long as you are motivated entirely by self/don t care that you re hurting other people.

Sorry, I can t agree with that interpretation, at least in a DnD setting.

A wolf kills a deer so that it can eat. It doesn't care one whit about the deer. Has it done an evil deed, or a neutral deed?