I think the "rouge" stereotype is what's causing the problem.
People think it means "thief", which go figure, that's what the class used to be called.
In turn, it's easy to rationalize stealing from the party and being a nuisance as being in character.
The real problem is that playing a thief is better done in a solo campaign. A noisy party does little to help a thief do his job (except when the job goes wrong). The result would be game-play akin to watching the Decker do a run on the Matrix in ShadowRun.
Whereas, the real job a party needs a rogue for is to listen for trouble, spot and disarm traps, pick locks, and be the unexpected surprise in combat.
To solve it outside the game, you need to get the players to understand that acting against each other is "not good fun". And that trying to jockey for attention (by breaking off the party) will not be rewarded.
To solve in game, requires breaking the meta-game rule of "everybody gets to join the party". The affected PCs need to toss the thief into a jail cell or a deep hole. Additionally, the GM needs to not switch the focus to the solo rogue when he goes off by himself looking for trouble. make nothing useful happen, and the rogue will stop doing it.
This hits on the crux of the problem. Every group has a hidden social rule that every player gets to join the party. It's a trust extended to the PC, on behalf of the player so the game can move forward. In real life, somebody would have said, "that guy looks too shifty, I'm not working with him", and the party would have moved on leaving the rogue at the bar. The problem players abuse this trust, thinking it is in character to "betray the party" when in reality, the party never would have trusted him had this implied rule not been in effect.
People think it means "thief", which go figure, that's what the class used to be called.
In turn, it's easy to rationalize stealing from the party and being a nuisance as being in character.
The real problem is that playing a thief is better done in a solo campaign. A noisy party does little to help a thief do his job (except when the job goes wrong). The result would be game-play akin to watching the Decker do a run on the Matrix in ShadowRun.
Whereas, the real job a party needs a rogue for is to listen for trouble, spot and disarm traps, pick locks, and be the unexpected surprise in combat.
To solve it outside the game, you need to get the players to understand that acting against each other is "not good fun". And that trying to jockey for attention (by breaking off the party) will not be rewarded.
To solve in game, requires breaking the meta-game rule of "everybody gets to join the party". The affected PCs need to toss the thief into a jail cell or a deep hole. Additionally, the GM needs to not switch the focus to the solo rogue when he goes off by himself looking for trouble. make nothing useful happen, and the rogue will stop doing it.
This hits on the crux of the problem. Every group has a hidden social rule that every player gets to join the party. It's a trust extended to the PC, on behalf of the player so the game can move forward. In real life, somebody would have said, "that guy looks too shifty, I'm not working with him", and the party would have moved on leaving the rogue at the bar. The problem players abuse this trust, thinking it is in character to "betray the party" when in reality, the party never would have trusted him had this implied rule not been in effect.