Thief/rogues, a character class that should not be?

[Spiryt]

Because people are not their property, unless that property is intrinsic to their lives. Stealing someone's computer doesn't kill them, or even directly injure them; it inconveniences them.

A good example might be Firefly's "The Train Job." The crew was perfectly willing to steal the shipment when they thought they were simply stealing property... they were willing to take a chaotic action. However, once it became clear that they were stealing medicine people needed to live, they realized that the consequences were not Chaotic but Evil, a line they were not willing to cross (though, of course, they were happy to kick Crow into an intake, though that was arguably self-defense).

That's essentially saying that evil is not evil provided if it's somehow 'minor'.

Can't see it to be very logical at all.

Stealing few dollars or snacks could be 'chaotic' I guess, but stealing someone's computer may even easily destroy their life, if said computer consumed large part of his earnings/resources or whatever, and they make their living with computer.

There was a reason why in many, many primal, medieval, or whatever societies stealing anything more substantial was extremely harshly punished misdeed.

[Eloel]

There was a reason why in many, many primal, medieval, or whatever societies stealing anything more substantial was extremely harshly punished misdeed.

Because the punishing power was called Law and they were offending it by being Chaotic?

[BRC]

That's essentially saying that evil is not evil provided if it's somehow 'minor'.

Can't see it to be very logical at all.

Stealing few dollars or snacks could be 'chaotic' I guess, but stealing someone's computer may even easily destroy their life, if said computer consumed large part of his earnings/resources or whatever.

There was a reason why in many, many 'primal' societies stealing was very harshly punished crime.

I mean, it's a matter of degrees.

You steal a hundred dollars from somebody working two jobs and barely making ends meet, that ruins their life.
You steal a hundred dollars from a millionaire, they barely notice.

I think the idea is that stealing is not, in itself, evil. But no action exists in a vacuum, and the harm is usually less in the theft itself, and more in the consequences of that theft.


For example, let's say I'm financially secure. I find ten dollars on the ground. Then, you steal five dollars from me. The consequences are very light, I didn't need the money, and since I put no effort into getting the money, it's not like you made me waste the effort I could have spent doing something else.
Yeah, I am less well off than I was before, but the damage is pretty minimal.

Whereas, if I earned ten dollars working for an hour, and you steal it from me, you've not only deprived me of ten dollars, I could have spent that hour doing something else, by taking my money you've also robbed me of whatever I could have been doing.

Same goes for how much I need the money. If I'm struggling financially, stealing that $10 could mean stealing a meal.

All you Took was $10, harming me very little, but the CONSEQUENCES of that action cause me considerable harm.

Lets say I have a big pile of dirt. I'm doing nothing with that dirt, but saying that it's mine. You take some of my dirt. I don't notice.
Now, you've violated my property rights, which is Chaotic, but you didn't harm me, so that's not really Evil. The act of theft itself is simply Chaotic, with the Evil coming from the consequences of that theft.

Compare to say, stabbing me. This is a violent action that directly harms me, it is inherently Evil. But, it could be more or less evil based on the Consequences.

You stabbed me because I was attacking you, makes it self defense. You stabbed me in the leg so I couldn't walk while I'm miles from civilization, ensuring a slow, painful death, that's more consequences, the act is more evil.

[Spiryt]

Because the punishing power was called Law and they were offending it by being Chaotic?

Except that punishing power didn't have to be called 'Law' or even be any power at all, other than 'people gathered to stone/hang you for stealing'.

Societies without Roman/Christian idea of Law were punishing stealing too.


I really can't see why stealing anything would be particularly chaotic by itself.

Even the D&D rules are trying, if somehow lamely, state that 'Lawful' and 'Chaotic' are inside workings of character, his attachment to schemes, schedules, places, changes and so on.

Lawful Evil character can steal stuff in tidy, organized and reliable manner, sticking to the 'Law' in all other areas that benefit them, and still be LE.

Lets say I have a big pile of dirt. I'm doing nothing with that dirt, but saying that it's mine. You take some of my dirt. I don't notice.
Now, you've violated my property rights, which is Chaotic, but you didn't harm me, so that's not really Evil. The act of theft itself is simply Chaotic, with the Evil coming from the consequences of that theft.

Eh, but that really requires any 'property rights' in the first place.

Simple - one has pile of dirt. It's their. I steal it, saying 'f*** you, I know it's yours, but I don't care cause. I want it'.

Of course it can be extremely minor, but it's still aggression towards someone.

Who am I to decide if he really doesn't need that dirt? May very well need it for, supporting foundation, road, or whatever. May to have something sled from in winter.

[Eloel]

Except that punishing power didn't have to be called 'Law' or even be any power at all, other than 'people gathered to stone/hang you for stealing'.

Welcome to the definition of government, would you like a crash course?

[LibraryOgre]

That's essentially saying that evil is not evil provided if it's somehow 'minor'.

Only if you're defining stealing as evil. When you define stealing that does not directly result in harm to a person as chaotic, then it's saying "chaotic is not evil provided it's not also evil."

Because it comes down to "how do you define the law/chaos axis in a way that is fundamentally different from the good/evil axis." When you consider that one of the standard examples of CG is Robin Hood... someone known for their theft... you have to move away from the idea that "stealing is evil".

My definition, my litmus test, is that good and evil are about people, and law and chaos are about property and ideas. Good and evil are things that help or harm people, while law and chaos are about supporting or disrespecting property and ideas.

Theft is, when removed from other contexts, disrespecting people's property (as is vandalism). So, too, would be disrespecting others ideals or religious prohibitions (not in that you fail to follow them yourself, but that you actively conspire to make them break them... i.e. tricking a vegetarian or vegan into eating meat, or someone who avoids alcohol into drinking). Lawful acts involve respecting property and ideals, even if they are not your own. You might work to change them... you might even violently oppose them. But lawful means you don't actively disrespect that those beliefs are real, or that the property belongs to the person who owns it.

An action can have multiple alignment impacts, of course; the theft in the Train Job had consequences for people that made it an evil act as well as a chaotic act, whereas the theft in Ariel can be seen as purely chaotic... "They'll be restocked within hours." Freeing slaves by cutting their chains is chaotic good, whereas keeping slaves is lawful evil, at best... placing a concept of property above people.

It's a flexible way of viewing actions and their consequences that lets you classify most things once you understand their impact.

[BRC]

Eh, but that really requires any 'property rights' in the first place.

Simple - one has pile of dirt. It's their. I steal it, saying 'f*** you, I know it's yours, but I don't care cause. I want it'.

Of course it can be extremely minor, but it's still aggression towards someone.

Who am I to decide if he really doesn't need that dirt? May very well need it for, supporting foundation, road, or whatever. May to have something sled from in winter.

Well, that's where the Consequences thing comes in.

Lets say you take $10 from me, then give it back five minutes later.
Now, you disrespected my property rights by taking my stuff, which is Chaotic, but, assuming I had no use for that money during those few minutes, it can't really be said that you harmed me in any way.
Technically speaking, Theft happened. You took my stuff. The fact that you gave it back later does not change the fact that you took something that was mine without my permission.
The act is Chaotic, but not Evil.

Now, lets say you take $10 from me, you don't give it back. I needed that money to buy dinner, now I go hungry for the night. You violated my rights (Chaotic) and harmed me (Evil).

Now, lets say I owe you $10. I need $10 to buy dinner. You come over and demand the $10 I owe you right that instant., knowing that it's all I have until I get paid in the morning. You didn't violate my rights, I owed you $10, and you had the right to collect whenever you wanted, but you did cause me harm (Evil).

The Chaotic Act (Violating my property rights and taking the thing from me) is different than the Evil act (Harming me by depriving me of whatever I would have done with the money).

[Spiryt]

Only if you're defining stealing as evil. When you define stealing that does not directly result in harm to a person as chaotic, then it's saying "chaotic is not evil provided it's not also evil."

Because it comes down to "how do you define the law/chaos axis in a way that is fundamentally different from the good/evil axis." When you consider that one of the standard examples of CG is Robin Hood... someone known for their theft... you have to move away from the idea that "stealing is evil".

Eh, because it is evil. By pretty much definition of robbing someone out of something he wants to keep. Harm.

This doesn't have to stand in any conflict with stereotypical Robin Hood.

One steals from some 'bad guy', causing harm, but bad guy had already caused serious, selfish harm to stealer or/and other people, so this is war/self defense, not aggression.

Leaving aside the fact that even most 'good' RHs often had completely non good elements of stealing from people just because they had 'too much' of course. But that's other story, perhaps evil acts of mostly good character, or whatever.

Lets say you take $10 from me, then give it back five minutes later.
Now, you disrespected my property rights by taking my stuff, which is Chaotic, but, assuming I had no use for that money during those few minutes, it can't really be said that you harmed me in any way.

And yet, if I knew, I would feel harmed, very much.

It's still screwing other person, pretending that you know better what should happen with those money.

Which is why it's mostly unrealistic scenario, because how can one knows how/why other doesn't 'need it'.

Disrespecting is not chaotic, it's bad. It can be done in orderly manner, and with Law, Inner Code of Conduct, or whatever "Lawful' on stealer side, if he follows some oppressive ideas about property.

The Chaotic Act (Violating my property rights and taking the thing from me)

Violating someone is pretty much definition of harm. Word means that much...

Now, lets say I owe you $10. I need $10 to buy dinner. You come over and demand the $10 I owe you right that instant., knowing that it's all I have until I get paid in the morning. You didn't violate my rights, I owed you $10, and you had the right to collect whenever you wanted, but you did cause me harm (Evil).

Hard to call it as evil act at all. If lending person manipulated the other person into situation.

Yes, there's harm in not being able to buy dinner, but it's SELF harm.

One cannot be really made responsible for other person lack of money, shortsightedness or whatever.

He lend money, now wants it back, doesn't want anything unjust. The fact that other person is irresponsible is not his fault.

[LibraryOgre]

Eh, because it is evil. By pretty much definition of robbing someone out of something he wants to keep. Harm.

Then how do you define the lawful/chaotic split? You keep insisting that "theft is inherently harm" and, if you assume that, then, yeah, you're going to keep seeing it as evil. But you still have to define "law" and "chaos" in a way that's useful.

[BRC]

And yet, if I knew, I would feel harmed, very much.

It's still screwing other person, pretending that you know better what should happen with those money.

Which is why it's mostly unrealistic scenario, because how can one knows how/why other doesn't 'need it'.

Disrespecting is not chaotic, it's bad. It can be done in orderly manner, and with Law, Inner Code of Conduct, or whatever "Lawful' on stealer side, if he follows some oppressive ideas about property.

It's called an argument. I'm trying to prove that there exists a situation where something can be stolen, but the "Victim" is not actually harmed in any way. The situation does not need to be "Realistic", it just needs to be possible.
Money has no value on it's own, it's value is only in what it can be exchanged for. If you were not going to exchange that money for anything in the time it took for me to give it back, you were not impacted at all by it's being gone.

If you put two people on desert islands, gave one of them $100 worth of food, and the other $1000 worth of gold bullion, the guy with the food would be much better off. Money itself has no value unless you are going to exchange it for something.

Violating someone is pretty much definition of harm. Word means that much...

No PERSON was violated, somebody's PROPERTY was violated. There is a difference.

Hard to call it as evil act at all. If lending person manipulated the other person into situation.

Yes, there's harm in not being able to buy dinner, but it's SELF harm.

One cannot be really made responsible for other person lack of money, shortsightedness or whatever.

He lend money, now wants it back, doesn't want anything unjust. The fact that other person is irresponsible is not his fault.

You may or may not be responsible for my lack of other money, but you're certainly responsible for the consequences.

Why are you taking that $10 Today? do you need it today? You know that taking it will mean I can't eat, you know I'll be able to pay you in the morning.
For the sake of argument, you don't need $10 today. Your life will not be impacted in the slightest if you get those $10 in the morning.

The only difference between demanding $10 now, and waiting to be paid back in the morning is whether or not I get to eat dinner tonight. Just because you have the RIGHT to take the money and make me go hungry, does not mean that it is the RIGHT thing to do.


I could keep clarifying the situation to go around you're "Responsibility" argument (I have money, but my wallet was stolen, and I won't get a new ATM card until the morning, all I have to get dinner is the $10 I found in my jacket pocket), but that's not really relevant.
Your act is Evil, but it is also perfectly Lawful. That's how Lawful Evil works.

[Spiryt]

Then how do you define the lawful/chaotic split? You keep insisting that "theft is inherently harm" and, if you assume that, then, yeah, you're going to keep seeing it as evil. But you still have to define "law" and "chaos" in a way that's useful.

Law/Chaos would be character, mind, brain or however one calls it, acting in chaotic or orderful manner. Pretty simple.

Of course, those terms itself will be problematic, but no one said that this particular idea from D&D isn't problematic. Quite contrary

So level of adherence to some set patterns, rules, predictable 'paths', programmed behaviors, amount of creativity, impulse, or general chaos and randomness in system.


Of course, in your human like creatures, strongly, sometimes totally influenced, socialized and driven by others in society, so actual community/culture laws and traditions may very wel bel most of that what drives character from 'inside', his inner workings.

They will be likely Lawful then, I guess. Strongly outside steered, perhaps not very independent (though it gets tricky real fast) Lawful.

No PERSON was violated, somebody's PROPERTY was violated. There is a difference.

Except that it's not really discernible in such cases.

When person is being robbed, actual loss value is very often completely secondary to feeling of being, indeed, violated.

Someone decides, at their whim, that they can decide what happens with your stuff, and just takes it, treating you like subordinate, trash, or whatever.

Why are you taking that $10 Today? do you need it today? You know that taking it will mean I can't eat, you know I'll be able to pay you in the morning.
For the sake of argument, you don't need $10 today. Your life will not be impacted in the slightest if you get those $10 in the morning.

The only difference between demanding $10 now, and waiting to be paid back in the morning is whether or not I get to eat dinner tonight. Just because you have the RIGHT to take the money and make me go hungry, does not mean that it is the RIGHT thing to do.


I could keep clarifying the situation to go around you're "Responsibility" argument (I have money, but my wallet was stolen, and I won't get a new ATM card until the morning, all I have to get dinner is the $10 I found in my jacket pocket),

"Needing" doesn't really, have to matter. Why not 'want'.

Responsibility was used in very broad sense.

The fact that someone got robbed sucks, but it's not lender fault.

Delaying payment would be rather tiny, minor act of goodness - to help someone whose situation sucks from whatever reason, but refusing it cannot be really 'evil'.

Forced goodness is no goodness at all.

[VoxRationis]

You could define law and chaos as respect and disrespect, respectively () for the good of the community as a whole, rather than the people inside that community. In that regard, doing things which foster togetherness, unity, and order within the community are good for it as an entity separate from its constituent parts, and are thus Lawful. But the things which secure order in the community are not necessarily those which are good for the individual, or even for all of the individuals within the community.
An excellent analogy is the body, as opposed to the cells within the body. The good of the entity that the cells make up is maintained at the expense of the good of the cells within the body: the cells have their protein expression, their identity, rigidly controlled, as well as their reproduction, and have to be actively ordered not to commit suicide. A community most akin to the body would be highly dystopian from the point of view of an individual, even if the community ran well.

[Spiryt]

You could define law and chaos as respect and disrespect, respectively () for the good of the community as a whole, rather than the people inside that community. In that regard, doing things which foster togetherness, unity, and order within the community are good for it as an entity separate from its constituent parts, and are thus Lawful. But the things which secure order in the community are not necessarily those which are good for the individual, or even for all of the individuals within the community.
.

That's not bad indeed, although Chaotic or Lawful character actually exist, and are such, even without any community to speak off.

Totally solitary people, without even getting into demons and devils in some forsaken abyss, for example.

And community can be, after all, complete chaos, so character actively supporting community's working can very well not be very 'Lawful'.

[BRC]

"Needing" doesn't really, have to matter. Why not 'want'.

Responsibility was used in very broad sense.

The fact that someone got robbed sucks, but it's not lender fault.

Delaying payment would be rather tiny, minor act of goodness - to help someone whose situation sucks from whatever reason, but refusing it cannot be really 'evil'.

Forced goodness is no goodness at all.

Which is where the difference between "Lawful" and "good" comes into play.

Take the money out of the equation. Due to no fault of my own, you are within your legal rights to make me go hungry tonight. Maybe I owe you $10, maybe the government has given you an official license to grab my food out of my hands and throw it down the toilet.

It's effectively the same thing as far as we're concerned, unless you're willing to argue that "That fuzzy feeling that comes with having an extra $10" morally outweighs "Making somebody else go hungry".

You have the RIGHT to make me go hungry. That does not make you obligated to make me go hungry, nor does it erase the fact that you are making me go hungry. Whether you're collecting a debt, or stealing the money, the effect on me is the same. Your relationship with the law is all that changes. The fact that you are within your legal rights to collect the debt does not mean that you are morally justified in making me go hungry. Acting within ones lawful rights, but doing evil things with it is called Abuse of Power, tyranny, or being Lawful Evil.


It is within the rights of an absolute monarch to order his soldiers to execute everybody in the kingdom named Greg, because a guy named Greg once made fun of his hat. He's an Absolute Monarch, it is within his rights to do anything he wants.
That does not make his decrees anything but absolutely evil.

It is NOT within the soldier's rights to go out, not kill anybody, and then come back and say "Sorry your majesty, it turns out that nobody in the kingdom is named Greg, except that one guy who made fun of your hat, and you killed him years ago". That does not mean that the soldiers are not doing the right thing.

[Keltest]

Ive always thought of Law/Chaos as your proclivity to put your own desires and goals over the desires and goals of the community. A Lawful person can still have their own goals, they just wont pursue them if it means that someone else gets hurt. A Chaotic person meanwhile isn't going to go out of their way to go against the desires of the community, but they wont hesitate to do so either, should the need arise.

[BayardSPSR]

Serious alignment arguments. Hooray. Never mind that the distinction exists because someone wanted to be edgy and unpredictable back when Law and Chaos were just Red Team and Blue Team identifiers, and resented the fact that their arbitrary team name was an arbitrary team name.

You could make the argument that a "CG" character who steals randomly actually has to be Neutral because on a fundamental level they aren't recognizing that other people have needs too, but that won't fly because the person playing the character thinks they're Good, so they must be, right? They're like a Robin Hood who never gives anything to the poor, y'know?

Welcome to the definition of government, would you like a crash course?

I think the case he was describing was a "lynch mob," not "government," which has a different definition entirely.

[VoxRationis]

You could make the argument that a "CG" character who steals randomly actually has to be Neutral because on a fundamental level they aren't recognizing that other people have needs too,

Actually that's a near-exact copy of an example the DM's Guide in 3e gives of the difference between Good and Neutral.

[Spiryt]

Which is where the difference between "Lawful" and "good" comes into play.

Take the money out of the equation. Due to no fault of my own, you are within your legal rights to make me go hungry tonight. Maybe I owe you $10, maybe the government has given you an official license to grab my food out of my hands and throw it down the toilet.

Except that it's completely false equivalence.

It's not lenders fault that someone doesn't have anything to eat, and goverment or 'law' has nothing to do with it.

You have the RIGHT to make me go hungry. That does not make you obligated to make me go hungry, nor does it erase the fact that you are making me go hungry. Whether you're collecting a debt, or stealing the money, the effect on me is the same. Your relationship with the law is all that changes. The fact that you are within your legal rights to collect the debt does not mean that you are morally justified in making me go hungry. Acting within ones lawful rights, but doing evil things with it is called Abuse of Power, tyranny, or being Lawful Evil.

It doesn't need any 'laws' introduced.

Just relationship between two people. One promised to give money back, and honesty generally requires to give it back if asked to.


And no, effect is absolutely not the same.

Collecting what's yours cannot be morally compared to taking what's not yours, rather obvious.

Again, one cannot be automatically expected to take care of other people just because they're hungry or whatever.

If that's 'abusing the power' then guy who owes money is, as well, abusing his position, trying to keep money still, by throwing responsibility on someone else. Using feeling of guilt, or whatever.

It is within the rights of an absolute monarch to order his soldiers to execute everybody in the kingdom named Greg, because a guy named Greg once made fun of his hat. He's an Absolute Monarch, it is within his rights to do anything he wants.
That does not make his decrees anything but absolutely evil.

Bad comparison as well... It may be in his right, but it's absolutely actively hostile, aggressive act towards people who actually doesn't have anything to do with the fact.

[Lord Torath]

Except that it's completely false equivalence.

It's not lenders fault that someone doesn't have anything to eat, and goverment or 'law' has nothing to do with it.

It doesn't need any 'laws' introduced.

Just relationship between two people. One promised to give money back, and honesty generally requires to give it back if asked to.

I think you missed what BRC meant by "Take the money out of the equation." He proposed a completely new situation in which he does not owe you anything, but for whatever reason you have been legally empowered with the right to deprive him of dinner. You suffer no consequences for depriving or not depriving him of dinner. So if you choose to deprive him of dinner, it is a Lawful act. But it harms BRC, so it is not a Good act.

Similarly, the Solider has been ordered to kill anyone in the kingdom named Greg. If that soldier chooses to kill a Greg, it is a Lawful act. But since Greg was undeserving, it is an Evil act. If the solider decides not to kill Greg, it is a Chaotic act (he's disobeying a direct order from his king), but it's a Good act, because he's refusing to harm another.

[LibraryOgre]

Law/Chaos would be character, mind, brain or however one calls it, acting in chaotic or orderful manner. Pretty simple.

That's completely circular. "You're chaotic if you act in a chaotic manner." "What's a chaotic manner?" "A manner in keeping with chaos."

So level of adherence to some set patterns, rules, predictable 'paths', programmed behaviors, amount of creativity, impulse, or general chaos and randomness in system.

Creativity is a chaotic trait? Sonnets and sestinas immediately come to mind as counter-examples... the sestina, especially, requires a large amount of creativity to stay within a set format.

[VoxRationis]

That's completely circular. "You're chaotic if you act in a chaotic manner." "What's a chaotic manner?" "A manner in keeping with chaos."



Creativity is a chaotic trait? Sonnets and sestinas immediately come to mind as counter-examples... the sestina, especially, requires a large amount of creativity to stay within a set format.

I think he's referring to creativity as in developing novel things outside of previous patterns. Like how I consider myself to not be a creative person, because while I develop new things (campaign settings in particular) and put my own influences on them, I keep within the bounds of established patterns.

[BayardSPSR]

Similarly, the Solider has been ordered to kill anyone in the kingdom named Greg. If that soldier chooses to kill a Greg, it is a Lawful act. But since Greg was undeserving, it is an Evil act. If the solider decides not to kill Greg, it is a Chaotic act (he's disobeying a direct order from his king), but it's a Good act, because he's refusing to harm another.

Which - assuming any LG character would also choose not to kill Greg - makes Law and Chaos little more than different flavors for Good and Evil characters.

Actually, possibly also for Neutral characters too. Would a CN character refuse to kill Greg, just because killing him would be Lawful? Law and Chaos don't realistically motivate character actions. There is no real-world philosophy that specifically mandates that its adherents reject all instructions because freedom. There couldn't be one, because its own adherents would be required to reject it, and to reject that requirement ad infinitum.

Unless you're a C(X) PC, which case "because I'm Chaotic" is unfortunately a thing that exists.

Actually that's a near-exact copy of an example the DM's Guide in 3e gives of the difference between Good and Neutral.

Then at least according to some people, you can't be Good and Chaotic at the same time - since Chaos seems to define itself by rejection of external motivations.

I want to be clear about my own position here: I think Alignment is utterly absurd, limiting, and a major source of problems (as opposed to conflict, which is often good). I think one of the problems with Rogues and Paladins alike is that they have to fit into this arbitrary system that doesn't remotely model the motivation of even fictional people. Of course, that's just a part of the problem that they're both fixed sets of mechanics with fixed sets of fluff (even if approached as a base that can be modified).

[BRC]

And no, effect is absolutely not the same.

Collecting what's yours cannot be morally compared to taking what's not yours, rather obvious.

Again, one cannot be automatically expected to take care of other people just because they're hungry or whatever.

If that's 'abusing the power' then guy who owes money is, as well, abusing his position, trying to keep money still, by throwing responsibility on someone else. Using feeling of guilt, or whatever.

As far as who is harmed and who benefits, it is EXACTLY the same. The collector does not benefit to any appreciable degree, and the debtor is harmed.
That's really all that matters. Who is harmed and who benefits.
The fact that the Debtor owed money does not mean that the Collector is not inflicting harm on the Debtor, they're just within their legal rights to do so.
The Collector made a decision (I will collect the money tonight), and as a direct result of that decision, the Debtor is harmed. That is basically the exact definition of responsibility. The Collector is responsible for the Debtor's harm, hence Evil.
Whether or not the Debtor can be held responsible for BEING in debt with only $10 accessible right now (Whether they're just broke due to poor financial planning, or because their wallet was stolen and they're waiting for a new ATM card) is irrelevant. The Collector is not some inevitable force, they're a human being capable of making a decision, and they are therefore responsible for the consequences of that decision.

If I hand you a knife, and you stab me with the knife, you're still the one who stabbed me. The fact that I am responsible for giving you that power over me is irrelevant.

Bad comparison as well... It may be in his right, but it's absolutely actively hostile, aggressive act towards people who actually doesn't have anything to do with the fact.

Which is my point.

It is the King's right to execute the Gregs, but that does not make doing so a non-evil action.

It is the Collector's right to collect the money at that time, but that does not make doing so a non-evil action.
The King and the Collector are sitting at exactly the same place on the law/chaos scale. They are doing something within their rights.

Good and Evil exist independent of Law and Chaos. When determining whether or not an action is Good or Evil, all that matters is harm and benefit. I was going to eat, and due to your actions I will go hungry. Good and Evil do not care that I owed you money, or that you were not within your rights to take the money. You took an action, and as a result I was harmed.

It is an Evil act.

[runeghost]

As my 1st edition AD&D thief used to say "Thief stands for: Treasure Hunter In Expert Fashion". From Bilbo Baggins to Indiana Jones, thieves and rogues are an integral part of all sorts of Speculative Fiction and roleplaying.

[Spiryt]

As far as who is harmed and who benefits, it is EXACTLY the same. The collector does not benefit to any appreciable degree, and the debtor is harmed.
That's really all that matters. Who is harmed and who benefits.
The fact that the Debtor owed money does not mean that the Collector is not inflicting harm on the Debtor, they're just within their legal rights to do so.
The Collector made a decision (I will collect the money tonight), and as a direct result of that decision, the Debtor is harmed. That is basically the exact definition of responsibility.

No, he's not harming anybody.

It's not HIS responsibility to feed other people. It's their life, and business.

It may not be very nice, but it's perfectly OK, to say 'sorry, but I cannot lend you this money for any longer'.

There's absolutely no reason he should be responsible for this person hunger, and not say, any other beggar who's pretty hungry few meters away.

If he gives those 10 $ to some other beggar instead, is he still harming the debtor?

Or if he gives it to him after, all is beggar2 harmed?

It gets maddening really quick.

Which is my point.

It is the King's right to execute the Gregs, but that does not make doing so a non-evil action.

Eh, expect that he really doesn't have that right. It violates the other people rights, so it not really rightful by default.

In really most cases only kings 'right' here would be 'no one can punish me', provided that victim was unimportant enough.

I was going to eat, and due to your actions I will go hungry.

No, you will go hungry because you cannot provide yourself any food for whatever reason, and it's not collectors fault.

He didn't cause your state in any way, and if anything, already issued you a courtesy by lending some money.

Why is he forced to take that baggage?

[VoxRationis]

Which - assuming any LG character would also choose not to kill Greg - makes Law and Chaos little more than different flavors for Good and Evil characters.

Actually, possibly also for Neutral characters too. Would a CN character refuse to kill Greg, just because killing him would be Lawful? Law and Chaos don't realistically motivate character actions. There is no real-world philosophy that specifically mandates that its adherents reject all instructions because freedom. There couldn't be one, because its own adherents would be required to reject it, and to reject that requirement ad infinitum.

Unless you're a C(X) PC, which case "because I'm Chaotic" is unfortunately a thing that exists.



Then at least according to some people, you can't be Good and Chaotic at the same time - since Chaos seems to define itself by rejection of external motivations.

I want to be clear about my own position here: I think Alignment is utterly absurd, limiting, and a major source of problems (as opposed to conflict, which is often good). I think one of the problems with Rogues and Paladins alike is that they have to fit into this arbitrary system that doesn't remotely model the motivation of even fictional people. Of course, that's just a part of the problem that they're both fixed sets of mechanics with fixed sets of fluff (even if approached as a base that can be modified).

Actually, rogues aren't limited in alignment at all (barring 2e, when they were barred from Lawful Good and Lawful Good only—they could still be a Lawful Neutral 00 agent or a NG protector of the weak). You can have a Lawful Good king's agent who happens to use a lot of deception and stealth.

[Lord Torath]

Which - assuming any LG character would also choose not to kill Greg - makes Law and Chaos little more than different flavors for Good and Evil characters.

The difference, here, is that the soldier has been explicitly ordered to kill everyone named Greg, so killing him is a Lawful Evil act. Any other LG characters have NOT been ordered to kill Greg, so for them, it is a Chaotic Evil act to kill Greg (assuming murder is against the law in this kingdom). Note that NG and CG characters would also decide not to kill Greg if their alignments are accurate. It's not just the LG types.

[BayardSPSR]

As far as who is harmed and who benefits, it is EXACTLY the same. The collector does not benefit to any appreciable degree, and the debtor is harmed.
That's really all that matters. Who is harmed and who benefits.
The fact that the Debtor owed money does not mean that the Collector is not inflicting harm on the Debtor, they're just within their legal rights to do so.
The Collector made a decision (I will collect the money tonight), and as a direct result of that decision, the Debtor is harmed. That is basically the exact definition of responsibility. The Collector is responsible for the Debtor's harm, hence Evil.
Whether or not the Debtor can be held responsible for BEING in debt with only $10 accessible right now (Whether they're just broke due to poor financial planning, or because their wallet was stolen and they're waiting for a new ATM card) is irrelevant. The Collector is not some inevitable force, they're a human being capable of making a decision, and they are therefore responsible for the consequences of that decision.

...

It is the Collector's right to collect the money at that time, but that does not make doing so a non-evil action.
The King and the Collector are sitting at exactly the same place on the law/chaos scale. They are doing something within their rights.

Good and Evil exist independent of Law and Chaos. When determining whether or not an action is Good or Evil, all that matters is harm and benefit. I was going to eat, and due to your actions I will go hungry. Good and Evil do not care that I owed you money, or that you were not within your rights to take the money. You took an action, and as a result I was harmed.

It is an Evil act.

Even if the Collector is under the threat of losing their job if they don't? Even if they believe that the system relies on them doing what they do, and that if they don't, far more people will be harmed than this one unfortunate debtor?

Which leads to the question of who is responsible for Evil in a system. Is capitalism Evil?

[BRC]

Even if the Collector is under the threat of losing their job if they don't? Even if they believe that the system relies on them doing what they do, and that if they don't, far more people will be harmed than this one unfortunate debtor?

Which leads to the question of who is responsible for Evil in a system. Is capitalism Evil?

We've already established that, for the sake of the argument, the Collector's life is not changed at all if they get the money in the morning compared to right now.

No, he's not harming anybody.

It's not HIS responsibility to feed other people. It's their life, and business.

It may not be very nice, but it's perfectly OK, to say 'sorry, but I cannot lend you this money for any longer'.

There's absolutely no reason he should be responsible for this person hunger, and not say, any other beggar who's pretty hungry few meters away.

If he gives those 10 $ to some other beggar instead, is he still harming the debtor?

Or if he gives it to him after, all is beggar2 harmed?

It gets maddening really quick.

He's not feeding anybody. He's simply NOT collecting on the debt until the morning.

Reverse the situation. I have no money on-hand, you owe me $10. You could pay in the morning, or you could pay me right now. Your life is not impacted ,but if you pay me now, I get to eat.
You're no more obligated to pay me back in the morning than the Collector was obligated to take the money right now in the other scenario. It is entirely your choice, and you are legally within your rights regardless of your decision.

In the first scenario (I owe you $10), it is your action (Collecting the $10) that causes me harm.
In the second scenario (You owe me $10), it is your inaction (Not paying me back) that causes me harm.

Do either of those scenarios count as "Evil" in your book? Or does the simple fact that i'm at your mercy absolve you of responsibility for my situation, regardless of who owes what.

Eh, expect that he really doesn't have that right. It violates the other people rights, so it not really rightful by default.

In really most cases only kings 'right' here would be 'no one can punish me', provided that victim was unimportant enough.

Absolute Monarchy. Nobody has any rights except those that are granted to them by the Absolute Monarch, and those rights can be taken away at the whim of said Monarch.
Unless you want to get all Enlightenment Philosopher on us, and argue that certain rights are inalienable regardless of the nature of the State.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

As my 1st edition AD&D thief used to say "Thief stands for: Treasure Hunter In Expert Fashion". From Bilbo Baggins to Indiana Jones, thieves and rogues are an integral part of all sorts of Speculative Fiction and roleplaying.

Technically speaking, Bilbo wasn't actually a thief, given that the Arkenstone was the Dwarves legal property. More of a freelance tax collector.

... I really want to play a rogue as a tax collector now. Though that's not really an example of a non-thieving or a non-evil rogue.