As far as the D&D alignment system goes, theft is a chaotic act in that it's breaking the law or established rules of order, and even this is dependent on the character and their circumstances. Whether or not it's evil is debatable and situational. The evil distinction has a lot to do with whether or not you consider or care about the repercussions of the crime. I can imagine an entire spectrum of theft acts in the D&D sense.
Chaotic Good - Robin Hood; stealing from the corrupt politicians to ease the suffering of the common folk
Chaotic Neutral - stealing the purse from a noble or successful merchant, someone who can weather the loss without suffering hardship
Chaotic Evil - stealing the donations box from a orphanage
Lawful Good/Neutral - spying on a corrupt or evil government to steal their state secrets
Lawful Evil - Sheriff of Nottingham; using a position of power to profit off of others' work or suffering through means like excessive taxation
There's a reason the rogue class in D&D doesn't have alignment restrictions. It states that they are more likely to be chaotic than lawful and states nothing about good or evil. Whether or not a rogue is a thief and how their particular brand of theft affects their alignment is open to interpretation based on the players, and will vary from game to game.
I think the problem with most alignment systems appears when people try to make them objective when they're actually subjective. You have to consider the act, its reasoning/justification on the part of the character, how the character reacts to its repercussions, and even how your unique group of players views morality. Alignments used well lead to interesting and dynamic characters with difficult choices and dilemmas. Though I do agree that it's difficult or impossible to build a system that can capture any and every possible nuance.
Chaotic Good - Robin Hood; stealing from the corrupt politicians to ease the suffering of the common folk
Chaotic Neutral - stealing the purse from a noble or successful merchant, someone who can weather the loss without suffering hardship
Chaotic Evil - stealing the donations box from a orphanage
Lawful Good/Neutral - spying on a corrupt or evil government to steal their state secrets
Lawful Evil - Sheriff of Nottingham; using a position of power to profit off of others' work or suffering through means like excessive taxation
There's a reason the rogue class in D&D doesn't have alignment restrictions. It states that they are more likely to be chaotic than lawful and states nothing about good or evil. Whether or not a rogue is a thief and how their particular brand of theft affects their alignment is open to interpretation based on the players, and will vary from game to game.
(08-05-2013, 03:53 PM)FreelanceWizard Wrote: I like Palladium alignments a bit better, but I'm still not a fan of alignment systems in general because they try to apply objectivity to something that's just not objective.As with any alignment system, I have to stretch the definitions to make it work here.
EDIT: Palladium's alignment system, for those who don't know what I'm talking about.
I think the problem with most alignment systems appears when people try to make them objective when they're actually subjective. You have to consider the act, its reasoning/justification on the part of the character, how the character reacts to its repercussions, and even how your unique group of players views morality. Alignments used well lead to interesting and dynamic characters with difficult choices and dilemmas. Though I do agree that it's difficult or impossible to build a system that can capture any and every possible nuance.
I'm a tinker! Tinkerer? Hrm.... I'm an artificer! - Myxie Tryxle | Impressions and Memories
