Thieves... people not getting it

[Momoji Momochi]

Normally I avoid posts that are critical of other people's play styles, but unless the person in question wants to role play a villainous lowlife he is better off not playing his character as a thief in the traditional sense. I've seen references to Locke in multiple places here by people who are RPing thief characters or organizations that aren't in the least bit like Locke. Locke was an agent, spy, and saboteur for the Returners (resistance movement in FFVI) and greatly disliked being called a thief because that simply wasn't what he was (outside fitting the description of the Final Fantasy class of the same name). He preferred the term treasure hunter since he used his skills to help return others' property that was taken by force (via the empire), undermine the effectiveness of enemy targets, or simply acting as a real treasure hunter. Locke was never the type to steal from innocent bystanders regardless of them being well off or not. It simply wasn't something he would ever agree to do. 

 

When you RP a character that is willing to target bystanders whom your character knows nothing about, then you're essentially saying your character sees others as targets to take advantage of, not people. He is completely untrustworthy as a character and is willing to commit vile criminal acts against innocents. Forgive me for saying, but anyone who finds that quality endearing has more than a few screws loose.

[Dameon]

What about Zidane and his troupe? They were all sorta-noble Thieves.

[Hywel Pendragon]

[align=center]What about when Locke had to steal the clothes from those merchants? xDD[/align]

 

[align=center]Poor guys just minding their own business and BAM... naked and embarrassed. [/align]

[align=center]:tonberry:[/align]

[Dubs]

I guess it comes down to the individual and how they plan to incorporate the RP of repercussions within the community. Are they willing to be ostracized?

 

As a former NWN2 GM there was a jail where if the player's character was caught stealing he would be taken there and would remain for quite a while.

 

There are no such mechanics in this game and to say that the individual in question emotes *you feel a slight brush against your side* and you then get a corresponding tell of "I just took your coin purse" is just meta-griefing to me personally and  is just completely dismissed.

 

If people want to be attracted to the allure of the thief concept then they should take into account of every aspect of the archetype, not just the romanticized ones.

[Zyrusticae]

Alternatively, perhaps that character simply doesn't possess the same sence of materialism that normal, civilized people possess and doesn't understand the concept of 'property'?

 

I honestly find it quite a stretch to say that thievery, in and of itself, is a 'vile criminal act'. Most people who engage in thievery do it as a means of survival, not simply because they can. I find it highly disagreeable to paint all such individuals as 'completely untrustworthy', as simply being willing to take from others does not say much about whether or not that person can be trusted. It is entirely possible that you are willing to go quite far for the sake of survival but also hold those who aid you in high esteem.

 

"Property" itself is a concept born largely of a materialistic culture, and I think it's important to recognize that. Not everyone will see eye-to-eye in that area, and that's something that I think will be interesting to explore.

 

That being said, simply saying "I nicked your coin" is godmoding and should not be tolerated in any case. I would say that any sort of PvP in RP (which stealing from another player is) should be avoided just to steer clear of this situation.

[FreelanceWizard]

I concur that playing a common thug and saying you're inspired by Locke is largely missing the point of his character. Locke (and Zidane, and Robin Hood, and countless others from other media) falls into the category of the "noble thief," the rogue who uses his skills to benefit the forces of Good by sidethinking and working from the shadows. If you're not a good guy, you're not like Locke other than you might share a skill set with him.

 

I'm not going to get into any value judgments on thievery itself; there's lots of ways to play it, and stories need Bad Guys too. I do want to echo Zyrusticae's point, though, that you absolutely must get consent from another player before stealing from them.

[Momoji Momochi]

[align=center]What about when Locke had to steal the clothes from those merchants? xDD[/align]

 

[align=center]Poor guys just minding their own business and BAM... naked and embarrassed. [/align]

[align=center]:tonberry:[/align]

 

He made a choice for the greater good to do that. It was for a disguise if I recall. It comes down to the context of why they are doing it. A guy whose needs are already met, but decides to steal from a bystander anyway is just a villain. Being a thief isn't a good thing, and a person needs a very good explanation for why they are committing acts of theft, if nothing more than to show they aren't just a cold-blooded monster in the shape of a person.

 

Yes, I know about the survival thing. However, thievery in and of itself is an undesireable act. The poor steal because they have no alternative, but that is only considered acceptable because of the particular situation, not because theft is morally ambiguous.

[Martiallais]

I'd think it worth noting that you're most definitely criticizing some people's playstyles. Not everyone in the world, fantasy or otherwise, is a kind hearted, altruistic, and heroic person. To expect everyone in a community to roleplay as such is...well a bit out there. Even among 'heroes' there are some that are outliers (see the Punisher, etc), what would you call them? Also, wouldn't you say you're going a bit far by commenting on someone 'having a few screws loose' for wanting to play such a character? 

 

Just as it may be fun for you to play a shining knight in armor riding to rescue a princess, it's just as fun for someone else to play a thief or villain or someone who acts outside the laws. The dynamic created by people with different points of views and experiences is part of the magic of roleplaying...so if everyone was a bastion of goodness and propriety...well that'd get boring rather quickly, I imagine. Yes, thieves need consent, but since you are kind of specifically targeting more than a few characters and groups with those comments, I'd like to ask if you've spoken to them or at least researched them to see why those comparisons were made?

 

And for what it's worth? If such a vile, treacherous, criminal person was good at their job? Without godmodding you'd never know that they were a thief. Either way, I'd think the judgement calls on other's playstyles is a little heavy handed and unneeded, there's more than enough room in the community for everyone.

[Hywel Pendragon]

He made a choice for the greater good to do that. It was for a disguise if I recall. It comes down to the context of why they are doing it. A guy whose needs are already met, but decides to steal from a bystander anyway is just a villain.

 

It was for a disguise to get out of the city, yes.

It was more of joke on my part. =P

 

I agree that I've noticed some characters playing as a more thug character and claiming similarities to Locke which is just wrong. He fits the more 'noble-thief' character, even though he wasn't technically a thief his job-class still was.

 

Though, I could see some thugs with some redeeming qualities about their character. Such as my pirate. She'd lie and blackmail to take your coin, but she does have some standards and her own moral/honor code.

[lady2beetle]

And for what it's worth? If such a vile, treacherous, criminal person was good at their job? Without godmodding you'd never know that they were a thief. Either way, I'd think the judgement calls on other's playstyles is a little heavy handed and unneeded, there's more than enough room in the community for everyone.

 

I agree here. If there is no godmodding and if the "thief" is good at what they do, then you should never know that they are a thief. I, for one, am absolutely for the anti-hero concept and I have been very fond of playing, if not a thief, at least an assassin. If we all had perfect hero characters, then RP wouldn't be nearly as fun.

 

That said, if a "thief" lets themselves get caught or otherwise blatantly makes it obvious tha they are a thief, then they have to deal with the IC consequences. But don't punish them or critique them OOCly. That's just being elitist.

[Dameon]

Yuffie (FF VII)

Rei (BoF 3)

Zidane, Blank, Marcus (FF IX)

 

They were all thieves that did some criminal activities that were viewed by others as self serving and loathesome, but they were still interesting characters.

 

I think you can RP a thief that causes severe problems for others without just being a burglar that burgles and is hated by everyone.

[Asyria]

Have to keep in mind some people enjoy roleplaying the villain because it allows for great roleplay and stories. Aynone who thinks people RP villains primarily because they find evil endearing might have a few screws loose... I doubt evil is endearing to anyone, but without villains there can be no heroes and the villains built into the game won't RP with us players.

 

There is something beyond RPing for one's own enjoyment and that is building stories with others. Playing the villain in that context can be pretty rewarding. As a Game Master (or Dungeon Master or Storyteller, depending on the game) I regularly play villains and there's nothing quite like the satisfaction I feel when my players love to hate a NPC villain of my creation. When they pat each other on the back and celebrate their victory over their vile archenemy. When they talk about it months later. When I know I,ve done my job RPing the bad guy.

 

People not getting it indeed.

[Havoc Snow]

I'm not sure there is a such thing as a "noble thief" unless you are INCREDIBLY thorough. The idea of a noble thief falls mainly on the archetype created by Robin Hood, stealing from the rich to give to the poor. In the case of Robin Hood though he stole primarily from the king, though in some cases he also robbed wealthy merchants and what not with no real idea of who they were.

 

Let's say for example we have a noble thief and a rich merchant prince. The noble thief robs the merchant prince to give back to the people, so we sympathize with the cause of the thief because we exalt his deeds, but more often than not it's because we're given very little information about the person he's robbing.

 

In this example, what if that merchant prince started out as a street rat, he came up with a good idea and managed to elevate himself above his status (something Ul'dah is known for), or perhaps he's a member of a family that have worked incredibly hard and their wealth is well deserved. Maybe he has a large family and even though he has riches he also works himself to the bone to support said family and give them happiness. These are also very noble qualities, and the noble thief only perpetrates that just because he has something everyone else should have it too. In that example you're only perpetrating the idea that the poor don't need to work or make themselves of use to their society because you'll just rob the people who do work and prove themselves to their community and give it to everyone else.

 

Noble thief or not, that just makes you and everyone you support freeloaders in my opinion.

[Sienna]

The world isn't black and white. Robin Hood robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. To the rich he was a vile lowlife. To the poor he was a hero. If someone works hard, plays hard, has friends and family, and occasionally steals materials or items so that they can make a better profit from their own works? Yeah, they have a jaded moral code, but it does not make them Total dark. 

 

Examples in response to your saying someone who wants to play a darker character has screws loose, APB and City of Villains. These were both games where you could pick sides. There's also popular NON-MMO games like Grand Theft Auto, and Bully. These have you doing things that, IRL, wouldn't be considered acceptable behaviour. 

 

In another example, you're opting to play a game that has Black Magic in it. Black Magic is the demon/devil's work in several beliefs and cultures. If you choose to play that, that doesn't mean IRL you're a Satanist.

[Momoji Momochi]

Just to clear things up a bit, I have no problem with people roleplaying villains and the like as long as they have made the case clear that is what they are aiming to do. My issue is with people who think they're playing a hero while at the same time committing regular acts of evil against innocents. I've had to deal with that non-sense when playing Dungeons and Dragons before, and I don't want to have to deal with it again. It was almost like these guys thought that because their hero was able to walk into someone's house and loot it for hi-potions in some previous game they played on the DS or something that it is perfectly alright to do so in an actual role playing situation.

:frustrated:

[Sienna]

My thief-orientated characters do not consider themselves heroes, though they do heroic things. The consider themselves adventurers with an ambiguous moral code. In honestly, I've not really encountered any thief-types who claim to be heroes outside of those who WOULD BE considered heroic (albeit forgotten heroes) through their efforts against Garlemald, specifically during The Battle of Carteneau. Even the darkest shade of grey has people they want to fight for.

[Castegyre]

This reminds me of two things from D&D.

 

Kender, some people have a different concept of ownership.

 

And traditional alignment; Lawful (evil) Bastard, Chaotic (evil) Stupid, and True (neutral) Evil. Meaning, this is the misconception of how most people view the alignments and play them as caricatures instead of characters.

 

As was mentioned, as someone who spent more than a couple of decades playing and often running P&P and other games being able to step into the shoes of the bad guy is not only necessary, but sometimes satisfying. Especially if you can inspire others to drive their characters to new heights by being creative with the lows your character can present them to overcome.

 

I'm actually not a fan of the thief with a heart of gold, but a particular quote has meaning to me in regards to playing the bad guy, "I don't play monsters, I play men besieged by fate and out for revenge." Vincent Price.

 

EDIT: I have no idea why the forums just went psycho on my post...

[Havoc Snow]

Just to clear things up a bit, I have no problem with people roleplaying villains and the like as long as they have made the case clear that is what they are aiming to do. My issue is with people who think they're playing a hero while at the same time committing regular acts of evil against innocents. I've had to deal with that non-sense when playing Dungeons and Dragons before, and I don't want to have to deal with it again. It was almost like these guys thought that because their hero was able to walk into someone's house and loot it for hi-potions in some previous game they played on the DS or something that it is perfectly alright to do so in an actual role playing situation.

:frustrated:

While I agree with some of your points, I feel you're being too absolute. Too black and white if you will. There needs to be a distinction made here between something being unlawful, and something being evil. Theft is not evil, though it could be argued that greed is. If you're an orphaned child who lives on the streets with your younger sibling, you have no means to work or survive outside of pinching a loaf of bread every few days or something like that, does that make you a vile and insidious criminal? I don't think so.

 

I think your interpretation of a hero also falls a bit too far into "Superman Syndrome," in other words the type of character that cannot and will not do bad things under any circumstance. In the real world we view murder as evil, right? And yet we revere soldiers who go over seas to kill for their country as heroes. Even in FFXIV people who go out and fight with (and kill) Garlemald soldiers are viewed as heroes. Yet murder is still evil, right? It's all a matter of perspective.

[Martiallais]

My thief-orientated characters do not consider themselves heroes, though they do heroic things. They consider themselves adventurers with an ambiguous moral code. In honestly, I've not really encountered any thief-types who claim to be heroes outside of those who WOULD BE considered heroic (albeit forgotten heroes) through their efforts against Garlemald, specifically during The Battle of Carteneau. Even the darkest shade of grey has people they want to fight for.

 

This. QFT.

 

EDIT: Also, given the scope of the community, I'm sure every one here has something they don't want to deal with again due to prior experiences. But no one's forcing anyone to roleplay or interact with those people/things either....which just goes back to the point of people having fun in a variety of ways with a variety of characters.

[FreelanceWizard]

I'm not sure there is a such thing as a "noble thief" unless you are INCREDIBLY thorough. The idea of a noble thief falls mainly on the archetype created by Robin Hood, stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

 

"Noble thief" is just a term for a character archetype in a narrative structure. We could call it "Type 4B Thief Archetype" for all that it matters. Whether a character is a "noble thief" depends largely on the story in which he exists. If VI were told from the Empire's perspective, Locke would be a murderous brigand seeking to tear down society and create chaos -- a magical terrorist, if you will. (Which, I might add, would be a sweet antagonist concept in XIV.)

 

It all comes down to perception and degree, which is why I don't think you can make value judgments on a character's behaviors in a vacuum. Stealing doesn't make you Evil, no more than Killing Bad Guys makes you Good. In fact, depending on your point of view, Killing Bad Guys may make you no better than they are.

[Hywel Pendragon]

Just to clear things up a bit, I have no problem with people roleplaying villains and the like as long as they have made the case clear that is what they are aiming to do. My issue is with people who think they're playing a hero while at the same time committing regular acts of evil against innocents. I've had to deal with that non-sense when playing Dungeons and Dragons before, and I don't want to have to deal with it again. It was almost like these guys thought that because their hero was able to walk into someone's house and loot it for hi-potions in some previous game they played on the DS or something that it is perfectly alright to do so in an actual role playing situation.

:frustrated:

 

....

 

I somehow doubt that these characters are going to be going around and stealing from people/organizations and then claiming in all honesty that they are 'Heroes'. (And if they did and my character KNOWS that they are nothing of the like, she'd most likely point it out IC.) As Sienna pointed out about their character, they may do some heroic things but are also ambiguous on their morals and would just call themselves adventurers or something of the like.

 

My own character is very much like this.

[Dameon]

I think the definition of Noble Thieves has to do more with honor and having a code they follow that protects certain people and factions often considered protected by a sense of morality.

 

Like...never murder women and children, or steal from people that are considered lower class (with a few exceptions like...they stole from people even poorer than them, or they work for a greater evil (then you tend to only steal a certain object in relation to their station)). Only take what you need to survive.

 

It's not easily definable in every situation, of course.

[ArmachiA]

My entire guild in 1.0 (And TOR) was based on thievery. We were an underground society that.. uh.. commandeered artifacts, weapons, information from old caves, ruins... people's houses... in order to supply them to ourselves. Some of our ranks had noble goals, they were looking for past artifacts that were stolen from their order and they were... stealing them back. Some of us just wanted the money the thing could bring.

 

Currently, we are a guild that is looking for power by any means necessary in order to protect Eorzea from another Calamity. Sounds pretty noble, but we actually do mean by any means necessary. Lying, cheating, stealing... we aren't above what is needed to be done to make sure Garlemald doesn't get a one up on us and that we can stand our ground against all the Bahamuts. We do not work with the Grand Companies, or in any official capacity and fully expect people to see us as wrong on the outside looking in.

 

We are Chaotic Good

We do not consider ourselves villains.

 

Come at me, brah

[Miss Marigold]

"Property" itself is a concept born largely of a materialistic culture, and I think it's important to recognize that.

 

I don't even think you'll get agreement on that.

 

Property, from my perspective, is a fundamental consequence of human nature and natural rights. If you don't have a right to the food you grow, the clothes you make, or the shelter you've constructed, you necessarily don't have a right to live as all of those things are prerequisites. To say property is a concept born of a materialistic culture completely neglects this basic fact of reality.

[FreelanceWizard]

We are Chaotic Good

We do not consider ourselves villains.

 

This is why I hate D&D alignments. CG totally doesn't describe the totality of your group; alignments wash all of the nuances away. (I love your FC concept, by the way. )

 

In the Palladium system, I'd class your group as Scrupulous to Unprincipled -- doing good, but willing to do the Hard Stuff necessary to achieve that end. Good Is Not Soft, after all. 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.