Thieves... people not getting it

[Myxie Tryxle]

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 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.

[ArmachiA]

The only reason I use them is it because it makes it easier to explain the guild as a whole than typing out a paragraph every time. They can just look up Chaotic Good on TV tropes or whatever and get a general idea. It gets very hard to constantly go

"We help Eorzea."

"So your good?"

"Well, if saving Eorzea meant throwing 100 babies in a Volcano, we would probably do that."

"So your bad?"

"Well..."

 

forever and ever and ever ahem.

 

I'm still not a hundred percent sure I have the right idea on our own guild recruitment thread... it's a process

 

(Thanks for liking the theme, I wasn't sure how it would go over generally)

[Momoji Momochi]

After having taken a few hours away from this and looking over what I wrote, it looks like I ended up letting past experiences (bad ones) get the better of me after reading some stuff on the forums (which I misunderstood for something else). If I were to remake the thread, I would have focused more on the real issue I'm thinking about, which is keeping characters consistent with their own values, and titled the thread accordingly. I'm sure everyone is familiar with the difficulties of immature players who end up trying to push the limits of others or doing crazy stuff for fun rather than role play, and I ended up getting reminded of that stuff and getting set off. Anyway, I apologize for coming off as so opinionated, as this is not how I normally act or think.

[ArmachiA]

It's cool, sometimes RPing can be especially frustrating. We've all had bad experiences (My guild has the RULE OF SEVEN based on a particularly bad event). There are a lot of times I want to vent my frustration, sometimes ya just need to do that.

[LandStander]

Down with the bourgeoisie! Uh, what? Wrong forum? *quietly leaves the thread* >.>

[Asyria]

After having taken a few hours away from this and looking over what I wrote, it looks like I ended up letting past experiences (bad ones) get the better of me after reading some stuff on the forums (which I misunderstood for something else). If I were to remake the thread, I would have focused more on the real issue I'm thinking about, which is keeping characters consistent with their own values, and titled the thread accordingly. I'm sure everyone is familiar with the difficulties of immature players who end up trying to push the limits of others or doing crazy stuff for fun rather than role play, and I ended up getting reminded of that stuff and getting set off. Anyway, I apologize for coming off as so opinionated, as this is not how I normally act or think.

 

Now THIS I can agree with.

Being consistent is pretty important to me and characters who aren't are characters I quickly become wary of.

[Demon Fox]

I don't understand while people can't play a thief the way they want to play a thief. i played a thief/assassin in guild wars and my dude was evil as all hell, no real regard for others and that's something i made clear and damn anyone else who had a problem with it.

 

People can play a thief any way they chose, from a noble thief who steals from the rich and gives to the poor to a vile thief who will take anything from anyone just to make some fast coin.

 

there is an in between, for example an espionage type thief. say you have an empire and a resistance movement, the resistance has a thief that they send on a mission to steal from a random citizen and plant that item that was stolen on a weapon merchant who freely supplies weapons to the empire, the item being found would result in said merchants imprisonment.

 

this is an example of a thief stealing from an innocent civilian for the greater good, does this action make this thief evil? not in my opinion. a thief isn't some 2D stereotypical role that has to be played one way or the other, just like any other role it can be played however the player see's fit. isn't that what we are here for? so long as a character is not lore breaking i don't see any problem.

[Felix Sideris]

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.

Not that I agree or promote stealing or anything of the like. In fact, I hate how society's standards and morals have plummeted, but this isn't real life. 

 

You have to remember that part of good role play is having people willing to play the bad guys. The BEST role play i've had so far was during Wrath of the Lich King on WoW.

 

The reason for this was because there was TONS of cultist movements, cultist guilds, people role playing that plague outbreaks were starting and all of that kind of thing. What did I rp? An informant/infiltrator. It was amazing for me because I would hunt/track down people for some of the guilds. I'd gather information on some cultists and fence it to people. It was very fun and gave me, and my character, a very interactive role in the entire community's role play.

 

But in the end, the role play(In my opinion), died down and became very boring when everyone started the casual style of role play. Now, most people do some casual small-talk RP and it makes me sad because my character simply did not fit into it. Which was one of the few reasons as to why I quit playing WoW.

 

So, remember, ooc=/=IC. People role playing bad/evil characters, usually their characters do not reflect their personal morals or beliefs, but they are willing to play such a character to make the community role play a little more interesting. Some don't mind doing the morally-questionable thing. But either way, a good role play community has -BOTH- good and bad characters. You need a balance in all things. You can't appreciate all of the paladins/knights/guards that role play protecting the people if they don't have murderers/thief/cultists/etc to protect them from.

---

Just saw your other posts correcting what you meant.  Should have read more before I posted.

 

My point still stands, though.. As for inconsistent characters and characters who role play in two directions(good and bad).. That can be a good thing. Let me paint a picture for you.

 

So, Inconsistent characters can be caught in lies, adding possible drama to role play. Drama is needed to keep things interesting. It is very easy for role play to become stale and tasteless if there isn't anything to push characters out of their comfort zones, even if that is someone spilling a drink on a character in a tavern. Drama is needed to change the direction and flow of role play and allow characters opportunity to grow in ways you as the creator might not have thought about.

 

Characters who are both good or bad? 

 

Imagine a police chief in real life being caught stealing/robbing people. Imagine a senitor being caught doing some sort of injustice. These things happen, and what happens to these people when these things happen? It seems all of society comes down upon them and in the end they are(usually) charged for their crimes in some way. And if they aren't legally charged, they have the entirety of society looking at them in a very different light.

 

Bad quality role play is frustrating, and I can totally connect with you on that. That is one of the reasons, as I said earlier, as to why I quit WoW. But, not everyone is a good role player or a veteran in it either. I guess what I mean in the end is that all we can really do as a community is to make the best of the cards we are dealt and try to make the community a good place for everyone.

[Zyrusticae]

"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.

No, what you're talking about is entirely a consequence of scarcity. Remove scarcity as a factor and property is completely unnecessary. If everyone's needs are met, "stealing" ceases to exist as a concept.

 

And when I say 'property' is unnecessary, I am very obviously assuming that everything becomes everyone's 'property', as in you have an automatic, assumed right to the things that are required to live, not that no one has a right to the things required to live.

 

There are entire generations of human culture where the idea of 'property', at least in the sense we think of it, simply did not exist. At most we had a sense of 'territory', which is not the same thing at all (and is something present among all kinds of predators across the entire animal kingdom). The most prominent (and relatively recent) example I can think of are Native Americans, who lacked both the concepts of exact time and individual property that the colonists had, and frequently got into trouble with the colonists when they simply nicked things because they didn't understand their idea of 'individual property rights'. Remember, everything was 'property of the tribe'. At most they traded things between tribes, but within the tribe you simply took what you needed when you needed it.

 

I suppose I should amend my statement to say 'private property' is what is in question here, not necessarily the very concept of 'property' itself. And while I'm at it, it is extremely plausible for Miqo'te tribes to have an idea of 'property' that is very similar to Native Americans, as they would simply share needed tools and food within the tribe proper, and may have something of a culture clash when moving to typical Eorzean society with their idea of 'ownership'. Of course this can vary from tribe to tribe, but I would not consider it implausible that someone simply has difficulties understanding that idea when they were not raised with it.

[Moltove]

Even after your apology, I still must urge to really keeping these emotions OOC, whether you're ICly talking to a knight, mage, or a flat-out thief-- your character doesn't know their biz, and depending on your character's qualities, could be inclined to talk with them in a friendly manner. The only time when your character would know a thief would be if they're being obvious, or sketchy. Generally that's enough for your character to know to back off, or depending on motifs, speak up.

 

As important it is to...erm...let's say avoid the tell-tale signs of a RP trap (which could mean different things to different people, as we all have our pet peeves in RP), OP you came out pretty strong hitting the Thief community. While I've not been able to RP (or play at all -.-; ) with the influx of new players, it's not common to come across the disrespect and god modding that could be possible. That said I've not come across it in 1.0 or in the Beta yet, and I don't forsee coming across it to much in ARR. When it happens, I'll give them a friendly suggestion and walk it off.

 

But to alienate all Thieves like that? That's some strong stuff. Don't bring it in game. Your character should have his or her own reasons for liking/disliking those types of characters. But be careful, as the more a character persecutes an archetype or a set of other characters, and especially on a an original post like that, people are going to wonder if it's IC anymore and more OOC.

 

 I completely agree with consistency, but you won't know it until you actually RP with someone. I dunno anything about this Locke comparison stuff, but it is what it is. People are weird. I've heard one player say he wants to look like Sephiroth but have the personality of Cloud. Do you know how much Emo-locity that is? The level of emo would be too dayum high!

 

And I dunno why we're going into so much philosophical detail about thieves-- it's yet another role to play. Of course it's not morally right in RL, we all know this. But as it's been said, there's different types and how they go about it. But even if there's a character who steals for his own gain, it could still be interesting RP!

 

How is it that the murderous Warriors types that people are playing don't get half this much scrutiny from people? -.-;

 

I say, as long as the person makes their character interesting IC, then stick with them. If you don't care for it, you can choose to not RP with them again. :thumbsup:

[Ildur]

No, what you're talking about is entirely a consequence of scarcity. Remove scarcity as a factor and property is completely unnecessary. If everyone's needs are met, "stealing" ceases to exist as a concept.

 

I wouldn't reduce stealing only to a matter of scarcity. There's plenty of people out there who steal luxuries (like, say, cars), sell them for profit and then buy a brand new pair of shoes instead of food, water, medicines, or whatever. Not to mention you can't remove scarcity in a world with finite resources. You could maybe camouflage it if you somehow managed to give every man, woman and child the exact same set of stuff. But then you'll run into people who have different necessities, or who just want different things. And in turn you'll run into people who, upon seeing this people having different stuff than them, will demand you give it to them too. And if you don't? They might steal them. And it wasn't a problem of scarcity, but a problem of 'you don't need this'.

 

Anyway! Back on topic...I...uh...pickles? Yeah, let's go for pickles.

[Zyrusticae]

I wouldn't reduce stealing only to a matter of scarcity. There's plenty of people out there who steal luxuries (like, say, cars), sell them for profit and then buy a brand new pair of shoes instead of food, water, medicines, or whatever. Not to mention you can't remove scarcity in a world with finite resources. You could maybe camouflage it if you somehow managed to give every man, woman and child the exact same set of stuff. But then you'll run into people who have different necessities, or who just want different things. And in turn you'll run into people who, upon seeing this people having different stuff than them, will demand you give it to them too. And if you don't? They might steal them. And it wasn't a problem of scarcity, but a problem of 'you don't need this'.

 

Anyway! Back on topic...I...uh...pickles? Yeah, let's go for pickles.

That's the materialism I was talking about, but that has little to do with what the person I was responding to was talking about (which was entirely about 'needs').

 

And a lot of that is societal, created by a consumerist culture where having the next great thing is fetishized to a possibly unhealthy degree. Imagine a society where 'making do with what you have' is given the highest order of importance, and you'd have a very different picture.

 

Also, too late, this train will not be derailed!

[Asyria]

Hating thieves in-game is perfectly fine if it's also In Character.

I fondly remember a certain NPC Henchmen Elven cleric from Neverwinter Night who really REALLY hated thieves...

[Miss Marigold]

No' date=' what you're talking about is entirely a consequence of scarcity. Remove scarcity as a factor and property is completely unnecessary.[/quote']

 

Perhaps, but then we're talking about a reality different from our own entirely. Philosophy is rooted in our perception of reality, so of course a hypothetical that changes the basic rules would give rise to different concepts.

 

There are entire generations of human culture where the idea of 'property', at least in the sense we think of it, simply did not exist.

 

Of course. Property as a right can't come up until the concept of individual rights exists, something that was certainly not present in all human cultures. My point is that property rights are a necessary consequence of the notion of individual rights; it need not have anything to do with a materialistic culture as you said it did. Then again, perhaps you have a much broader definition of "materialistic culture" than I do. I suspect we probably have a different definition of "individual rights" as well, so its probably best if we stop or take this to PMs before we veer too far off the topic!