Stealing from shops as "good"

[shesgottahaveit]

I have seen numerous posts saying people steal from shop keepers. I have a problem with this being of good alingment. Besides game balance issues your not supposed to steal if your good. Am I being too holier than thou? Is it ok to steal if your good?


------------------
You would'nt hurt a lady would ya? hahahehehe

[fable]

Define "good." Define "evil."

That's the problem with Gygax' D&D alignments, and always has been, since the first books appeared. They make a very, very broad, general kind of sense, but they quickly fall apart when you really want to get into the grit of roleplaying. It fosters evil characters who are figures out of 19th century melodrama (Snidely Whiplash types, laughing insanely and twirling imaginary moustachios) and valiant, cardboard saints who would pawn their armor to buy bubblegum for a kid that's gone into sugar withdrawal.

How the hell does "neutral evil" differ from "chaotic evil?" How do you rate a nice guy who helps out folks in dire need, but also doesn't mind putting the screw to friends, or shoplifts? What about a valiant paladin who kills apparent evildoers without asking questions? Or a thief who steals unconscionably, from everyone, even kills, but only to support a bedridden, dying wife? It's easy to say "well, this character goes in this slot," but that's just it: if they *are* characters, they don't fit into slots. And if you add enough reality to your characters, they just won't slip easily into one of the 9 basic alignments.

As it happens, my fourth party is neutral/evil. I wish they had the option to extort money from merchants as part of a protection racket. It would fit, and just a little minor shoplifting is so simple they're really ashamed to do it. http://www.gamebanshee.com/ubb/wink.gif

[shesgottahaveit]

Ya your right. Just like no one ever thinks "he" is evil but others may.

I guess it's a choice I have to make, not on alingment but how I want to roleplay. I don't like to steal for several reasons.
-In this game you can eventually afford any items you were going to steal
-Stealing early on makes the game unbalanced
(ie robe of veca lvl 7 mage)
-Leads to reloads if you fail (get caught)
-I think stealing from someone is not the way I would like to aquire assets but through hard work (quests/selling items)

Another thing I have always hated about aligment/ad&d is how paladins are "lawful good". I was reading Magic by Asimov and he indicated they were anything but "good". They killed and bullied the lesser class for only their own benefit. Raped and piliged also.

[shesgottahaveit]

I wish they had the option to extort money from merchants as part of a protection racket. It would fit, and just a little minor shoplifting is so simple they're really ashamed to do it. http://www.gamebanshee.com/ubb/wink.gif[/b]

Would'nt the RICO statues come into play here and you would have to spend no less the 6 life terms in spellhold

[fable]

Another thing I have always hated about aligment/ad&d is how paladins are "lawful good". I was reading Magic by Asimov and he indicated they were anything but "good". They killed and bullied the lesser class for only their own benefit. Raped and piliged also.

I hate to say it, but I think Asimov is one of the most over-rated, inaccurate sources of information in the latter half of the 20th century. A very genial, bumptious sort of man, with a lot of superficial data that came easily to his fingertips, he turned from a competent writer with a real gift for humor into a marketing machine.

His info about paladins is, frankly, woefully inaccurate and out of date. He doesn't differentiate between the separate "holy orders of knighthood" that came into existence over a period of several hundred years, or their purposes, or activities, or content. Judging from his remarks, he never even looked at a secondhand book about specific orders, much less went for the source materials which are plentiful and extent in France, Spain, the midEast, etc.

Some orders were simply militant branches of the Roman Catholic Church at a time before the so-called "Popes Militant" of the Anti-Reformation. They were meant to fight crusades to recover the "Holy Lands," and they were also meant to keep order on the roads between cities. This was a major problem in the late Middle Ages, because travel had increased greatly, but government remained largely local, and roads were usually unpoliced. The only more-or-less safe travel was in groups, and the safest roads were those traveled by the hundreds of thousands of pilgrims going to saintly shrines each year.

Other orders were set up deliberately in counterbalance to the RCC, for national or local leaders to show that they, too, had the power as "God's representative on earth." Still others were provided lodging for pilgrims, or held Christian lands against the onslaught of "pagans." Some were highly successful traders with vast merchandising networks.

As regards the remarks about raping, etc, I suspect Azimov is referring to a few very specific instances where either everybody got out of hand, or where the Pope specifically said (as in the notorious Albigensian Crusade) that all crimes were forgiven in advance by those who undertook it. This doesn't forgive those who did it, but remember, we're looking at it with modern eyes. To contemporaries, they were rooting out heresy, and God had forgiven them.

Azimov also ignores that many of the chivalric orders of knighthood maintained regular courts in which they judged the actions of their members. Anyone who was found to have stolen, or been unchartiable, or cowardly, or proud, could receive a voluntary penalty that was quite stiff--or be drummed out of the order, which sometimes resulted in suicide, so great was the loss of face. These orders may have been the best policing activity possible for the warriors of Medieval Christiandom, who otherwise would have done pretty much as they willed, all the time.

We should also bear in mind, Azimov bore a strong religious prejudice. The Jews were by no means without fault in their own ancient heydey, slaughtering and burning towns, killing all men and male children and enslaving all the women--according to their own records in the Bible. Yet this wasn't exactly an area Azimov preferred to discuss; he liked dwelling on Christian foibles. So he needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

(For the record, I'm neither Christian nor Jewish nor Islamic, nor have anything against Christians or Jews or Muslims. But monotheistic religions have tended to foster brutal, horrid crimes over the years, and none are exempt from blame.)

I can post some quotes from source documents on chivalry, if you'd like.

[fable]

As for a shoplifting paladin, I agree with your points, above. I would add that if a party shoplifts, I think a paladin would be suspended from their Order, or at least get a warning. And if a thief steals while in a party with a paladin, I think they would have words over it. Perhaps the paladin would allow the thief to steal one item within a set period, just for group harmony; but I can't see a paladin permitting unlimited thievery.

I also can't see a paladin permitting the looting of graves.

[shesgottahaveit]

Originally posted by fable:
A very genial, bumptious sort of man, with a lot of superficial data that came easily to his fingertips, he turned from a competent writer with a real gift for humor into a marketing machine.

Funny he counts every calander as a publised work huh!

Judging from his remarks, he never even looked at a secondhand book about specific orders, much less went for the source materials which are plentiful and extent in France, Spain, the midEast, etc.


He does tend to generalize...

. This doesn't forgive those who did it, but remember, we're looking at it with modern eyes.

Agreed

To contemporaries, they were rooting out heresy, and God had forgiven them.

Perhaps his problem was methods used to root out heresy and what consituted heresy.

Azimov also ignores that many of the chivalric orders of knighthood maintained regular courts in which they judged the actions of their members. Anyone who was found to have stolen, or been unchartiable, or cowardly, or proud, could receive a voluntary penalty that was quite stiff--or be drummed out of the order, which sometimes resulted in suicide, so great was the loss of face. These orders may have been the best policing activity possible for the warriors of Medieval Christiandom, who otherwise would have done pretty much as they willed, all the time.

I did not know that! I wonder if he did.

We should also bear in mind, Azimov bore a strong religious prejudice. The Jews were by no means without fault in their own ancient heydey, slaughtering and burning towns, killing all men and male children and enslaving all the women--according to their own records in the Bible. Yet this wasn't exactly an area Azimov preferred to discuss; he liked dwelling on Christian foibles. So he needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

(For the record, I'm neither Christian nor Jewish nor Islamic, nor have anything against Christians or Jews or Muslims. But monotheistic religions have tended to foster brutal, horrid crimes over the years, and none are exempt from blame.)

Again thanks fable. Your writings are always educational and very fun to read.

I think you have writen books or at least an author of some sort. Perhaps you don't want to tell.

[fable]

I'm a writer of both non-fiction and fiction, but nothing terribly exalted (though I've been doing it for a decent wage for many years).

One point: knights didn't root out heresy. Heresy really wasn't an issue until the Rennaisance (around 1300 AD). Before that, knights were employed to drive back incursions by non-Christian foes. After that, the Church employed its own inquisitors, though many secular inquisitors sprang up, as well, who filled the function held by modern demagogues: they became extremely popular, and led crowds in gathering up, judging, and hanging heretics.

One of the little known facts about heresy in the Renaissance is that the RCC actually was involved in relatively few of the "witch hunts." These were popularly led, and in general, the RCC actually rescued "heretics" from the mob. That's not to say these heretics went free; but the RCC's method of investigator was detailed, rational, and by the book. The public simply wanted blood, and quickly.

(This isn't an excuse for the RCC, which pursued individuals, often outstanding ones with unique ideas, into hiding or into prison. But the vast number of sorcerers and witches burnt for heresy were done so by public acclimation.)

[shesgottahaveit]

BTW-

Heres what I found so far.... It's been very difficult since I live in a small coastal town in California..

Fletcher Pratt's Well of the Unicorn
MacDonald's Lilith
and Pratt and De Camp's Incomplete Enchanter

Amazon has some of the others but I don't like to but new books. So i'llkeep looking at my used book store.
I am so glad I printed that post out since it may be unretrievable..

[fable]

I think you're going to have a fun time with those! If you want light reading, go for the Incomplete Enchanter, first. Personally, Well of the Unicorn remains one of my favorite alltime fantasy works. It starts slow, but grows on you as more characters appear, and the plot gathers momentum.

[Yanlee]

This looks like an interesting thread, so I thought I would add my piece on the alignment issue.

Any system of alignment is problematic because it proposes to place characters on a moral continuum, which is a wholly subjective exercise. Characters cannot be deemed to be good or evil because every action they do must be taken in context, and, as we all know, there are no moral absolutes. There is no way that anyone, let alone a RPG, can determine a moral alignment based on these factors.

I think it that RPGs are better suited to having no alignment system. Players should simply play the characters the way they want, and others can form their own judgement of that character's actions. To say that a character is lawful good, for example, predetermines what is right and wrong and reduces the role-playing element.

Regarding stealing (in the context of BG2's system), I think that if a character is lawful good (especially a paladin) then they should never permit stealing. Paladins shouldn't even be in the habit of looting corpses for pieces of gold and trinkets.

[mizuno]

very true, and what does the alignment of our pc really does? aprat from choosing class? as long as the reputation is not very high or good, theoretically we could have evil and good NPCs in our party(except some cases). your paladin still can go muder someone as long as rep is higher than 6. tougher penalties should be introduced.

but anyway, i usually steal scrolls, and weapons and armors in the early stage of game. i didn't fail and reload because i let nalia drink down at least 3 or 4 potions of mater thievies(that's what they are for).thus the point of reloading is N/A. and keldorn already did the job for paladin, whenever you steal things, he will not very pleased. but if you pc is paladin, i think bioware should do better.

now i like chaotic good character cos it suit me, basically can steal but generally i am good

[fable]

I agree with Yanlee. I'd like to see a party's actions actually affect individuals and groups, as they become aware of your deeds across time.

For example, let's say your party destroys a slaver caravan enroute. That pisses off the slave traders, but also the receiving merchant wholesalers, who stand to make an excellent profit; and probably their investors, as well. Potential buyers who learn of your actions will also be annoyed, with the level of their annoyance depending upon the number of slaves they regularly buy and employ.

At the same time, you may gain support from altruistic groups, or even xenophobic native organizations that see your interference in a positive light since it frees them from international occupation. A foreign ruler may be pleased, since you've damaged the economy of another ruler is regards as unfriendly. A temple may approve, but a particular priest may disapprove, because his sister is a slave trader.

Every deed you commit would then affect the portrait that's built of you by all the people you encounter. Instead of regarding you as "evil," or "chaotic," you'd be considered (for instance) helpful, cautious, proud, and a supporter of the aristocracy. These labels would replace moralistic value judgements, and be suggest to change.

Now, if only we could find somebody to use this. Fat chance, I know. http://www.gamebanshee.com/ubb/wink.gif

[shesgottahaveit]

fable,

I have to disagree with your premise. Your assuming the act of slave trading is neither good nor bad it just is an economic fact of your particular realm. But can't we agree that good is how I would like to be treated by others and will treat people then same. I think most if not all people fell this way. Which is what makes slave trading bad.

Heck, using you logic there is no right wrong good or bad everything just is. We woould never survive in such an archaic society..

[fable]

Shesgottahaveit, I'm not assuming good or evil, I make a personal value judgement upon the slave trade. But as a writer, I don't necessarily have to. A particular book may have protagonists who move within a sphere of activity that touches upon the slave trade, but merely accept it as a fact of life--much as Americans accept that the homeless are an expected part of society, while some nations would be horrified at that thought.

In any case, it was only meant to provide an example of how a non-aligned system might work--rather like some strategy games do, with different groups evaluating your performance according to a variety of parameters with their own values. Tropico is a bit like this, and Republic supposedly will be.