Thieves alignment??

nephtu · Post by **nephtu** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:19 am

My 2 gold worth..

The historical and gameplay issues have been more than adequately addressed, but the real core of the confusion, IMAO, is the flawed idea of alignment in D&D based games. In point of fact - with the possible exception of some pimply teenage goth / satanist / terrorist / other bad guy wannabes (true alignment: mostly silly)virtually no one actually considers themselves evil - people are aligned with real world groups - nations, races, armies, religious & political movements and self-interest (as they see it) far more than with abstract notions of good and evil, let alone law and chaos. Those groups tend to judge (i.e. like or dislike) you based largely on how closely you're identified with groups they like or dislike, and hardly at all based on your value system.

Alignment is a deeply flawed system that I really think should be scrapped. Faction standing type systems are much more relevant, ultimately make much more sense, and structure much more complex conflicts than the crude black hat/white hat polarization implied in alignment.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 10:20 am

No arguments there, Nephtu. I've been saying the same thing for more than a couple of decades, and it achieves nothing. I think the alignment system was created for the pre-teen audience that understands and enjoys easy labeling of characters.

glenfar · Post by **glenfar** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 10:39 am

I'd agree the alignment system is seriously flawed. It's not too hard to classify fictional characters like Robin Hood or King John because they tend to be portrayed very black and white. But in real life, people aren't like that. I mean how many people here speed? That would be breaking the law for selfish reasons - a Chaotic Evil act!

And consider this - if you're really a lawful character, you'd have to leave Imoen in Spellhold. I mean she was legally arrested and sentenced by the rightful authorities!

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 12:46 pm

Well, BG is 2ed rules and one of the chances in 3.5ed rules deals with the whole good vs thief issue.

Thieves are simply no longer thieves in 3.5 rules, they are rogues. This mean you can be a real thief or a sneaky fighter.
Also, your action may not be good. IE steal something, but if it's for a good cause it 'justifies the means'. Thus be chaotic good.

But to be simple about it, alignments don't work. There is a lot of discussion what an alignment even is!
Is your alignment dertermined by your nature, this way you can pre-choose it yourself. Or is it the other way around, is your alignment determined by your actions?

In my ad&d group, we work without alignments. The player has an idea what he wants to be, but the Dungeon Master determines his view on it by obverving the player's actions.

Bad Karma · Post by **Bad Karma** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 5:23 pm

[QUOTE=FireLighter]Even if he did organize the capture, he didn't do the actual crime. So stealing from him should be punishable by death and not considered good.[/QUOTE]

Wait...so if I were to arrange your capture and have some thugs do it, you would harbor no ill will toward me since I'm not technically responsible for doing it

Hm. By the same token, orchestrating someone's financial/psychological/physical downfall would be excused if you were not to lift a finger in the actual act of doing so, would it not?

Yeah, John raised taxes. Yeah, that is his perogative. That doesn't make it right. Keep in mind, I'm speaking only of the movies/folk tale sorta thing, I'm no historian.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:53 pm

I apologize for furthering our discussion of Robin Hood, here. But since we're interested in the subject, maybe it would be appropriate to focus in this thread on the alignment of thieves, and take the Merry Men over to the SYM (Speak Your Mind) forum where they'd fit right in with the general dissipation.

JackOfClubs · Post by **JackOfClubs** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:56 am

[QUOTE=glenfar]I'd agree the alignment system is seriously flawed. It's not too hard to classify fictional characters like Robin Hood or King John because they tend to be portrayed very black and white. But in real life, people aren't like that. I mean how many people here speed? That would be breaking the law for selfish reasons - a Chaotic Evil act!

And consider this - if you're really a lawful character, you'd have to leave Imoen in Spellhold. I mean she was legally arrested and sentenced by the rightful authorities![/QUOTE]Breaking the law would be chaotic but only evil if it actually hurt or at least endangered someone. So speeding probably wouldn't qualify but drunk driving probably would.

Lawful Good characters wouldn't leave Imoen in Spellhold just because it was the law. That would be closer to Lawful Neutral. A LG character would consider that the good is only possible in a system of law and order but would be under no illusion that all laws were good a priori.

Raumoheru · Post by **Raumoheru** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 7:18 am

a lawfull good person would prolly think that she was wrongly acused and need to be resqued.

nephtu · Post by **nephtu** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 8:54 am

More..

[QUOTE=Raumoheru]a lawfull good person would prolly think that she was wrongly acused and need to be resqued.[/QUOTE]

This is precisely why alignment is so broken. Lawful, shmawful - your character is in conflict with the Cowled Wizards irrespective of whatever formal alignment may apply to you or them. The same applies to the Harpers - the only good-ish organization we see is going to be your enemy pretty much regardless of your actions (at least if Jaheira is in the party).

The alignment system leads to endless vapid arguments about how a character ought to act - a faction based analysis simply says: These guys are obstructing me, they're about to have some unpleasant experiences as a result

glenfar · Post by **glenfar** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:12 am

[QUOTE=JackOfClubs]Breaking the law would be chaotic but only evil if it actually hurt or at least endangered someone.[/QUOTE]

There's nothing in the description of CE that says you have to hurt or endanger someone. It just says you're motivated by personal gain or pleasure, that you think laws are for the weak, and that you'll stop at nothing to get what you want. (Admitedly that last bit is fairly threatening)

Now consider speeding - you want to drive fast, that's definitely personal gain or pleasure. You're breaking the law, so I'd say the second fits. As for the third - you did get what you wanted didn't you?

It might seem a stretch - but what alignment would you put it under? It's certainly not CG. And CN would imply it's just a whim. If this is an occasional thing, CN makes sense, but someone who speeds all the time is not following a whim.

[QUOTE=JackOfClubs]Lawful Good characters wouldn't leave Imoen in Spellhold just because it was the law. That would be closer to Lawful Neutral. A LG character would consider that the good is only possible in a system of law and order but would be under no illusion that all laws were good a priori.[/QUOTE]

From the definition of LG: "To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed". Whether they agree with the law or not, they have to obey it.

My wording probably wasn't the best though - it would be more accurate to say a Lawful character would not try to break Imoen out of Spellhold. That means they'd have to find a lawful way to get her out - I'd say they'd try to either a) get the law changed or b) make a deal with the Cowled Wizards for her release.

glenfar · Post by **glenfar** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:28 am

[QUOTE=Raumoheru]a lawfull good person would prolly think that she was wrongly acused and need to be resqued.[/QUOTE]

How was she wrongly accused? She cast magic in Athkatla without a license - that's against the law.

Raumoheru · Post by **Raumoheru** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 11:02 am

she got blamed for what irenicus did and didnt even get a trial to testify she was kidnaped and didnt even know she was in Athkatla

FireLighter · Post by **FireLighter** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 11:05 am

Doesn't matter, a laws a law. That's like going to Russia, killing people, and saying 'I didn't know it was against the law!' Maybe she should have been sane and instead of trying to start a fight with Irenicus, when she is way to weak IMO, wait for a little while after she has progressed and excelled more in here magical prowess?

Raumoheru · Post by **Raumoheru** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 11:07 am

how do u know she tryed to fight him?

ya she cast magic missle at him but that is being defiant.

she should at least have had a trial and not have been sent there.

IMO she was wrongfully acused.

btw when i try to cast spells in the city they warn me first....

FireLighter · Post by **FireLighter** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 11:11 am

She cast it twice, stepping over the line of defiance and a challenge.
EDIT: Once while the cowled wizards were gettin whupped

Raumoheru · Post by **Raumoheru** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 11:14 am

so she tryed to save them but instead she got arrested

im happy im an assassin, im gonna go kill the cowled wizards now...

FireLighter · Post by **FireLighter** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 11:15 am

.................. W/E dude...
EDIT: when you do, send me screen shots of; you turned to stone, you in a pile of ash, you being blown up after stone, and you just getting raped by a finger of death. k?

glenfar · Post by **glenfar** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 11:30 am

I don't think anyone's saying that the law treated Imoen fairly - just that it was the law.

Self-defense is definitely not seen as a valid excuse here - just look at what happens when you use magic to try and defend yourself against some muggers or something.

And as was mentioned before, Ignorance of the law is never an excuse.

As for giving a warning - I would doubt there's anything in the law that says you have to get a warning. And in this case, given that Cowled Wizards were killed in this incidence, it's no surprise that there's no warning.