Technically, Haley did not *steal* much... [Archive]

Iuris

2009-01-10, 07:13 AM

Well, here's the old problem with RPGs that noone ever notices. How exactly do you get loot legally?

See, in the current real world, you have laws about how such things get handled. Usually, they start by leaving law enforcement restricted to law enforcement agencies - not random vigilantes. Items used or produced by crime can be confiscated (which can reach from a large to a low percentage - compare a bandit to a corrupt merchant), but not all property. Everything that is not confiscated follows the road of all property - it goes to the heirs. Oh, and damages would go to the victims - not the law enforcers.

Of course, the play world is not the real world with "liberte, egalite, fraternite" enshrined in a constitution that actually gets honoured.

This is where a nice "commission and leter of marque" can come in handy - a formal license from a government that lets the PCs go out and "do good" in a sanctioned way. Which would include a confiscation right. Or, perhaps an actual law granting official license to all to "adventure".

Mind you, historically rulers have been known to happily confiscate the property of criminals, which of course added incentive to find criminaly. See "peine forte et dure"...

Or, of course, the ancient "might makes right" - So I looted the chest of gold, and I'm lvl 10 while you are lvl 1. Wanna make something of it?

Ezbez

2009-01-10, 07:17 AM

Well the woods that the dragon was in wasn't technically a part of any nation (otherwise they would have sent the bandit leaders to jail), so nothing they got from that would be legally considered stealing. Whether the guild has their own rules on theft is left to be seen.

Kurald Galain

2009-01-10, 07:33 AM

And more specifically, didn't the contract stipulate that Haley never actually "quit" the guild? By my reading, Haley doesn't owe the guild a copper piece.
Yes, but the standard thieves' guild contract (as mentioned in the Origin of PCs) stipulates that while a you're member of the thieves' guild, the guild gets a 50% cut of all your thefts.

That said, Crystal is considered by Haley to be "not a thief, but simply an assassin who loots her victims", yet is considered by the thief guild to be a regular member.

That said, Haley can now guilt Celia into lawyering her father out of jail, which would moot most of the point anyway.

TheSummoner

2009-01-10, 07:37 AM

Tempest Fennac

2009-01-10, 07:42 AM

I agree with TheSummoner's points, and I'm guessing that that loot would class as stolen for the Thieve's Guild. Celia somehow managed to get even more annoying in that last comic (assuming that the normal rules for bringing Outsiders aren't being used and she really would die perminantly, I'm hoping that she is bumped off due to how she seems to care more about her "principals" then saving a friend from a situation which she (Celia) brought about through stupidity).

Leo_Forestclaw

2009-01-10, 07:47 AM

Yes, but the standard thieves' guild contract (as mentioned in the Origin of PCs) stipulates that while a you're member of the thieves' guild, the guild gets a 50% cut of all your thefts.

I can see that, so I'd say at best, she owes the guild $25,000 gold from her thef of Grubwiggler. :smallbiggrin:

Selene

2009-01-10, 08:05 AM

Any money she earned while she was an employee of Azure City went to fund their resistance, so technically it wasn't hers, and they still owe her a paycheck.

MickJay

2009-01-10, 08:15 AM

werik

2009-01-10, 08:25 AM

I think I agree with what the Summoner said. Honestly, how can the guild verify at all what Haley has stolen since she's been gone? They haven't been following her. For that matter neither has Celia. The only one who has who is there at the moment is Belkar and with his new team player spirit I doubt he would reveal what she has stolen. So at the moment she loses half of the Grubwiggler treasure which would have gone to resurrecting Roy anyway. All in all the deal Celia struck isn't a bad one.

Also, I frankly found it funny the reversal of the betraying principles thing. That being said, I think if Celia was completely aware of the battle situation before negotiating the deal she would have been in an even stronger position to not give into the 50% concession. I mean, the Guild's two strongest members were on the verge of dying. If Celia had known that she could have negotiated that Haley be temporary leader of the Guild, gotten Roy's body back, and preserved the Bozzok circle to prevent the power vacuum.

Anyway, I'm rambling now so I will stop.

Tempest Fennac

2009-01-10, 08:33 AM

That is a good point, Werik. She wuld have still probably insisted on the TG members being raised, though, which would potentially have ended up as Haley's responsibility.

MickJay

2009-01-10, 09:22 AM

Haley wouldn't be so livid if she knew she could weasel her way out of Celia's arrangement. Unless there's going to be another plot twist, Haley is likely to end up in guild's debt, since she probably lost/spent more than half of the treasure she gained.

Guild probably uses the definition of stealing that is as wide as possible (or perhaps all of them), and that would encompass everything Haley got (loot from monsters, income from sold items - since they got looted as well, and so on).

tcrudisi

2009-01-10, 10:29 AM

SinsI

2009-01-10, 10:56 AM

And don't forget, any cleric powerful enough to cast Resurrection is more than powerful enough to cast Zone of Truth (a will-based save). If you've just entered into that contract with a high-level rogue, would you pay about 75g to make sure that the thief isn't lieing? I know I would. 75g is nothing to ensure that you get the proper amount, which in this case could literally be millions, depending on how they interpret the dragon loot.

ZoT is notoriously ineffective against high level thieves - since the victims are aware of this enchantment, they can use their Bluff skill to "be evasive as long as they remain within the boundaries of the truth".
And any normal person can easily answer "I don't remember how much I've stolen" - it has been 4 YEARS! - so it's the Thieves Guild that has to come up with the proof of her earnings.

Enlong

2009-01-10, 11:01 AM

Well actually, she has stolen a lot. She nicked pretty much everything she could find in the Dungeon of Dorukan, and stealing a dead thing's stuff (dragon horde) probably falls under graverobbing.

hamishspence

2009-01-10, 11:15 AM

DMG2 and Cityscape both have "writs of outlawry" basically, the local government authorize you to eliminate a problem for them, and grant you the right to keep that problem's stuff, even though it was probably taken from the local people in the first place.

in Dungeon Crawling Fools, the reason initially given for going after Xykon:

"destroy the forces of darkness that infest these lands" and
"make the countryside safe again"

The dragon quest is a bit more gain-oriented "get the starmetal" but even Miko admits that it's destruction was "just and necessary". BoVD and BoED place Chromatic dragons as right next to demons in evilness and justification for killing. even killing one purely for profit is "not evil, but not good either"

As a rule, dragons are thieves, they get their hordes by robbing surrounding area. The classic literary equivalent is Smaug, who destroyed a dwarven and a human kingdom to build his horde.

Kurald Galain

2009-01-10, 12:13 PM

The only one who has who is there at the moment is Belkar and with his new team player spirit I doubt he would reveal what she has stolen.
Given that Belkar is actually faking his new team player spirit, he'd probably (pretend to) agonize over it, and then say that he has Changed His Ways and just can't bear to lie about this, and spill the beans on Haley just for the fun of it. I'm quite sure that if asked he'd do precisely that.

Zeitgeist

2009-01-10, 01:06 PM

Spoils of battle are not considered stolen goods. It's been happening for ages now. Only recently in the real world do we have laws about it. In DnD, I'd presume not.

Furthermore, much of the loot was split. Remember the 5 stones and the extra share Haley got? Point is, looting spoils can't really mean stealing, because then how do we determine the thief? Is the whole party the thief? Or is it the person who picked it up? Or is it the person who got the share in the end? It cannot be determined.

I'm sure she has plenty of things that she actually stole, but pretty much anything acquired as a group effort would not be stealing. I'm sure Durkon is not okay with stealing for the most part, and if looting spoils was stealing, he'd have none of it. Yet he happily takes an amulet, to say the least.

So between that, and the fact that she can lie/bluff about how much she stole, she's pretty safe.

MickJay

2009-01-10, 01:26 PM

I won't really be convinced until we know how the Guild itself defines what's stolen or not. In the worst case, just belonging to the guild makes it take 50% of all your income. It could define stealing by acquiring wealth by means other than providing services or added value to products and selling them, too.

The guild does provide certain services to its members, so signing up and spending your life as a craftsman (not stealing anything, or very little) would still entitle you to benefits without having to pay for them.

JaxGaret

2009-01-10, 01:29 PM

Which makes the problem even bigger, since she owes the guild 50% of what she stole, not what she stole AND currently has. It could well mean she actually owes the Guild more than she has at the moment.

Oh yes, this contract as it stands puts Haley deeply into debt.

slayerx

2009-01-10, 01:32 PM

Doesn't matter what we consider stealing, its what the guild considers stealing that counts. Besides, Haley's loot ammounts to what she took from Grubwiggler at the moment. Most of the dragon gold was destroyed and thes had to fund a resistance movement in the mean time.

The real problem is that the agreement says that Haley owes the guild 50% of everything she has EVER stolen from the guild... Meaning even the dragon gold that was destroyed counts as Haley did steal it, she still owes the guild 50% of that; essentially when the dragon gold was destroyed, 50% of that gold was considered the property of the guild... the same goes for any money Haley ever stole in the past but then spent for equipment and so forth

The real problem is that Celia has effectively put Haley into massive debt with the guild that will take her years to pay off unless she manages to stumble upon another dragon's treasure hoard... and even then Haley is set far behind sceduale on saving her father

JaxGaret

2009-01-10, 01:37 PM

The real problem is that the agreement says that Haley owes the guild 50% of everything she has EVER stolen from the guild... Meaning even the dragon gold that was destroyed counts as Haley did steal it, she still owes the guild 50% of that; essentially when the dragon gold was destroyed, 50% of that gold was considered the property of the guild... the same goes for any money Haley ever stole in the past but then spent for equipment and so forth

The real problem is that Celia has effectively put Haley into massive debt with the guild that will take her years to pay off unless she manages to stumble upon another dragon's treasure hoard... and even then Haley is set far behind sceduale on saving her father

Exactly. Celia just screwed Haley over royally.

MickJay

2009-01-10, 01:41 PM

JaxGaret

2009-01-10, 01:54 PM

What I don't understand is why Haley keeps acting as if Celia had the right to arrange all this behind her back? Sure, she may have reluctantly agreed to accept the deal initially (she didn't have to, but it seemed reasonable), but that was before she learned about all the points of the agreement.

Haley gave Celia the right by trusting her not to screw her over. If Haley had bothered to read the contract, she would have known about that condition.

Haley now knows that she can't trust Celia. I foresee this causing problems, obviously.

sikyon

2009-01-10, 02:37 PM

It occurs to me that Haley can simply kill them all if she really wants to. I mean, she is chaotic. Contracts don't mean squat to her.

TheSummoner

2009-01-10, 03:17 PM

Shes also good. Even if she did want to do that, do you think Silphy McScreweverythingup and the new "Neutral Good" Belkar would help her? Granted, Crystal is incapacitated and likely Bozzok as well, but Haley wouldn't fare well against Hank and the rest of the guild all attacking her at once (note how they're all gathered in the literal den of thieves at the moment).

Haley has two real chances here... first, she can lie about the ammount of wealth. Unless the guild has had people tracking her the entire time (or Teevo), they have little way to know how much shes stolen. Second, if she hasn't formally agreed to the contract yet (we never saw it so its possible), she still has time to either back out of it or alter the deal (pray that I do not alter it again).

As for whether the dragon hoard counts as stolen... If it didn't, then Crystal, who kills first and loots her kills, wouldn't be a proper member of the thieves guild, now would she? Atleast in the guild's eyes, it counts.

MickJay

2009-01-10, 03:24 PM

It occurs to me that Haley can simply kill them all if she really wants to. I mean, she is chaotic. Contracts don't mean squat to her.

Perhaps it would have been a solution before Belkar decided to fake character development, Now, Haley would have both Celia and Belkar opposing her (for Belkar it would have been hilarious, I bet). That, and she would have problem getting Roy raised later anyway. Not that Roy is likely to get raised quickly if Guild decides to raise its members (and Roy) from the money that Haley is due to pay back, especially if she has less than what she owes (or decides to ignore that silly contract she didn't even sign).

edit: ninja'd, a little. Part of that 50% probably goes for some method of tracking how much guild members owe, or all of the thieves would be lying about how much they stole.

I don't think Haley wouldn't have chances in fighting the thieves, the most powerful guild members are dead or incapacitated, and even with Belkar's change it would not be necessarily impossible for Haley to convince him to join her.

Optimystik

2009-01-10, 03:46 PM

Kaytara

2009-01-10, 03:50 PM

Hank needs that gold. Whatever the presumed definition of "stolen", you can be damn sure that if he doesn't get what he wants from it, he'll just change it.

David Argall

2009-01-10, 04:01 PM

We are getting into technicalities here. Change a little detail and the answer changes. And we don't know the basic legal system, much less its details, at all well. So just about any answer can be justified.

Our dragon horde comes from a party killing the owner and taking the stuff. That's fairly clear robbery.
But the party can make the claim that they were, at the time of battle, innocents. While they expected to battle the dragon, they can at least claim not to have ruled out things like trading for the starmetal. So the dragon attacked them, and they have a claim on its goods for damages and penalties, and so no stealing is involved.
The dragon, in turn, can argue that they knew themselves to be unwanted intruders, and thus the dragon was merely defending his property and it becomes theft again.
And then we come to the dragon's own status. As Miko tells us, there is a great difference between attacking a good and an evil dragon.

We also have the point of abandoned property. The presumed owner being dead, the dragon horde was freely available to any who wanted to carry it away, with a number of exceptions, such as the dragon having heirs, or the dragon having stolen the stuff itself.

Etc, etc. So the answer here is whatever our writer wants it to be.

Now on plot utility, we can assume Haley is on the hook for lots more gold than she has. That makes for interesting developments and incentives for Haley to do things we find entertaining. So we should assume Haley owes for just about everything. [That is what the Guild will likely think anyway.] Tho there is a chance Celia will finally be useful and will come up with a definition of stealing that makes this problem small change, say about the time the writer decides he is bored with the subject and wants to write about something else.

ZoT is notoriously ineffective against high level thieves - since the victims are aware of this enchantment, they can use their Bluff skill to "be evasive as long as they remain within the boundaries of the truth".
And any normal person can easily answer "I don't remember how much I've stolen"

We are talking of Haley, of the nightly coin polishing of her darlings, of the wall charts and prints out on command on what is the best way to get more loot. If answering honestly, Haley would have a figure down to copper pieces.

MickJay

2009-01-10, 04:43 PM

To add another complication to Haley's plate, she doesn't know that Cole's sending has been successful. She might think that she needs the Church of Loki to bring Roy back (I bet Durkon would just love to hear that.)

But while she may feel bound to Celia's contract for this reason, it doesn't look like it specifies when she has to make this payment. Hank said "as soon as possible," but she can always amass the fortune needed to spring her father and then worry about her back dues afterward.

Hank could be referring to the fact that all the dead thieves should be resurrected soon - he might be expecting Haley to hand over the money for that specific purpose.

Also, Haley stole tons of supplies while in Azure city, for the resistance. Hundreds of people were fed, clothed and armed with what was - in every sense of the word - stolen.

Illven

2009-01-10, 05:19 PM

The guild couldn't have been scrying on her after azure city because of the clostier spell, also if the guild was scrying on her (Which would make little sense), Bozzok wouldn't have been suprised when the Golem person told him he was robbed by a thief who looks like Haley

MickJay

2009-01-10, 05:31 PM

The Guild has to have some sort of tracking system, maybe it's not constant scrying but spells cast when the thief comes with his weekly/monthly report, or just a series of sense motive checks; without some system to ensure that all the dues get paid (killing those who don't is just the final step of the procedure), there would be no Guild.

Rotipher

2009-01-10, 06:14 PM

Well, we know Hank was skimming from the Guild, and presumably he hasn't been caught at it, because he isn't A) dead or B) missing any obvious body parts a la Blind Pete. So the Guild's monitoring of members' payments and finances can't be foolproof.

slayerx

2009-01-10, 07:08 PM

They could just have clerics from the temple of Loki armed with truth spells... if Bozzok is ever given a reason to think a thief is lying he can put them under the truth spell... or he could have his thieves subjected to monthly truth secessions when they report their monthly incomes

The reason Hank has yet to be caught could mainly be because he has never given Bozzok a reason to mistrust him, or that he has been able to tactfully tell half-truths while in the zone; essentially lying without actually lying

However, Haley would not have this benefit... they would want to know in detail how much she has stolen and the questioning could be through enough that she can't tactfully bluff around it

Optimystik

2009-01-10, 07:33 PM

Hank could be referring to the fact that all the dead thieves should be resurrected soon - he might be expecting Haley to hand over the money for that specific purpose.

What Hank "expects" is irrelevant. It's what's actually written in the contract that matters.

Also, Haley stole tons of supplies while in Azure city, for the resistance. Hundreds of people were fed, clothed and armed with what was - in every sense of the word - stolen.

Considering that the resistance are the lawful owners of Azure City (and not a pack of goblins), recovering their co-opted belongings can't be defined as theft.

Tirian

2009-01-10, 08:15 PM

Considering that the resistance are the lawful owners of Azure City (and not a pack of goblins), recovering their co-opted belongings can't be defined as theft.

Of course it can. For all we know, in this world "theft" could mean any action that gains gold and requires a thief-based skill roll. Heck, it could also mean all income that you make while being a member of a Thief's Guild. One can argue that the dragon's hoard wasn't theft, but then again one can argue that this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0029.html) and this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0129.html) were.

And I don't think that the arguments that she was stealing for a good cause or that she doesn't have the money that she stole are going to wash. Undoubtedly, this was put into the story because it's supposed to be a BIG deal of Haley either being deep in debt or losing her father's ransom fund.

Optimystik

2009-01-10, 08:23 PM

Of course it can. For all we know, in this world "theft" could mean any action that gains gold and requires a thief-based skill roll. Heck, it could also mean all income that you make while being a member of a Thief's Guild. One can argue that the dragon's hoard wasn't theft, but then again one can argue that this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0029.html) and this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0129.html) were.

"One can argue" just about anything. The fact is that recovering your own belongings isn't theft.

And I don't think that the arguments that she was stealing for a good cause or that she doesn't have the money that she stole are going to wash. Undoubtedly, this was put into the story because it's supposed to be a BIG deal of Haley either being deep in debt or losing her father's ransom fund.

I know WHY it was put in the story - she needs a reason to remain a kleptomaniac and still be Good-aligned, the same reason her treasure was blown up in the inn -that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Morgan Wick

2009-01-11, 03:17 AM

Well actually, she has stolen a lot. She nicked pretty much everything she could find in the Dungeon of Dorukan, and stealing a dead thing's stuff (dragon horde) probably falls under graverobbing.

Don't forget the shares of the loot she nicked off the other party members in DCF, before most of her character development.

The real problem is that Celia has effectively put Haley into massive debt with the guild that will take her years to pay off unless she manages to stumble upon another dragon's treasure hoard... and even then Haley is set far behind sceduale on saving her father

Spending a chunk of it on the Resistance tells me she's not that concerned about saving her father anymore. The problem is really about having spent (or seen destroyed) most of the money she had left. Besides, Haley's precise reaction tells me she expects Celia to have at least an inkling of what she's done, if Celia weren't a complete ditz. (Though that could just be anger and panic talking.)

I wonder if the Thieves' Guild says Haley can't leave until she coughs up the dough, and has to commit robberies for them and give 100% of the proceeds to the Guild towards paying down her debt in the meantime - essentially indentured servitude, turning Haley into the Guild's slave and holding up the whole plot even if the OOTS reunites. Haley's only escape hatch could be the newly super-powered V.

On the other hand, I wonder if the people who got killed find some reason or another to claim their deaths as reason to quit the Guild, having been wanting to leave for some reason or another for a while now.

MickJay

2009-01-11, 07:45 AM

I think she is still concerned with her father, but she had a real opportunity to help many people, while having no chance to help her father. Many of the Azurites would have probably died if Haley did nothing, and getting back the gold is just a matter of time.

Currently, Redcloak rules Azure city, and according to the laws that were put in place (everything seems pretty much organised) all the loot is now likely treated as spoils of war and hobgoblin property - so at least in eyes of the new owners Haley's actions would be seen as stealing. Recovering your things without a court order is still treated as theft (though likely to be justified afterwards); slaves are by definition somebody's property, and freeing them without paying for them is theft (according to every law system that recognizes slavery as legal). Guild is likely using the widest possible definition of stealing to increase its income, so regardless of how unjust it may seem, Haley will be expected to pay for resistance work as well. Even if the Guild for some strange reason would not qualify "repossesion" as "theft" (and it would be against it's own interests, after all), we do not know how much exactly of what Haley and resistance stole was formerly Azurite, and how much were hobgoblins' own supplies.

Deuce

2009-01-11, 09:14 AM

You know, she *could* strike a deal that says "OK, here's all the gold I have (and gems, and jewels, and fine silks . . . ) oh, and by the way you need to spring my dad for me. Boz admitted he "got him out of the way" so they can help her, or maybe she Belkar and Celia finish what they started at Pete's. With Roy raised and dad free, she'd only have her actual greed to worry about the gold.

JaxGaret

2009-01-11, 10:32 AM

Spending a chunk of it on the Resistance tells me she's not that concerned about saving her father anymore.

The latter doesn't follow from the former. At the very least, funding the Resistance was a good move on her part to simply ensure her survival, so that she could go on and save her dad. Also, if Xykon and Redcloak succeed in their plans and enslave the world, wouldn't that kind of put a crimp on her plans to save her father?

Mercenary Pen

2009-01-11, 11:20 AM

I suspect that the thieves guild probably have- inserted into the standard contract- a clause defining what they consider to be theft, or a clause they defining what they consider to be the proceeds of theft.

This prevents all these little arguments about 'technically I did not steal that, because the owner was already dead' that take up far more time than they're really worth (regardless of talking being a free action).

Trixie

2009-01-11, 01:02 PM

Lizard Lord

2009-01-11, 01:26 PM

And more specifically, didn't the contract stipulate that Haley never actually "quit" the guild? By my reading, Haley doesn't owe the guild a copper piece.

That is the point. All guild members must give 50% of their "earnings" to the guild. To at least make it look like Haley was with the guild the whole time she needs to pay up.

Kish

2009-01-11, 01:49 PM

That is the point. All guild members must give 50% of their "earnings" to the guild.
Actually, by Haley's original contract, she had to give way more than that to the guild.

David Argall

2009-01-11, 03:05 PM

"One can argue" just about anything. The fact is that recovering your own belongings isn't theft.

It shouldn't be theft, but one finds plenty of cases where it is.

In our Azure City case, as Redcloak puts it "It's my city now." Right of rule by conquest is recognized by many legal systems [most of which assumed they would be doing the conquesting]. So as far as these systems, and Redcloak, are concerned, the resistance are merely thieves.

Rotipher

2009-01-11, 03:59 PM

"Right of conquest" or not, remember that a goblin's or a black dragon's claim to property rights may not be accorded the same legitimacy as those of PC races, in a human city's legal system. Redcloak's grievences against the non-goblinoids' prejudices aren't without cause; they go back literally to the dawn of the (second) world.

TheSummoner

2009-01-11, 05:28 PM

You guys really like to overcomplicate things eh?

Theres really only two things that matter in determining what Haley owes. First is what the guild considers theft, and you can bet for the terms of the agreement that the guild is going to give as broad a definition of theft as possible so they can squeeze every bit of money possible out of the deal. Second is how much the guild knows. If the guild doesn't know about the dragon's gold and doesn't find out then its as if it never happened. If Haley gets lucky, Hank might be sympathetic and alter the deal to her cause, but short of violence, theres not much Haley can do (and even that has a low chance of success, atleast while shes inside the guild HQ).

Prak

2009-01-11, 09:30 PM

Well actually, she has stolen a lot. She nicked pretty much everything she could find in the Dungeon of Dorukan, and stealing a dead thing's stuff (dragon horde) probably falls under graverobbing.

doesn't matter if it's grave robbing (which I wouldn't say it is, the dragon hasn't officially been laid to rest), it's not stealing because you can't steal from the dead. Hell, you can't steal from an object, which is what a dead body is. Also, in a D&D world with adventurers, there would be a tradition of "Spoils of Combat" in which the winning side looting the bodies of the losing side would not be considered theft.

Optimystik

2009-01-11, 09:42 PM

It shouldn't be theft, but one finds plenty of cases where it is.

In our Azure City case, as Redcloak puts it "It's my city now." Right of rule by conquest is recognized by many legal systems [most of which assumed they would be doing the conquesting]. So as far as these systems, and Redcloak, are concerned, the resistance are merely thieves.

Conquest is itself a form of theft, just far more forceful. And in any case, she doesn't have any of it anymore. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0531.html) (Page 1, last panel)

Theodoriph

2009-01-11, 10:03 PM

A dead dragon cannot hold any form of property in a thing. Death negates claims of forms of property in things. Ergo, Haley did not steal the dragon's treasure.

So unless your DM is running an incredibly complex campaign whereby after the death of Monster A, some kind of legal system kicks in and states that "ownership" of their property is transferred to their designated heir, nearest relative, the monster's government, then it becomes "unowned".

slayerx

2009-01-11, 10:36 PM

A dead dragon cannot hold any form of property in a thing. Death negates claims of forms of property in things. Ergo, Haley did not steal the dragon's treasure.

So you are saying that if a man were to kill another man, along with anyone who could make a claim to that man's belongings, he would be able to take those belongings and NOT be found guilty of theft (along with multiple counts of murder) :smallconfused:

Theodoriph

2009-01-12, 01:17 AM

So you are saying that if a man were to kill another man, along with anyone who could make a claim to that man's belongings, he would be able to take those belongings and NOT be found guilty of theft (along with multiple counts of murder) :smallconfused:

Not at all. Obviously modern countries have rules that govern what happens to people's possessions when they die. They also have rules that govern what happens when one person kills another. These rules are called laws. These rules are only applicable because the states in which people live have decided that they should be and have the power to enforce them.

There was no evidence to demonstrate that the dragon's lair was in some government's jurisdiction and that said government had a set of laws with regards to the transfer of "ownership" of the possessions of dragons after they die. Furthermore, there's no evidence that if said government and set of laws exist, that the government is capable of enforcing them.

And since the killing and looting of monsters is accepted practice in Dungeons and Dragons and is in fact encouraged in the Player's and DM's guide with appropriate wealth rewards for the deaths of specific monsters, it's a perfectly natural, normal, and legal behaviour in D&D worlds, unless your DM specifically creates a set of guidelines to govern such matters. Given that in most campaign scenarios, dragons and monsters are "bad guys", this is rarely ever the case. Personally, I've never encountered a DM that went into such detail.

You'd really need to re-work D&D if you wanted to consider the killing and looting of things to be evil, immoral, illegal acts. You'd need a DM willing to go an alternative route...and I'm not sure it would be much fun, especially with the reduced skill set in 4.0.

P.S. I'd be afraid of playing for a DM who created a world with such legal detail. I don't want to be sued for sexual harrassment for hitting on a barmaid. :smalltongue:

P.P.S.

For an alternate view:

Paladins fall when they knowingly commit an evil act. Theft is an evil act since you are generally hurting someone by depriving them of one or more of their possessions. Paladins do not fall when they kill and loot the kobold war party in the forest menacing the town. Therefore, it's pretty safe to say that the looting of said kobolds does not constitute theft.

slayerx

2009-01-12, 02:35 AM

the Dictionary defines what "stealing" is, not laws
What is legal and what is not is irrelevant as far as whether or not something was stolen

for instance...
"to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force"
Considering they killed the dragon, i do believe that counts as the use of force to take something that belonged to someone else... your argument might work if the murderers were not the ones taking the treasure

Totally Guy

2009-01-12, 02:47 AM

All she has to do is show them the contract she had with Roy.

Oh, never mind. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0294.html)

Theodoriph

2009-01-12, 03:20 AM

the Dictionary defines what "stealing" is, not laws
What is legal and what is not is irrelevant as far as whether or not something was stolen

Incorrect. The law defines what theft is. For instance, my taxes are not stolen from me by the government. They are taken from me. They are definitely taken from me without my consent. But, they are not stolen from me.

Furthermore, since the law defines what forms of property in things may be held and by whom, your definition does make reference to law.

It actually makes two references since it stipulates "without right", which is another legal idea, since a person's rights are derived from law.

So yeah, your definition is actually quite related to legal concepts.
Law has everything to do with theft.

Here are other dictionary definitions of theft/stealing:

"The wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny."

"The act of taking something from someone unlawfully"

"A criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent"

"Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief."

"To appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment."

Obviously, your search wasn't exhaustive. I spent 5 seconds looking and found multiple definitions that directly contradict your dictionary assertion. I didn't list your definition among those, since that would be snarky, though it does belong.

To sum up everything for lazy people who didn't want to read my spiel, I disagree and you are wrong.

P.S. Dictionaries aren't good sources for much of anything.

Selene

2009-01-12, 06:10 AM

So you are saying that if a man were to kill another man, along with anyone who could make a claim to that man's belongings, he would be able to take those belongings and NOT be found guilty of theft (along with multiple counts of murder) :smallconfused:

At the risk of sounding like Captain Obvious, a dragon is not a man. It's not even a person. It's an animal. If a man were to kill a bear, and take a watch off a dead body he found in its lair, I don't think any government would come after him for theft. Although the idea of little orphaned cubs hiring a lawyer does have amusing appeal.

TallTroll

2009-01-12, 06:51 AM

>> The law defines what theft is

Um, "Thieves Guild". Pretty much by definition, they don't respect the law, so any discussion touching on the law is irrelevant. The Guild is going to want 50% of everything they know / suspect she got since she left. Now, she may be able to gloss over the *real* total value of her earnings, but the liability is still going to be pretty big, likely more than she actually has.

However it's dressed up, this is the Guild telling her what it'll take for them to not just kill her and the others right now. Oh, and Celia is an idiot. I think she's rapidly approaching the "more of a liability than an asset" status previously reserved for Belkar. The only really tangible thing she's ever done for the party is getting them acquitted at the trial in Azure City, and since it was Eugene Greenhilt actually handing down the judgement in collusion with Shojo, that looks a lot less impressive, in retrospect

MickJay

2009-01-12, 08:13 AM

Dragons are usually depicted as fully self-aware beings, highly intelligent on top of that. That's why they're capable of having alignment other than "true neutral", unlike animals. With the exception of lesser undead who are classified as evil because of their nature, most creatures with alignments other than TN can be seen as "people". Heck, try to argue with a dragon that he's not really a person so it's okay for you to kill him/her and take their hoard. No, it's okay for you to kill it because it's evil (or not okay if it's good). I mean, that's what the distinction between chromatic and metallic dragons is for, if they were all "animals" then it wouldn't matter one bit. Most D&D authorities acknowledge chromatic dragons as "kill on sight" targets and their hoard as "for grabs"; what we do not know is if Thieves' Guild follows the same rules.

The good part is, Thieves' Guild is based on stealing. It charges its members 50% of what's been stolen. Guild's rules apply to all its members everywhere, as specified in its contracts. To the Guild, it won't matter if I get charged by some authority for my crimes (unless it will need to bust me out), or even if under some or other legal system my actions are illegal. What the Guild wants is my money. Would it be possible for me to engage in semi-legal activities and then explain to the Guild that I don't need to play them those 50% because, technically, I wasn't stealing? Very unlikely. The Guild will want to take 50% of anything I will ever lay my hands on, and for that reason Guild will be defining "theft", for its own purposes, as wide as possible. Perhaps up to assuming that, since I'm a thief, all the money I make are stolen. How about "taking other person's or creature's possessions from it"? Sure, it's different from what's recognized as theft by law(s) and dictionaries, but as the Guild's leader you don't want your underlings to get smart and avoid paying their dues, right?

In addition, if the Guild insisted on using definition of "stealing" based on any existing legal system, then it would automatically recognize its activities as illegal; since it used an existing legal system, it would be then forced to recognize itself as illegal; and by definition, all its contracts and agreements would be null and void, since they were based on breaking law. Therefore, the Guild needs to have its own, coherent set of rules (and it has one), with its own definitions, most likely designed to maximize Guild's profits.

Theodoriph

2009-01-12, 01:43 PM

What the Guild wants is my money. Would it be possible for me to engage in semi-legal activities and then explain to the Guild that I don't need to play them those 50% because, technically, I wasn't stealing? Very unlikely. The Guild will want to take 50% of anything I will ever lay my hands on, and for that reason Guild will be defining "theft", for its own purposes, as wide as possible.

Your argument makes no sense. It defies Occam's Razor. If the guild meant something other than theft, they would use another word, not redefine theft. There are plenty of better words to use if you just want to take 50% of anything someone will ever lay their hands on. No need to redefine theft.

In addition, if the Guild insisted on using definition of "stealing" based on any existing legal system, then it would automatically recognize its activities as illegal; since it used an existing legal system, it would be then forced to recognize itself as illegal; and by definition, all its contracts and agreements would be null and void, since they were based on breaking law. Therefore, the Guild needs to have its own, coherent set of rules (and it has one), with its own definitions, most likely designed to maximize Guild's profits.

Thieves do recognize their activies as illegal. They wouldn't call themselves thieves or their organization the thieves guild otherwise. They'd have picked different names. In comic 581, Eagle-Eye Pete even refers to thieves as criminals.

However, there are further problems. The first is that just because the thieves guild steals from people, that doesn't automatically undermine its protection contracts. The protection contracts are a separate matter, and worded properly (e.g. a contract to hire the guild to guard your place and protect you as opposed to a contract to stop the guild from stealing from you) would be legal. Well...it would be if the jurisdiction recognizes contracts that are signed under duress because the guild is extorting you. Most likely, the guild's contracts are illegal no matter what.

I have a "contract" with the mob. I promise them $1 000 000 for a hit. They perform the hit. I don't pay them. I take them to court. The court will rule in my favour with regards to the contract right? Problem solved, right? Wrong. I end up at the bottom of the local river. As a person with a keen interest in avoiding death, the fact that our agreeement is legally null and void isn't going to make me renege on it. I'll uphold it and pay the mob the $1 000 000 I agreed to and live ever after (hopefully happily)

The beauty of organizations that operate illegally, is that they usually have illegal ways of enforcing their agreements. The Thieves Guild is one such organization. They won't take you to court. They know they'd lose. So they'll poke out your eyes, or try to have you killed, or rob you. They'll do whatever they need to do.

MickJay

2009-01-12, 03:18 PM

Your argument makes no sense. It defies Occam's Razor.

It does not, since Occam's Razor doesn't work that way. Also, assuming that something doesn't make sense just because it isn't the simplest solution that takes into account all available information is rather presumptuous. People used Occam's Razor to argue that Sun moves around the Earth, because that seemed the simplest solution until additional observations have been taken into consideration.

You pointed out that redefining theft would not be necessary, but from my experience any organisation does, indeed, define basic terms of its operations, to avoid complications and problems with interpretation of said terms. Since "theft" has quite a few definitions, it's not senseless to assume that the definition used by the guild encompasses as many aspects of existing definitions as possible, since its income would be based on that definition. What really wouldn't make sense is if Guild's members could point out that their activities were not stealing but something else ("looting" monsters, "repossessing" treasure, etc), and therefore they don't have to pay. If that was the case, nobody would be doing any stealing; sure, members would engage in all manner of illegal activities (and the Guild members do many of those, not just stealing), but for most of the time they would avoid theft. They could even get legal jobs, since they'd still get all guild benefits, because they would be paying 50% of what they stole (i.e., nothing or very little). That is why it would make sense for the Guild to simply assume that all your income is "taxable" by guild, and whether they'd be redefining theft or using other rules is of little importance. In comparison, many of real world criminal organizations simply take a portion of all it's members' income, regardless of whether they stole it, won it on a lottery or earned it by honest work.

-> "Therefore, the Guild needs to have its own, coherent set of rules (and it has one), with its own definitions, most likely designed to maximize Guild's profits."
I was trying to get to this conclusion, perhaps unnecessarily building up the argument (it wasn't very consistent with what I was trying to argue, I agree).

afterthought: in case of Greysky it would be even difficult to decide if the Guild operated "illegally" or not. There certainly is no authority that would recognize the Guild as illegal, or that big sign on the guildhouse wouldn't be there. :smalltongue: It even seems that the Guild itself is the most significant "authority" in the city.

hamishspence

2009-01-12, 03:22 PM

we know one thing-the guild has other illegal or shady activities under its perview. the Dog-fighting ring mentioned in earlier strips

Theodoriph

2009-01-12, 03:44 PM

It does not, since Occam's Razor doesn't work that way. Also, assuming that something doesn't make sense just because it isn't the simplest solution that takes into account all available information is rather presumptuous. People used Occam's Razor to argue that Sun moves around the Earth, because that seemed the simplest solution until additional observations have been taken into consideration.

I don't think you understand what Occam's Razor is. Else you'd realize, it makes perfect sense.

By the way, according to Occam's Razor, the Earth orbits the Sun.

What really wouldn't make sense is if Guild's members could point out that their activities were not stealing but something else ("looting" monsters, "repossessing" treasure, etc), and therefore they don't have to pay. If that was the case, nobody would be doing any stealing; sure, members would engage in all manner of illegal activities (and the Guild members do many of those, not just stealing), but for most of the time they would avoid theft.

Explain. And explain why the thieves guild would allow people who don't steal to be members of the thieves guild. What exactly is repossessing treasure? What illegal activities would thieves partake in that aren't stealing? So far I believe everything we've seen them do has in some way, shape, or form related to theft.

They could even get legal jobs, since they'd still get all guild benefits, because they would be paying 50% of what they stole (i.e., nothing or very little). That is why it would make sense for the Guild to simply assume that all your income is "taxable" by guild, and whether they'd be redefining theft or using other rules is of little importance.

Why would the guild allow non-thieves into the thieves guild? Why would the guild provide benefits to freeloaders? It makes no sense.

Your assumptions the power of the guild are overly broad. A thieves guild concerns itself with thieves and theft. If person A is a merchant by day and a thief by night, their concern is with his thieving, not his "merchanting". The merchant's guild is concerned with his "merchanting".

hamishspence

2009-01-12, 03:47 PM

in some settings, it is that narrow. in others, despite the name, its an umbrella organization covering numerous illegal activities.

(maybe "crime guild" doesn't roll of the tongue well) :smallbiggrin:

Theodoriph

2009-01-12, 03:59 PM

Yeah. In my experience it's typically narrow, since while some cities may allow a thieves guild to exist or ignore their presence in exchange for a sum of money....a guild of murderers and such tends not to go over too well with the local populace. They demand action from the local government. A group of adventurers is brought in to wipe them out.

We have no real indication what kind of power the thieves guild exerts in Gresky, though so far, I believe everything has revolved around theft in some way, shape, or form. And given that there are competing criminal groups in Greysky, like the MOBs, it isn't going to far to assume each group has their own bailiwick. But who knows...we'll need to wait for more comics to shed light on it. :smalltongue:

slayerx

2009-01-12, 04:01 PM

Incorrect. The law defines what theft is. For instance, my taxes are not stolen from me by the government. They are taken from me. They are definitely taken from me without my consent. But, they are not stolen from me.

By living within a country and making yourself a citizen of that country you are thereby AGREEING to abide by the rules and laws of that country... one of those rules is that you must pay the gov't taxes... therefore, the reason you can not say the gov't is stealing is because you AGREED to let them take your money when you became a citizen under that government

it would only be stealing if you did not give the government permission, but you gave them permission when you became a citizen...

Obviously, your search wasn't exhaustive. I spent 5 seconds looking and found multiple definitions that directly contradict your dictionary assertion. I didn't list your definition among those, since that would be snarky, though it does belong.

A word is not defined by a SINGLE definition, but by ALL Definitions... so unless their is a definition of stealing that says "taking something from someone else while there is no local law is not considered a form of stealing" there is no contradiction.

At the risk of sounding like Captain Obvious, a dragon is not a man. It's not even a person. It's an animal. If a man were to kill a bear, and take a watch off a dead body he found in its lair, I don't think any government would come after him for theft. Although the idea of little orphaned cubs hiring a lawyer does have amusing appeal.

Again, just because there is no law against taking from the dead bear, does not mean you did not STEAL from the bear

Theodoriph

2009-01-12, 04:10 PM

By living within a country and making yourself a citizen of that country you are thereby AGREEING to abide by the rules and laws of that country... one of those rules is that you must pay the gov't taxes... therefore, the reason you can not say the gov't is stealing is because you AGREED to let them take your money when you became a citizen under that government

it would only be stealing if you did not give the government permission, but you gave them permission when you became a citizen...

I didn't have the capacity to consent when I received my citizenship. But you have the gist of it right. Because the law says it is not theft, then it is not theft. As a bonus, as per all the definitions we looked at, theft only includes the things that the law counts as theft.

A word is not defined by a SINGLE definition, but by ALL Definitions... so unless their is a definition of stealing that says "taking something from someone else while there is no local law is not considered a form of stealing" there is no contradiction.

Or unless the definitions generally say that stealing has to be the taking of something wrongfully, without right, criminally, unlawfully etc. ... which they did.

Again, just because there is no law against taking from the dead bear, does not mean you did not STEAL from the bear

This wasn't addressed to me and was a reply to Selene, but there's one thing I have to say.

LOL

Yes it does. But I've been over that a number of times in a number of ways already. Still...my main reaction to that comment is laughter. How can you not find that comment ludicrous?

By the way...which bear are you taking about? I thought the bear was dead. Thus, you sentence should read: "Again, just because there is no law against taking from the dead bear, does not mean you did not STEAL from the corpse that was formerly a bear." Which makes it even funnier :smallbiggrin:

slayerx

2009-01-12, 04:29 PM

I didn't have the capacity to consent when I received my citizenship.

But you do have it within your capacity to leave the country and revoke your citizenship...

Or unless the definitions generally say that stealing has to be the taking of something wrongfully, without right, criminally, unlawfully etc. ... which they did.

And i picked out a definition that makes NO MENTION of the law, and simply defines stealing as an act of taking what belongs to someone else without their permission... this definition also applies along with the other definitions

there in by, to take from anyone else means to steal... just because you will not get convicted for the offense, does not mean you did not steal

Theodoriph

2009-01-12, 04:36 PM

But you do have it within your capacity to leave the country and revoke your citizenship...

And i picked out a definition that makes NO MENTION of the law, and simply defines stealing as an act of taking what belongs to someone else without their permission... this definition also applies along with the other definitions

there in by, to take from anyone else means to steal... just because you will not get convicted for the offense, does not mean you did not steal

1) I refuted your definition a long time ago, in multiple ways. You should at least take the time to read what people have to say in response to you. It's a common courtesy.

2) Leaving the country and revoking my citizenship would not be recognized as a reasonable means to avoid theft by any court. It actually doesn't matter if I can avoid a theft. No act is required by me to avoid it. Only an act by the thief is required for it to be theft.

Sorry hun, you lose.

hamishspence

2009-01-12, 04:41 PM

Theodoriph

2009-01-12, 04:52 PM

what about the classic example of the medieval outlaw- closest analogue to an evil dragon in that killing them (anmd most other things) is never illegal. (hence DMG2 and Cityscape covering "writs of outlawry" for PCs going after monsters.)

You find an outlaw's lair.

You sneak in and take some of the stuff he was outlawed with (say, his knife) while he's asleep and sneak away.

Now, have you Stolen from him, (or "have you committed theft?" if you prefer)

I'd say no. You have not committed theft. The CL writ of outlawry put people outside the king's law. They could not use the legal system as a defence and they had no civil rights. They basically weren't really considered "human" anymore. They were more akin to a wild beast. Anyone could kill them without facing murder charges. Given that in the common law system, everything is legal unless prohibited by law and given that the definition of theft makes reference to taking objects wrongfully, without right, unlawfully, criminally...and that you behaved neither wrongfully, unlawfully, without right, nor criminally in taking the outlaw's possessions, it wouldn't be considered theft.

The real interesting thing about that scenario is as follows. People have a duty to kill outlaws. So what would happen to that person when it was discovered that he stole from a sleeping outlaw in the outlaw's lair without slashing the outlaw's throat?

MickJay

2009-01-12, 05:00 PM

Occam's Razor means that an explanation of something should not make unneccesary assumptions and not include things that make no difference in the observable predictions. Your usage of "Occam's Razor" comes down to "if it's too complicated it doesn't make sense".

If you look at Sun it seems pretty clear it circles Earth. Occam's Razor dictates not to make additional assumptions, because what we can see is obvious, and accept that Sun indeed circles the Earth. That's what's been actually argued for many centuries. Since we now have additional data available, today it is indeed true to say that "according to Occam's Razor, it is reasonable to assume that Earth orbits Sun". However, Occam's Razor can't, by itself, dictate anything, and can't be used to definitely prove or disprove anything. It's just an imperfect tool, often helpful in achieving simplicity and elegance of solution, and possibly eliminating irrelevant elements of a theory or hypothesis.

Explain. And explain why the thieves guild would allow people who don't steal to be members of the thieves guild. What exactly is repossessing treasure? What illegal activities would thieves partake in that aren't stealing? So far I believe everything we've seen them do has in some way, shape, or form related to theft.

I said at the beginning of the paragraph that it wouldn't make any sense! What's to explain? Murders, for one, are another type of illegal activity we know thieves did, also extortion ("protection money"). You said yourself that it all involves some form of theft. My original and only real point was that it would be logical to assume that Guild wants to get its share from all it's members' activities, and we do know that these include things like dog fights (not stealing).

I think the only real point in which we disagree is that you assume that the Guild limits itself only to thefts. I see it as more powerful and influential, for the same reasons as hamishspence and those I mentioned earlier. The Guild forces all thieves to be its members (and eliminates freelancers). It seems logical that many of the people already in the Guild would be happy to pay less (and keep same services). Thus, they might want to engage in things other than stealing; but the Guild is pretty keen on not letting its members go, that's the big plot point. Once a thief, forever a thief (by Guild standards). Once you're in, you can't just go back to selling things on market. Now it would be pretty daft to kill all people who did not want/could not steal anymore (we know Pete was inactive as a thief for some time but was still considered affiliated), especially since the Guild is presented as a lesser evil; some sort of arrangement is then possible, and my impression was that requiring all members to pay some money of all income, unless other agreement was reached, would be a good way to keep people affiliated.

I have little more to add, especially when it turns out in the end that the argument actually started because my view on Guild's influence differs from someone else's.

MickJay

2009-01-12, 05:13 PM

1) I refuted your definition a long time ago, in multiple ways. You should at least take the time to read what people have to say in response to you. It's a common courtesy.

You can't just "refute" a definition that is commonly accepted as valid. You may not agree with it, you may give arguments why you think it's wrong, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

You assume, for whatever reason, that "stealing" in order to be considered "stealing" needs to involve breaking law. The example with outlaw shows the fallacy of this logic well: just because the guy is not under protection of law, taking something from him against his will is still, by definiton, stealing. The act will not be recognized as such by court, and it is not treated as theft by law. Still, what we are discussing is taking away property without the person's consent.

Edit: scenario with an outlaw is interesting, and if indeed people had duty to kill outlaws, then the guy who just took the knife would probably be commiting some sort of crime. Being an outlaw, however, simply meant that these people were not protected by law; they could have been killed, beaten up or robbed with impunity, but other people were not actually required to kill an outlaw (unless there was some additional ruling specifically requiring that).

David Argall

2009-01-12, 05:23 PM

what about the classic example of the medieval outlaw- closest analogue to an evil dragon in that killing them (anmd most other things) is never illegal. (hence DMG2 and Cityscape covering "writs of outlawry" for PCs going after monsters.)

You find an outlaw's lair.

You sneak in and take some of the stuff he was outlawed with (say, his knife) while he's asleep and sneak away.

Now, have you Stolen from him, (or "have you committed theft?" if you prefer)
Yes. quite clearly.

Now we can change the facts slightly. If you know the knife in fact has a different owner,, you are either stealing from that owner, or are in the process of returning it.
But as given, the outlaw is the owner, and you are stealing from him. Under some circumstances, this may be morally acceptable [such as removing the knife makes it impossible for him to do any more robbery] and if we say you have a moral right or duty to kill him, just stealing the knife can be deemed an act of kindness [and possibly shirking your duty]. But our default case is that this is criminal activity and morally unacceptable.

slayerx

2009-01-12, 05:35 PM

1) I refuted your definition a long time ago, in multiple ways. You should at least take the time to read what people have to say in response to you. It's a common courtesy.

2) Leaving the country and revoking my citizenship would not be recognized as a reasonable means to avoid theft by any court. It actually doesn't matter if I can avoid a theft. No act is required by me to avoid it. Only an act by the thief is required for it to be theft.

1) i did read your responce which amounted to "there are other definitions of 'stealing' that includes the mention of law" and as i replied, a definition of a term is determined by ALL the accepted definitions of the term; therefore ANY definition including the one i put forth is an accepted definition for stealing... ergo, you never refuted my definition; which was an actual dictionary term and therefore pretty much unrefutable

2) we were talking about the government taking your money (whether or not the government is stelaing from you when they do it), not you stealing something and then leaving the country to dodge the courts... try to keep up with the conversation

You can't just "refute" a definition that is commonly accepted as valid. You may not agree with it, you may give arguments why you think it's wrong, but that doesn't make it any less valid.
Thank you

Theodoriph

2009-01-12, 05:38 PM

You can't just "refute" a definition that is commonly accepted as valid. You may not agree with it, you may give arguments why you think it's wrong, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

You assume, for whatever reason, that "stealing" in order to be considered "stealing" needs to involve breaking law. The example with outlaw shows the fallacy of this logic well: just because the guy is not under protection of law, taking something from him against his will is still, by definiton, stealing. The act will not be recognized as such by court, and it is not treated as theft by law. Still, what we are discussing is taking away property without the person's consent.

I'm sorry. What I meant to say was that I refuted her interpretation of the definition you posted and showed in multiple ways how it references the law.

I don't assume that "stealing" in order to be considered "stealing" needs to involve breaking law. That's what stealing/theft mean.

Nope because as I showed earlier, it's not enough to simply take something from someone against their will. My government takes taxes from me against my will. But they are not stealing. The taking has to be wrongful, unlawful, criminal etc.

What we are discussing is theft/stealing.

I know you don't want to go back and read my old post because it shows that you are wrong, but I would again suggest that you do.

Edit: scenario with an outlaw is interesting, and if indeed people had duty to kill outlaws, then the guy who just took the knife would probably be commiting some sort of crime. Being an outlaw, however, simply meant that these people were not protected by law; they could have been killed, beaten up or robbed with impunity, but other people were not actually required to kill an outlaw (unless there was some additional ruling specifically requiring that).

I think you do not quite understand the meaning of the word duty. If the law states that you have a duty to kill someone, you have to kill that person if you can. If you fail to perform that duty, you get into trouble. :smalltongue: That's why it's such a fascinating example.

1) i did read your responce which amounted to "there are other definitions of 'stealing' that includes the mention of law" and as i replied, a definition of a term is determined by ALL the accepted definitions of the term; therefore ANY definition including the one i put forth is an accepted definition for stealing... ergo, you never refuted my definition; which was an actual dictionary term and therefore pretty much unrefutable

No, my response did not amount to that. I suggest you read again. I'll post it for you, so you don't have any excuses this time.

Incorrect. The law defines what theft is. For instance, my taxes are not stolen from me by the government. They are taken from me. They are definitely taken from me without my consent. But, they are not stolen from me.

Furthermore, since the law defines what forms of property in things may be held and by whom, your definition does make reference to law.

It actually makes two references since it stipulates "without right", which is another legal idea, since a person's rights are derived from law.

So yeah, your definition is actually quite related to legal concepts.
Law has everything to do with theft.

Here are other dictionary definitions of theft/stealing:

"The wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny."

"The act of taking something from someone unlawfully"

"A criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent"

"Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief."

"To appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment."

Obviously, your search wasn't exhaustive. I spent 5 seconds looking and found multiple definitions that directly contradict your dictionary assertion. I didn't list your definition among those, since that would be snarky, though it does belong.

To sum up everything for lazy people who didn't want to read my spiel, I disagree and you are wrong.

2) we were talking about the government taking your money (whether or not the government is stelaing from you when they do it), not you stealing something and then leaving the country to dodge the courts... try to keep up with the conversation

The irony of the comment is that I never talked about stealing something and leaving the country to dodge the courts. So really, it's you who can't keep up with the conversation.

That amuses me to no extent =D

Throknor

2009-01-12, 05:44 PM

Occam's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor). I don't think it means what you think it means.

Occam's razor is not equivalent to the idea that "perfection is simplicity". Albert Einstein probably had this in mind when he wrote in 1933 that "The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience" often paraphrased as "Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." Or even put more simply "make it simple, not simpler". It often happens that the best explanation is much more complicated than the simplest possible explanation because its postulations amount to less of an improbability. Thus the popular rephrasing of the razor - that "the simplest explanation is the best one" - fails to capture the gist of the reason behind it, in that it conflates a rigorous notion of simplicity and ease of human comprehension. The two are obviously correlated, but hardly equivalent.

In other words, the idea that the thieves guild has an all-encompassing definition of theft is not that un-simple. Any contract you sign will have a lot of boiler plate of 'as defined in section yada'. Heck, look at a home owner's insurance policy to see the pages of definitions so they can weasel out of virtually any kind of water damage. Celia could easily have overlooked the subtlety in a phrase like 'standard share of all profit from theft as defined in the guild's bylaws'.

Edit: meant to follow-up the Sun/Earth with this part:

In the first example, the Copernican model is said to have been chosen over the Ptolemaic due to its greater simplicity. The Ptolemaic model, in order to explain the apparent retrograde motion of Mercury relative to Venus, posited the existence of epicycles within the orbit of Mercury. The Copernican model (as expanded by Kepler) was able to account for this motion by displacing the Earth from the center of the solar system and replacing it with the sun as the orbital focus of planetary motions while simultaneously replacing the circular orbits of the Ptolemaic model with elliptical ones. In addition the Copernican model excluded any mention of the crystalline spheres that the planets were thought to be embedded in according the Ptolemaic model. In a single stroke the Copernican model reduced by a factor of two the ontology of Astronomy.

Theodoriph

2009-01-12, 05:56 PM

The first part can also address the person above me, so I don't have to do double duty.

Occam's Razor means that an explanation of something should not make unneccesary assumptions and not include things that make no difference in the observable predictions. Your usage of "Occam's Razor" comes down to "if it's too complicated it doesn't make sense".

Incorrect my usage of Occam's razor came down to the fact that given the paucity of information, it is better and more logical to assume that theft/stolen means theft/stolen instead of assuming that it means something else entirely that is as of yet unsubstantiated.

If you look at Sun it seems pretty clear it circles Earth. Occam's Razor dictates not to make additional assumptions, because what we can see is obvious, and accept that Sun indeed circles the Earth. That's what's been actually argued for many centuries.

Occam's razor doesn't dictate not to make additional assumptions. It says a theory should make as few assumptions as possible. So for instance if I theorize that a cat is black because its parents are both black and you theorize the same cat is black because some alien cyborg came from outer space and painted the cat black with a can of spray paint he picked up at Wal-Mart, according to Occam's razor, my theory is superior. I never claimed that means my theory is right, just that it's the better theory.

However, Occam's Razor can't, by itself, dictate anything, and can't be used to definitely prove or disprove anything. It's just an imperfect tool, often helpful in achieving simplicity and elegance of solution, and possibly eliminating irrelevant elements of a theory or hypothesis.

It is a tool and can be used to prove one theory is superior to another in certain aspects. I never claimed that makes one theory right or wrong, just that without further information, one theory is currently better than another in certain ways. That's what science is about after all...continually evaluating and picking the best theory as new data presents itself until the final answer is reached.

My original and only real point was that it would be logical to assume that Guild wants to get its share from all it's members' activities, and we do know that these include things like dog fights (not stealing).

And I disagree. It feel it would be logical to assume that the guild wants to get its share from the activities that it and its members are involved in together (e.g. presumable dogfighting). These so far (at least the illegal aspects...not sure if dogfighting is legal or not...I would guess that it is) have almost exclusively been things related to theft in some way shape, or form. You have to remember, the thieves guild wants people to join. They make more money. They gain more power. They cannot convince people to join if they're going to take half of every last penny those people make. Instead, taking half of every last penny you make stealing or involved in one of their sponsored activities makes far more sense economically as it will encourage more members.

I think the only real point in which we disagree is that you assume that the Guild limits itself only to thefts. I see it as more powerful and influentia

Yes...we disagree there. I don't like making such assumptions. :smalltongue: And depending on what view people take, it would change their idea of how the guild operates =D

Rotipher

2009-01-12, 06:04 PM

The Guild will want to take 50% of anything I will ever lay my hands on, and for that reason Guild will be defining "theft", for its own purposes, as wide as possible. Perhaps up to assuming that, since I'm a thief, all the money I make are stolen. How about "taking other person's or creature's possessions from it"? Sure, it's different from what's recognized as theft by law(s) and dictionaries, but as the Guild's leader you don't want your underlings to get smart and avoid paying their dues, right?

So you're saying that if Jenny makes a few gp singing in a tavern, she owes the Guild half of them? If V gave Haley a silver piece months ago because she came up short on their bar tab, does the Guild demand 5 cp from Haley because of that gift? If Hank turns out to be the long-lost heir to the throne of Halflingland, is crowned its ruler, and procedes to tax his new subjects, will the Thieves' Guild have the gall to demand 50% of his tax proceeds?

Yes, the Guild may tend to define "theft" to favor its own profit. But it can't plausibly demand 50% of everything its members make, else they'd all have deserted their contracts years ago.

hamishspence

2009-01-12, 06:13 PM

From what I can tell, there wasn't so much an imperative "duty to kill outlaws" more a "nothing you do to an outlaw is illegal".

the "theft is theft even if there isn't a law against it" theory has an interesting point. in A total anarchy with no laws at all, the "laws" or "moral principles" whatever you choose to call them, still apply in the context of "is the act evil"

the man stealing from the outlaw would still be commiting an act was was "morally theft" even if not, in the context of his society, "legally theft" by this theory.

but is "confiscation" as opposed to tax, theft by any other name?

slayerx

2009-01-12, 07:19 PM

My government takes taxes from me against my will. But they are not stealing. The taking has to be wrongful, unlawful, criminal etc.
It is not against your will; you agreed to give them your money the very same day you became a citizen... By becoming a citizen you thereby agreed to abide by all the rules and laws that the government puts forth... if you don't like it, you can revoke your citizenship and leave the country and thereby no longer be bound to the government's laws and rules

No, my response did not amount to that. I suggest you read again. I'll post it for you, so you don't have any excuses this time.

I read it again, and i still see the same thing...
the definition i posted makes absolutely no reference to law, (ownership as well by definition makes no mention of law being the single defining quality of ownership) and your opposing definitions do not invalidate the validity of the definition i posted

The irony of the comment is that I never talked about stealing something and leaving the country to dodge the courts. So really, it's you who can't keep up with the conversation.

lets see...

Leaving the country and revoking my citizenship would not be recognized as a reasonable means to avoid theft by any court.
What does this have to do with the government taking taxes?
if you leave the country and revoke your citizenship, the government can not tax you and thereby can not take your money; if they somehow mange to so then they are stealing it from you... that quote certainly sounds more like you are talking about your own acts of theft and not the government

Yes, the Guild may tend to define "theft" to favor its own profit. But it can't plausibly demand 50% of everything its members make, else they'd all have deserted their contracts years ago.
Well that's why the guild says 50% of everything ever stolen, not 50% of everything gained... and Haley has stolen quite a lot

MickJay

2009-01-12, 07:23 PM

Rotipher: I'm not saying it has to be like this, but it would make sense, since it would discourage people from non-thievish activities and strengthen their ties with guild; I have no idea what the actual arrangement and/or exceptions are.

Good example how "stealing" remains "stealing" even with no law system around is how Thieves' Guild recognizes itself as an organization of people who steal (thieves) in a place where there apparently are no laws prohibiting stealing (except those made and enforced by the Guild itself, to remove freelancing competition). If stealing is stealing only when it's breaking the law, then Guild members can't be thieves, because they can take other peoples' property without breaking the law (as opposed to non-members, who would be breaking Guild's law).

People had to have a concept of stealing (taking other person's belongings against their will) before the first laws forbidding stealing could be put in place. Which means having a concept of "stealing" can well be recognized without having a law forbidding it, as hamishspence further explained.

[this bit got ninja'd]
As for taxes, well, citizenship is a deal between a person and a state, citizen pays taxes, state provides certain services. Since taxes are compulsory, some people see the state as a threat to freedom, but it all comes down to this: while a person can renounce their citizenship, they still need to live somewhere, and most people just decide to deal with it, pay up and enjoy the benefits and protection. Not having any citizenship would be more trouble for most than just paying up.

Anywhoo, this whole thread is getting ridiculously off topic. We won't know how much Haley stole until Giant tells us, it's his story and he's making all the rules. :smalltongue:

NakedCelt

2009-01-12, 07:57 PM

Rotipher

2009-01-12, 08:13 PM

Azure City ain't a human city no more.

But Greysky City is. That's where the Thieves' Guild in question is based, and that's where its contracts are issued. Why would it stipulate that "theft" is defined by the standards of wherever a Guild-member might be at the time property is acquired? It's better for the Guild if it applies the same definition across-the-board; otherwise, a thief in a wilderness area where no laws are enforced would be able to argue that nothing is "stealing" there.

Theodoriph

2009-01-12, 08:31 PM

It is not against your will; you agreed to give them your money the very same day you became a citizen... By becoming a citizen you thereby agreed to abide by all the rules and laws that the government puts forth... if you don't like it, you can revoke your citizenship and leave the country and thereby no longer be bound to the government's laws and rules

I already told you I didn't agree. I did not have the capacity to consent when I became a citizen. My parents did not agree. I also do not agree now. I did not agree to the tax hikes when I was young either.

Sorry, but no court will recognize the revocation of citizenship to be a reasonable act in order to avoid a crime. I said that before. You really need to go back and read my previous responses to you.

What courts will recognize is that under law, the government has a right to impose taxes, and therefore, it's not theft.

I read it again, and i still see the same thing...
the definition i posted makes absolutely no reference to law, (ownership as well by definition makes no mention of law being the single defining quality of ownership) and your opposing definitions do not invalidate the validity of the definition i posted

Then your problem is one of comprehension. I've already shown how the definitions make reference to law. The one you posted made two references to law.

One, since the law defines what forms of property in things may be held and by whom, your definition does make reference to law.

It stipulates "without right". Rights are another legal concept, since a person's rights are derived from law. That is why the government can tax me...because they have the right to under law. Under the BNA Act, the government also had the right to form a court for all of Canada, which is how the Supreme Court of Canada was created back in the 1800s.

Most definitions of ownership actually do make reference to law (e.g. Legal right to the possession of a thing, The state or fact of being an owner). That being said, as I've stated before, dictionary definitions aren't that useful since they're not authoritative. The simple fact is that the legal system defines what constitutes forms of property in things and who can own them etc. Ownership is controlled by the legal system. Ownership does not exist without rules/laws.

that quote certainly sounds more like you are talking about your own acts of theft and not the government

Nope it didn't sound like that at all. If someone made a reading comprehension mistake, then yes, they could take that away from that sentence. But the meaning isn't ambiguous at all. It's fairly clear.

slayerx

2009-01-12, 10:05 PM

I already told you I didn't agree. I did not have the capacity to consent when I became a citizen. My parents did not agree. I also do not agree now. I did not agree to the tax hikes when I was young either.

Sorry, but no court will recognize the revocation of citizenship to be a reasonable act in order to avoid a crime. I said that before. You really need to go back and read my previous responses to you.

What courts will recognize is that under law, the government has a right to impose taxes, and therefore, it's not theft.

Citizenship upon birth is just a connivence as it would be far to much paper work if every citizen had to be manually registered and approved

Your parents could have revoked their citizenship or they could have revoked yours upon birth; afterward they could have left the country... that was fully within their choice... For instance, my uncle CHOOSE to revoke the italian half of my cousins' duel citizenship and make them only American citizens; in doing so my cousins are no longer bound by any of the rules and laws of Italian citizens

by the fact that you CHOOSE not to revoke your citizenship you are thereby agreeing to stay within the terms of citizenship... another fact of citizenship is that you also agreed to go along with the system of government of your country, and if that system says that the majority rules and what the majority say goes, then you are agreeing to abide by the laws and rules determined by the majority... if you do not like this set up, if you feel as though you are always in the minority, then you are free to give up your citizenship and leave the country

you are keeping your citizenship and continuing to live in this country at your own free will and therefore, willfully agreeing to pay the government taxes... in exchange, the government agrees to let you live in this country and give you the protection of the law

Then your problem is one of comprehension. I've already shown how the definitions make reference to law. The one you posted made two references to law.

One, since the law defines what forms of property in things may be held and by whom, your definition does make reference to law.

It stipulates "without right". Rights are another legal concept, since a person's rights are derived from law. That is why the government can tax me...because they have the right to under law. Under the BNA Act, the government also had the right to form a court for all of Canada, which is how the Supreme Court of Canada was created back in the 1800s.

Most definitions of ownership actually do make reference to law (e.g. Legal right to the possession of a thing, The state or fact of being an owner). That being said, as I've stated before, dictionary definitions aren't that useful since they're not authoritative. The simple fact is that the legal system defines what constitutes forms of property in things and who can own them etc. Ownership is controlled by the legal system. Ownership does not exist without rules/laws.

ownership
1 : the state, relation, or fact of being an owner

own
1 a: to have or hold as property : possess b: to have power or mastery over <wanted to own his own life>

pocess
1 a: to have and hold as property
2 a: to take into one's possession b: to enter into and control firmly

Absolutely none of these definitions mention anywhere that the words are EXCLUSIVE to laws; they are used in Law but no where in the terms of the english language are they exclusive to Law. By definition, mearly claiming something as your own can make you the "owner" of that something... and if that something belonged to someone else, that mens you Stole it, and you are now it's new owner; the law would not call you the rightful owner, but the english language would still say you are the new owner... laws determine whether or not you have LEGAL ownership of the item in question, but that does not mean that you are not the "owner" of that item; if you own an illegal weapon for instance, you are still the owner of that weapon until it is liberated from you... illegal ownership is STILL ownership

it does not matter if the definitions are not authoritative... those ARE the definitions... those are what the words mean as according to the english language... it's as plain and simple as that

Hell we can even take this a step furthar... in a land that has no law, like for instance new hong kong in the webcomic Buck Godot... their are no laws that define ownership and stealing... by YOUR logic, the words or concept of "ownership" and "Stealing" should not even exist in their language; but they still do because those words are not exclusive to laws

Theodoriph

2009-01-12, 11:38 PM

I hate having to repeat myself. I'm not as young as I used to be and I'm educated, so I have been known to speak above the heads of the younger folk who inhabit these sorts of forums. I tend not to state things as obviously as I should, because I'm used to not having to. So just tell me if I'm being unclear.

As I previously mentioned, the BNA gives the federal government the right to tax me. It gives the federal government the right to create a court for all of Canada. It gives the federal government various other rights.

I told you my perspective. Referenced you to the BNA Act for proof. Yet you still don't seem to understand. You can talk all you want about citizenship, but the simple fact is that you're wrong. The fact that you go on to uselessly discuss a point that you've already lost is embarrassing. It reflects quite poorly on you.

As per the BNA Act 1867 (referred to as the Constitution Act 1867 in The Constitution Act 1982)

91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,--

3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.

92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subject next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,--

2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes.

The law also provides for my rights, among other things, including the right to hold forms of property in certain things.

Every country has their own version of laws that cover taxation, in some way, shape, or form. For instance, as part of the Bill of Rights 1689, William and Mary of Orange agreed that the crown could no longer levy taxes. All taxes had to be approved by the British parliament. I'm not trying to make a point with that, though it is another example of the law covering taxation, this time making it illegal for the King or Queen to tax the British people. British history is interesting though, so I thought it was worth mentioning!

As for your spiel about ownership. Wow I don't know where to start. First of all it's quite obvious you know absolutely nothing about ownership. Your assertion that those definitions are used in law is absolutely ludicrous. The legal system would never use such simplistic definitions for such a complicated matter as ownership. Furthermore, the law rarely determines ownership of an item when it comes to forms of property in things. It's impractical for a lawyer to argue that his client owned the item in question. It's nearly impossible to prove. Why are you making claims about things you know nothing about?

Having said that, let's look at the definitions you provided. The definitions you provided for "own" and "poSSess" are identical, which is rather odd, since ownership and possession are two very different concepts. Also, when you gave your definitions for own and possess, you apparently didn't notice that it is the state via the law that decides who holds forms of property.

Let's ignore that for a second though. I want you to prove your hypothesis that ownership/property can exist without laws/customs/rules etc. I want you to find a human society (at least 1,000 strong) that lives or lived without laws/customs/rules and we'll see what their conceptions of ownership and property are. You won't find one though.

slayerx

2009-01-13, 12:15 AM

Your assertion that those definitions are used in law is absolutely ludicrous. The legal system would never use such simplistic definitions for such a complicated matter as ownership.

and here in lies the entire flaw of your argument
No, the government does not use those definitions, and never once did i assert such a thing

HOWEVER, government law and the english language are two different things... you have been arguing about nothing but the law as in pertains to the views of the government... i have been arguing the common english language... it is amazing how you can not grasp that

Let's ignore that for a second though. I want you to prove your hypothesis that ownership/property can exist without laws/customs/rules etc. I want you to find a human society (at least 1,000 strong) that lives or lived without laws/customs/rules and we'll see what their conceptions of ownership and property are. You won't find one though.
Why should i pick out a society atleast 1000 strong... i'm arguing the english language here... all i need is two people, the owner and the one who steals from that owner... Billy finds an apple and says it belongs to him and that he is the owner; Adam knows that the apple does not belong to him; Adam decides to take the apple despite this; did Adam "steal" from billy?

we can go back to the days of caveman, when the concept of stable law did not exist and ownership was determined by nothing more than one claiming something to be theirs

And here's the lovely thing about fiction, which OotS is an example of; we can create a theoretical society (hell creating theortical examples is part of scientific process and how we study)... and society whose laws are no our own and exists without a concept of law. Would the society work, probably not, it would damn near chaotic and pretty destructive... but the concepts of "ownership" and "stealing" would still exist as ownership would be determined by nothing more than who claims something as their own... and if you take something that someone claimed as their own first, then that means you stole it and claimed ownership of that something for your own...

By what you say, the word "steal" and "ownership" should not exist in a land without rules or law... but you know what, if humans were to travel to such a land, i got a funny feeling they would steal use those words... they will claim that anything they own they are rightful owners too, and that anyone who takes it would be stealing from them

in the terms of OotS, any land outside the borders of a city may be considered free country... where there are no laws and you can do whatever you please as no one will stop you or even have the legal right to stop you... but just because you are in no man's land does not mean the concept of ownership no longer exists... and the thieves guild... hell their thieves, nothing they do is even legal... their jurisdiction of their rules is determined only by how far they are willing to travel to break someone's legs... do they really care about the LEGAL definitions of theft? no why should they... they see something they want, and they take it and steal it... and since they want to pull every bit of money out of their thieves as possible you can be sure they are gonna use the broadest definition of "steal" that they can think of

Theodoriph

2009-01-13, 12:28 AM

and here in lies the entire flaw of your argument
No, the government does not use those definitions, and never once did i assert such a thing

HOWEVER, government law and the english language are two different things... you have been arguing about nothing but the law as in pertains to the views of the government... i have been arguing the common english language... it is amazing how you can not grasp that

What are you talking about? Since when did I claim government law and the english language are the same thing. Such a claim wouldn't even make any sense since I'm not sure how government law compares to the english language. What's government law anyway?

You're the one who claimed the legal system would use the dictionary definitions you provided (Quote: "they are used in Law"), which is completely wrong and shows your utter ignorance of the legal process. Legal definitions do rely on the English language, but they are more precise to avoid the confusion that the usage of the common meanings of words entails.

Taking things out of context doesn't serve to further the discussion, but rather takes it down a level. And please, stop talking about things you know nothing about. Again, it detracts from the conversation. There is nothing wrong in admitting you know nothing about how the law operates.

Why should i pick out a society atleast 1000 strong... i'm arguing the english language here... all i need is two people, the owner and the one who steals from that owner... Billy finds an apple and says it belongs to him and that he is the owner; Adam knows that the apple does not belong to him; Adam decides to take the apple despite this; did Adam "steal" from billy?

Humans live in societies when they live together. Ergo, picking a society. Real examples exemplify human behaviour. Fictional examples exemplify what the creator believes of human behaviour. That's why they're not good examples.

By the way, you do realize that both Billy and Adam were governed by at least one rule/law/custom in the fictional example you provided.

Fictional examples have no bearing on real world behaviour and real world facts.

we can go back to the days of caveman, when the concept of stable law did not exist and ownership was determined by nothing more than one claiming something to be theirs

Cavemen had laws/rules/customs. How did they not? Every human society has as far as I know and within them, law/custom/rules and ownership have always been intertwined. That's why I want you to find one that didn't have any kind of law/rule/custom. So we can examine it.

P.S. You should at least have the decent to admit when you're wrong about things (e.g. government taxation).

slayerx

2009-01-13, 01:52 AM

What are you talking about? Since when did I claim government law and the english language are the same thing. Such a claim wouldn't even make any sense since I'm not sure how government law compares to the english language. What's government law anyway?

i continuously argued about the english definition and never stopped... i was pointing out how the words are used

You're the one who claimed the legal system would use the dictionary definitions you provided (Quote: "they are used in Law"), which is completely wrong and shows your utter ignorance of the legal process.

you apparently misunderstood what i saying... i was NOT talking about the definitions i had quoteed, i was talking about the WORDS themselves being used in law... the words are used in law, but just because they are used in law does not mean the definitions in the english language are limited to just what the law dictates, as the language does not consider local laws and used broad terminology

we have been talking about the world of OotS, the thieves guild and Haley's act of theft... There are no courts involved here, their is no concept of legal and illegal... it's a simple question, "did Haley steal from the dragon?"... well, since the dragon claimed ownship of that gold and there is no way to agrue that he was not currently in possession of that gold, and she took from the dragon that which did not belong to her, then it damn right sounds like she stole from the dragon... just because she did not break a law and could not be convicted, does not make it any less an act of stealing

Humans live in societies when they live together. Ergo, picking a society. Real examples exemplify human behaviour. Fictional examples exemplify what the creator believes of human behaviour. That's why they're not good examples.
Fictional examples have no bearing on real world behaviour and real world facts.

but i have always been arguing the english definition of stealing, not the lawful definition, or the definition as it pertains to canada... to steal, simply means to take something from someone else without their consent... that is what stealing is... whether or not the action is considered illegal within a society is irrelevant... and since that has been my argument all along, i find no reason i must name a society

By the way, you do realize that both Billy and Adam were governed by at least one rule/law/custom in the fictional example you provided.

and what law was that... no court in the world could convict Adam because there was no law saying he could not take the apple from Billy in the theoretical example i put together

P.S. You should at least have the decent to admit when you're wrong about things (e.g. government taxation).
And what was it that i said was wrong... all those long winded acts you quoted didn't really point that out...

I argued that government taxation is not an act of "stealing" under ANY definition of the word... including the simple definition of taking without the owner's consent

you were the one that tried to argue that you did not give consent for the government to take your money... and i pointed this out as wrong as you did give consent by maintaining your citizenship

Citizenship is an agreement... you agree to to abide by the laws and rules of the country to which you are a citizen to; as such if the government rules that you must pay taxes, you agreed obey those rules and give them your money... in return you are permitted to live within the borders of that country and be protected by the very same laws that you yourself agreed to uphold.

you don't want to uphold those laws, you do not consent to the government taking your money, then revoke your citizenship and leave the country, because until you do you will be giving the government the right to take your money

Selene

2009-01-13, 08:35 AM

Dragons are usually depicted as fully self-aware beings, highly intelligent on top of that.

Chimpanzees share over 98% of their DNA with humans, are fully self-aware, highly intelligent, have individual personalities, and can speak sign language. And yet they're not people.

This wasn't addressed to me and was a reply to Selene, but there's one thing I have to say.

LOL

Yes it does. But I've been over that a number of times in a number of ways already. Still...my main reaction to that comment is laughter. How can you not find that comment ludicrous?

By the way...which bear are you taking about? I thought the bear was dead. Thus, you sentence should read: "Again, just because there is no law against taking from the dead bear, does not mean you did not STEAL from the corpse that was formerly a bear." Which makes it even funnier :smallbiggrin:

He's talking about the corpse formerly known as bear, who, when still a living bear, ate the rightful owner of the watch. :smalltongue:

Kish

2009-01-13, 09:59 AM

Chimpanzees share over 98% of their DNA with humans, are fully self-aware, highly intelligent, have individual personalities, and can speak sign language. And yet they're not people.
There's a slight difference in the definitions of highly intelligent there.

Chimpanzees share over 98% of their DNA with humans, are fully self-aware, more intelligent than most other animals but not as intelligent as human animals, have individual personalities, and at least some can learn to speak sign language. Lots of people in the world would not grant your assertion that they are not people. (I'd need a definition of "people" first, but I suspect I would either not grant it, if it led to "their lives don't have value," or it would be effectively meaningless, if it amounted to "people=humans.")

Dragons share very little of their DNA with humans, are fully self-aware, and probably about as much more intelligent than humans on average as humans are more intelligent than chimpanzees. They speak their own language, as well as Common, and lots of other languages besides. You seem to be arguing that their lives inherently have no value and "people," which you've never defined (humans? humanoids? humanoids without green skin and fangs?) should be able to kill them without compunction. Notably, Celia is further from being a "person" by most such definitions than a dragon would be--as she's an Outsider, I'm not sure she has DNA at all.

If the dragon had asked the Order to leave his lair rather than attacking them, and they had refused to go without the starmetal, I would not hesitate in the least in classifying them all as thoroughly evil: home invaders, robbers, murderers. Rich even said a while ago (in response to someone charging Miko with racism) that Miko before she snapped, encounting a chromatic dragon, would have cast Detect Evil and not attacked if it came up negative--though she was prepared to give the Order the benefit of the doubt for having killed a chromatic dragon (and I would think more highly of Roy if his answer to her question about that had been, "It attacked us on sight"). I've played D&D games with players who think "if it's not an obvious plot device, preferably of a player character race, then it's there to be killed" and I've played D&D games with players who think about the morality of their characters' actions. One guess which I'd want to play with again.