A Good Aligned Con Artist? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Rubik

2014-04-16, 11:44 PM

So mainly just scam rich and well off people?

I can see how that's not evil, but wouldn't that land me more in Neutral?
I can imagine something like giving gold back to the people to be good, however...

1) I want the reason he's good to be more interesting than that
2) I hate seeing my gold go away to something non-party beneficial.It's not so much that you should scam rich people, but that you should lie to and scam people who are doing bad things that you can avert or punish with your own scamming. Doing as Toph started off doing in The Runaway, for instance, where you scam scammers to punish them by taking away their ill-gotten gains would be a good start. Blackmailing people like Lucius Malfoy, and forcing them to do things which counteract their intended aims would be another example.

Basically, choose your targets and what you do to them carefully, so that they receive ironic justice, without bothering with legal recourse.

Your character likely doesn't trust the legal system (either due to corruption of the current system, or because of some past experience that destroyed that trust earlier in life), and it would give you some good references to rely on when determining how to RP other events. WHY does your character not just turn the other party in, and instead tricks, deceives, lies, and steals? Then use the answers to that question to determine how you con others, as well as who those "others" are.

Gwazi Magnum

2014-04-16, 11:58 PM

It's not so much that you should scam rich people, but that you should lie to and scam people who are doing bad things that you can avert or punish with your own scamming. Doing as Toph started off doing in The Runaway, for instance, where you scam scammers to punish them by taking away their ill-gotten gains would be a good start. Blackmailing people like Lucius Malfoy, and forcing them to do things which counteract their intended aims would be another example.

Basically, choose your targets and what you do to them carefully, so that they receive ironic justice, without bothering with legal recourse.

Your character likely doesn't trust the legal system (either due to corruption of the current system, or because of some past experience that destroyed that trust earlier in life), and it would give you some good references to rely on when determining how to RP other events. WHY does your character not just turn the other party in, and instead tricks, deceives, lies, and steals? Then use the answers to that question to determine how you con others, as well as who those "others" are.

The current character background I have is basically someone who was a slave for most of their life and has only been free now for a few years. They got free by being able to gain the trust of all the other slaves and leading a successful rebellion against their masters. And I remember my DM mentioning at some point that in the world we're going to play in a good amount of area's have slavery as legal. So perhaps he doesn't trust the law because they allow something like Slavery to happen?

Also, if I'm going Charisma based con-artist I might end up rolling a Hell bred. So in that case I'd need to think of a reason he was damned to hell. My best guess if I had to think of something right now would be that maybe after getting free he sought revenge through more violent means, but this caused him to go bad and when he died go to hell. But having his soul saved at the last moment, vowed to go use more peaceful/humane methods to deal with villainy of the world? Rather than more extreme methods? I'd have to think through a bit more on this second part.

Vhaidara

2014-04-17, 12:12 AM

Rubik

2014-04-17, 12:17 AM

The current character background I have is basically someone who was a slave for most of their life and has only been free now for a few years. They got free by being able to gain the trust of all the other slaves and leading a successful rebellion against their masters. And I remember my DM mentioning at some point that in the world we're going to play in a good amount of area's have slavery as legal. So perhaps he doesn't trust the law because they allow something like Slavery to happen?

Also, if I'm going Charisma based con-artist I might end up rolling a Hell bred. So in that case I'd need to think of a reason he was damned to hell. My best guess if I had to think of something right now would be that maybe after getting free he sought revenge through more violent means, but this caused him to go bad and when he died go to hell. But having his soul saved at the last moment, vowed to go use more peaceful/humane methods to deal with villainy of the world? Rather than more extreme methods? I'd have to think through a bit more on this second part.Since that's part of your intended background, have you (and your siblings) be sold into slavery as punishment for a crime that your parents committed, or that they were framed for. Basically, you received a horrible, life-long punishment for something you obviously didn't do (and that even the legal adjudicator knew you didn't do, since it was your parents' crime), and so you hold absolutely no regard for legal process, or even the idea of "justice" outside of the justice extracted on a personal level.

Gwazi Magnum

2014-04-17, 12:28 AM

What I like doing with Hellbred is a reversal. The thing they crusade against was their crime before being damned. So, in your case, your character was a slaver, and was damned for that, but repented last second and became a hellbred. Now he fights slavery to cleanse the stain it left on his soul.

I like that idea a lot, however I had a friend who helped me a good amount thinking of the character history and such, so I'd feel kind of ****ty if I changed it so he wasn't a slave anymore.
So what I might do is say "He was a Slave, fought his way to freedom and used it to become a slaver himself (Survival of the fittest logic). But after living a life of that he repented and now fights against it. The question is though there, did he repent before death for some reason? Or did he repent out of fear of hell?

Since that's part of your intended background, have you (and your siblings) be sold into slavery as punishment for a crime that your parents committed, or that they were framed for. Basically, you received a horrible, life-long punishment for something you obviously didn't do (and that even the legal adjudicator knew you didn't do, since it was your parents' crime), and so you hold absolutely no regard for legal process, or even the idea of "justice" outside of the justice extracted on a personal level.

His mother was a slave when he was born, so at birth he was already the property of slavers.

The Insanity

2014-04-25, 10:59 PM

Hello? A-Team (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MVonyVSQoM)?

Azoth

2014-04-26, 07:46 PM

If you don't want to see your funds going to waste, and can spare a feat, look into Landlord.

Get yourself a plot of land and use your wages from being a con man to free slaves and send them to your stronghold. Make it a land share type deal.

Everyone works and has a job to do, and in exchange are given the necessities of life. The harder they work the better off your stronghold is, and the better off their lives are in return.

Make it clear that they can leave whenever they like and take their possessions with them when they do so.

It is basically a refugee camp for former slaves.

ericgrau

2014-04-26, 07:48 PM

Chaotic good. Scam evil folks, for example Robin Hood style, but possibly for other reasons.

So ya, there are a million ways to do this.

Red Fel

2014-04-26, 07:55 PM

I'd like to point out one small detail.

The OP was asking two questions, not just one. To the first question, as to whether a good person can be a con artist, the answer is yes. Grifters, mooches, escorts, yes-men and sycophants, there are many people who get from one meal to the next by telling people exactly what they want to hear, and it's not always Evil to do so.

But the OP was also asking about Nymph's Kiss. And Nymph's Kiss is an Exalted feat. And being "not Evil" isn't enough. Heck, being "pretty okay" isn't enough, either. Exalted means super-Good. Ultra-Good. Gooder than Good. Exalted borders on stupidly, absurdly, self-cripplingly Good.

Good people can lie. Good people can cheat. Good people do that sort of thing on an almost daily basis. It's a much bigger deal for an Exalted person.

It's part of why letting Exalted feats into a campaign is such a big deal. Not just because so many of them stink on ice. (Looking at you, Vow of Poverty.) It's because, whereas alignment usually isn't a straightjacket, Exalted feats can turn it into one. That's the whole premise.

Tl;dr version: Can a Good person be a con artist? Yes, if you're not hurting innocent people or acting in a purely selfish manner. Can an Exalted person be a con artist? No.

nedz

2014-04-26, 09:01 PM

A Bard or Beguiler with Glibness is the easy way to do this mechanically; though a Cleric with access to Divine Insight and Guidance of the Avatar would also work.

Sartharina

2014-04-26, 09:34 PM

Honestly, good people can be con-artists. You just make a point of only conning people who it won't hurt. So successful merchants, evil people, and standoffish nobles rather than Joan and Jeff the commoner couple with 5 copper to their name and 6 screaming children.

On the contrary: "You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.”

nedz

2014-04-26, 10:16 PM

Well the trick, obviously, is to Steal, Embezzle, Defraud and Swindle With Discrimination.

Alternatively you can use these skills for non-material ends. Deception is a valid tactic to use independent of the means.

Azoth

2014-04-26, 10:26 PM

If all you are interested in from Nymph's Kiss is the +2 to Cha skills there is a weaker feat from Oriental Adventures that might work. Requires you to be human for what that's worth.

Karmic Twin, gives +2 to all Cha skills and skill checks.

otakumick

2014-04-26, 10:47 PM

A good aligned con artist... makes me think of either Patrick Jayne from the Mentalist or The Great and Powerful Oz.

Inevitability

2014-04-27, 04:21 AM

Use the Zealotic Paladin excuse.

Everything that is evil when used against good people is good when used against evil people.

Lying may be evil when used against good people, but if you're using it to destroy evil, no problemo.

gomipile

2014-04-27, 08:56 AM

Malconvokers are sometimes a very specific type of this.

Seharvepernfan

2014-04-27, 10:45 AM

Tl;dr version: Can a Good person be a con artist? Yes, if you're not hurting innocent people or acting in a purely selfish manner. Can an Exalted person be a con artist? No.

There's no reason for this to be true.

I had a concept for a CG beguiler with vow of peace/pacifism/whatever feats, who never killed or even hurt people (maybe whelmed them or shot them with knockout-poisoned hand crossbow darts, but that's it), and had uber-high bluff/diplomacy. A con artist is someone who takes the resources of someone else through deception. They differ from thieves in general because they do it through lying rather than physical stealth. If they do this to evil folks to help non-evil folks, how does that keep them from being exalted? It's no worse than some paladin stabbing an orc invader, in fact it's probably better, because they're not actually harming anyone.

Evil merchants/politicians/generals/priests/whatever being the main targets here, with the aim of helping the people that these targets oppress and use as cattle. If you're making evil people less powerful and helping non-evil people at the same time, you're good. Period. If you devote yourself to doing this, and do your absolute best to avoid unnecessary harm (up to and including dying rather than committing an evil act), you can be exalted too.

Ravens_cry

2014-04-27, 11:01 AM

Moist von Lipwig is both a deconstruction (we see how even a non-violent 'good' con artist can ruin people's lives) and a reconstruction (how he takes down Reacher Guilt) of the whole non-violent Con Artist shtick.
So, yeah, choose your targets well.

deuxhero

2014-04-27, 11:11 AM

Teach people important moral lessons with your cons.

Ravens_cry

2014-04-27, 11:20 AM

Teach people important moral lessons with your cons.
Like, "Nobody sells a gold and diamond ring for a lot less than it's worth on street corners." Heck, you're practically doing them a service!

jedipotter

2014-04-27, 11:39 AM

So mainly just scam rich and well off people?

I can see how that's not evil, but wouldn't that land me more in Neutral?
I can imagine something like giving gold back to the people to be good, however...

A good person can be a con artist, as long as it is for a good reason. And you don't have to only steal from the rich. Though a good person would not take from the very needy poor.

There is lots of spin here. Such as:

You see your con as a test. Your testing people you encounter to see if they can spot a con or not. If they do, they keep thier coins...if not they loose. You might or might not come to them after and tell them what they did wrong. Or you could pass this along to another person, like telling a wife ''you might want to make sure the books are right''. or such. It is far better for you as a good person to discover that someone has a ''con weak spot'', then for when they fall for an evil persons con.

You see your con as pratice. You need to keep your skills sharp. So you con anyone/everyone you can. So that when you have to do a con vs a big bad evil, you will have some expereince at it.

You can see your con as a challange. It is like arm wrestling. Your seeing who is ''better'', with the ''bet'' whatever the con is about. This makes the con mostly for fun. And just like a freindly sport.

You can see your con as ''wealth redistrubution''. You, as a good person, feel you have the right(moral high ground) to decide how best money should be used. You can't trust ''normal people'' to spend thier own money right. You must do it for them....you know, for their own good. And keeping your pockets full so you can buy magic items and help save the town from a dragon is good.....

If your a good person that places no value on money then cons have a whole diffrent meaning. For example, Srole the Elf, often cons humans and dwarves out of things.....but he is from a communial society where everyone shares. So he see nothing wrong with getting people to share.

Tarqiup Inua

2014-04-27, 01:06 PM

There are plenty of movies with this theme. Usually the plot revolves around ripping of someone who has hurt the protagonist in past - the theme of revenge is prevalent in such setting.

Ravens_cry

2014-04-27, 01:19 PM

Like The Sting. An awesome film by the way, well worth watching to this day. I won't spoil anything beyond that, but, really, watch it, ya fallah?

RavynsLand

2014-04-27, 03:09 PM

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/001/6/b/john_constantine_by_lorena_carvalho-d366um1.jpg

TuggyNE

2014-04-27, 06:58 PM

There is a vast difference between a con artist who thinks they're good, and one who actually is, as we can see here:

You see your con as a test. Your testing people you encounter to see if they can spot a con or not. If they do, they keep thier coins...if not they loose. You might or might not come to them after and tell them what they did wrong. Or you could pass this along to another person, like telling a wife ''you might want to make sure the books are right''. or such. It is far better for you as a good person to discover that someone has a ''con weak spot'', then for when they fall for an evil persons con.

Yeah, it's really a good thing they fell for your tricks instead of some viler person who might have, gasp, taken them for all they're worth! Oh wait, that's exactly what you did.

You see your con as pratice. You need to keep your skills sharp. So you con anyone/everyone you can. So that when you have to do a con vs a big bad evil, you will have some expereince at it.

Uh huh. This is of course why soldiers practice their swordsmanship by fighting random passersby to the death. Oh wait.

You can see your con as a challange. It is like arm wrestling. Your seeing who is ''better'', with the ''bet'' whatever the con is about. This makes the con mostly for fun. And just like a freindly sport.

Friendly sports usually do not end in one participant going home hundreds or thousands of gp lighter. (Unless we're talking gambling by enormously rich folks, who could consider those amounts rather small.)

Of course, if the con is not actually pushed to the limit, and only a symbolic amount is ever transferred, this might sort of work. I.e., "haha, I got you to give me some coins just by talking pretty clever, imagine if I'd asked for some plat!"

You can see your con as ''wealth redistrubution''. You, as a good person, feel you have the right(moral high ground) to decide how best money should be used. You can't trust ''normal people'' to spend thier own money right. You must do it for them....you know, for their own good. And keeping your pockets full so you can buy magic items and help save the town from a dragon is good.....

That's just … no. That's self-deceptive selfishness, and is at best neutral, since it disrespects others systematically (i.e., does not show "concern for the dignity of others", per the description of Good alignment).

If your a good person that places no value on money then cons have a whole diffrent meaning. For example, Srole the Elf, often cons humans and dwarves out of things.....but he is from a communial society where everyone shares. So he see nothing wrong with getting people to share.

That's illogical, since if Srole expects people to share, he would have no reason to fool them into it. Such elaborate deception requires intent to trick someone into doing what they normally would not, and anyone who is aware that humans and dwarves do not customarily share everything should be aware that they do not customarily share everything. Taking the attitude "well, that's just stupid, clearly my people's ways are better and I will enforce that right now by cunning deceit" is, again, disrespectful and non-Good.

Talya

2014-04-27, 07:07 PM

Can you think of a way that a character with a good alignment would become a Con Artist?

Watch a few episodes of the TV show "Leverage."

tomandtish

2014-04-27, 07:12 PM

Watch a few episodes of the TV show "Leverage."

White Collar would also be good, when Neal is working for the FBI (as opposed to his own agendas).

jedipotter

2014-04-27, 08:32 PM

There is a vast difference between a con artist who thinks they're good, and one who actually is, as we can see here:

Ok, but your going to far extremes, and worst of all your using 21st Century Western Good....

Yeah, it's really a good thing they fell for your tricks instead of some viler person who might have, gasp, taken them for all they're worth! Oh wait, that's exactly what you did.

This is an extreme. The good con guy is not going to con someone out of every coin they own, or even half. But conning a handful of gold or a single item would be just fine. And it is far better to find out that a store clerk can't count when conned out of a dagger, then something of more value.

Uh huh. This is of course why soldiers practice their swordsmanship by fighting random passersby to the death. Oh wait.

Well, not a 21st century western soldier, sure. But duels and fights of honor are common elsewhere. And we don't want to just talk about soldiers anyway. How about athletes? Do boxers or wrestlers practice by faking it, or do they have to hit and touch each other for real?

Friendly sports usually do not end in one participant going home hundreds or thousands of gp lighter. (Unless we're talking gambling by enormously rich folks, who could consider those amounts rather small.)

Of course, if the con is not actually pushed to the limit, and only a symbolic amount is ever transferred, this might sort of work. I.e., "haha, I got you to give me some coins just by talking pretty clever, imagine if I'd asked for some plat!"

How about unfriendly sports? Like pool or poker? Is bluffing in poker, or any game a con, and is it ok? It is ok to 'con' someone that you have a good hand right? Same way you can 'con' a football player that you might run to the left.

And again your talking the extreme of thousands of gold coins?

That's just … no. That's self-deceptive selfishness, and is at best neutral, since it disrespects others systematically (i.e., does not show "concern for the dignity of others", per the description of Good alignment).

Well....needless to say, but, this one is ripped from the Headlines. Read some news. And it is very common for ''some people'' to take money from ''other people'' for the ''good of all''. Take taxes. A king can tax the people of his kingdom, but a citizen can't tax anyone? Says who? Again avoid 21st century western views.

That's illogical, since if Srole expects people to share, he would have no reason to fool them into it. Such elaborate deception requires intent to trick someone into doing what they normally would not, and anyone who is aware that humans and dwarves do not customarily share everything should be aware that they do not customarily share everything. Taking the attitude "well, that's just stupid, clearly my people's ways are better and I will enforce that right now by cunning deceit" is, again, disrespectful and non-Good.

Well, this gets into the complicated in ''the only good is the 21st century western view''. Srole is Lawful Good. His society has no money, no concept of ownership, and does not place value on things. If someone needs something, they simply take it and use it. To Srole that type of life style is good. No one is hungry in ElfTown, as everyone is free to eat any and all food. But Humantown is full of hungry people, and worse just a handful of people horde all the food and will not freely share. In Humantown, people die of hunger all the time. Srole sees that as evil. And he has no problem tricking the evil folks out of things.

Money...and good and evil, well there are lots of problems. Even more when you add in worth, and value and other things. If a wizard has gold, is it evil for him to not to help the poor. Well the rich people say it isin fact good to not help the poor, but the poor say it is evil not to help them. Who is right?

And then just think about what 21st century western cons are good and legal. People loose money every days, and it is considered ok......

Kuulvheysoon

2014-04-27, 09:25 PM

On the contrary: "You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.”

*Claps* Well done, man, well done.

TuggyNE

2014-04-27, 11:09 PM

Yeah, the indictment of Moist von Lipwig is pretty solid.

This is an extreme. The good con guy is not going to con someone out of every coin they own, or even half.

Ah, well that's good to know, since that proviso was certainly not present in the post I quoted.

Well, not a 21st century western soldier, sure. But duels and fights of honor are common elsewhere. And we don't want to just talk about soldiers anyway. How about athletes? Do boxers or wrestlers practice by faking it, or do they have to hit and touch each other for real?

What part of "to the death" did you miss? The difference between an agreed-upon contest with moderate effect, and an involuntary contest with severe effect, is pretty significant. Most duels were not to the death, and those that were, almost always resulted from some serious dispute between (near-)equals.

(Also, in general yes boxers and wrestlers do in fact practice without full contact most of the time. Otherwise they'd be injured a lot more.)

And again your talking the extreme of thousands of gold coins?

Or however much someone has. Usually, that's what "cons" are, they are not (by default) run for small change, they're run for significant chunks of money. If you're arguing that a con artist can be Good, and you don't qualify what sort of cons they run at all, the only reasonable assumption is that the cons are normal ones, in which the victim is left much the poorer. Which obviously makes the argument harder to swallow.

Edit: I should note that a con artist who steals very small amounts, but makes no attempt to return the money or inform the victims of their lack of care, is probably still not Good, merely neutral. "Teaching" someone by giving them a test they are unlikely to pass and not informing them of failure is ineffective in the strongest degree, and suggests such negligence that no sincere desire to teach can really be present.

Well....needless to say, but, this one is ripped from the Headlines. Read some news. And it is very common for ''some people'' to take money from ''other people'' for the ''good of all''. Take taxes. A king can tax the people of his kingdom, but a citizen can't tax anyone? Says who? Again avoid 21st century western views.

I'm not aware of any broadly accepted view at any time in history or even fiction that any random person can unilaterally decide to tax everyone else for any purpose they may see fit. In fact, such an operation is pretty generally called "theft", and punished.

Also, it's amusing that you consider my views to be the height of modern Western ethics, since they are chiefly founded on, let's just say, much older ideas that are not especially trendy.

Well, this gets into the complicated in ''the only good is the 21st century western view''. Srole is Lawful Good. His society has no money, no concept of ownership, and does not place value on things. If someone needs something, they simply take it and use it. To Srole that type of life style is good. No one is hungry in ElfTown, as everyone is free to eat any and all food. But Humantown is full of hungry people, and worse just a handful of people horde all the food and will not freely share. In Humantown, people die of hunger all the time. Srole sees that as evil. And he has no problem tricking the evil folks out of things.

For his benefit, or for the benefit of the hungry people? Because there's a difference, and in the given example? It was the former. Yeah, that's not LG. That's CN.

Money...and good and evil, well there are lots of problems. Even more when you add in worth, and value and other things. If a wizard has gold, is it evil for him to not to help the poor. Well the rich people say it isin fact good to not help the poor, but the poor say it is evil not to help them. Who is right?

…

… that's a hard problem? :smalleek:

No, seriously, how is that even challenging? Duh it's not good to not help the poor, and it is good to help them. (The exact balance of poor-helping good, and other sorts of good, is a lot trickier, sure, but that's not how the problem here is phrased.)

hamishspence

2014-04-28, 06:31 AM

Ok, but your going to far extremes, and worst of all your using 21st Century Western Good....

Which is pretty much what BoED principles tend to be.

Talya

2014-04-28, 09:09 AM

White Collar would also be good, when Neal is working for the FBI (as opposed to his own agendas).

I don't think Neal's cons ever qualify as evil, mind you. A con artist pulling off things like he did before being caught is performing Chaotic Neutral actions, but those don't move his alignment away from good or evil if he otherwise falls into those categories. Neal's kind, and generally compassionate, and definitely values human life. So even the criminal Neal can be argued to be Chaotic Good (albeit closer to Neutral than Exalted Good.)

While White Collar is a better show, I prefer Leverage as an example in this case, because Nathan Ford & company are absolutely breaking the law in every situation, and doing it for altruistic purposes.

jedipotter

2014-04-28, 09:43 AM

Or however much someone has. Usually, that's what "cons" are, they are not (by default) run for small change, they're run for significant chunks of money.

I'm not sure why you leap to cons are usually for huge chunks of money. So the guy who gets free meals at taverns or sells a single item for ''more then it is worth'', is not a con artist? So a con must be on the Ocean's 11/12/13 level? What about all the cons that just live day to day.....try more movies like Payback, Matchstick Men, or Catch me if you can. Or TV shows like Leverage, Supernatural, or countless soap operas.

I'm not aware of any broadly accepted view at any time in history or even fiction that any random person can unilaterally decide to tax everyone else for any purpose they may see fit. In fact, such an operation is pretty generally called "theft", and punished.

Guess I'll say again: read and watch some news.

Also, it's amusing that you consider my views to be the height of modern Western ethics, since they are chiefly founded on, let's just say, much older ideas that are not especially trendy.

Well, you do seem to have the modern view of things. Fun fact: Most cons not considered evil and were not even crimes until the last couple decades. Go back to 10th to 14th century Europe. Or look at the rest of the world from 1st century to now.

Often a con artist preys on greed, pure and simple. Greed is evil. So if your not greedy, you won't fall for a con. It is that simple.

TuggyNE

2014-04-28, 08:22 PM

Guess I'll say again: read and watch some news.

Well, you do seem to have the modern view of things. Fun fact: Most cons not considered evil and were not even crimes until the last couple decades. Go back to 10th to 14th century Europe. Or look at the rest of the world from 1st century to now.

I have no idea what you're referring to specifically*, and it seems it is impossible to clarify without falling afoul of forum rules, so this particular line of discussion is unprofitable. Perhaps you'd like to explain from a different perspective why routine cons against indiscriminate targets can be good-aligned per D&D morality?

*Saying "study general history of a continent in a five-hundred-year timeframe" is of no value whatsoever; it is like saying "learn mathematics" when asked why the angles of a triangle always sum to 180 degrees: vague to the point of utter uselessness, and also quite condescending.

jedipotter

2014-04-29, 11:29 AM

Ok, everyone agrees that a good con artist can:

1. Freely con any and all evil people.
2. Con any rich person , as long as what is taken is slight and won't make the rich person poor.
3. Can con anyone who is greedy.
4. Can con anyone who used trickery, lies, or even a con to wrongly take something.
5. Can con someone for a greater good.

One is easy, if they are evil you can con them.

Two...well....everyone ''hates'' the rich, right? And conning something from someone that they won't notice or miss is not bad. Even better if it is for a good reason. Getting an alchemist to give you potions for free so you can use them to save the town is just fine, for example.

Three, greed is evil. No way around that. A good person should not be greedy. If someone really thinks your glass bead is a gem of great value, that your willing to sell for a couple coppers, then it is their own greed that is harming them, not you. It is just about impossible to defend greed as anything but an evil act.

Four should be a no-brainier. If they cheat or con and wrongly take something, then it is alright for you to con it back. As long as you give back all that was taken.....but you can keep the left overs.

Five. The greater good is tricky. Say some giants where going to break a dam at noon and flood the town. No one in town believes this will happen(''the dam is unbreakable!''). So the con artist comes up with a 'plague' to get everyone to flee town and meet at Highrock.....as the empty town flooded.

Zombulian

2014-04-29, 11:58 AM

Can you think of a way that a character with a good alignment would become a Con Artist?
Mainly I'm looking at making a Bluff heavy character, and Nymph's kiss can help with that but I need to be good for it.
Though a good con artist sounds like a fun concept regardless, I just need to think of how that would actually work.

Side questions that relate to this:

1. Good ways to increase Bluff?
2. I'm thinking of grabbing an item familiar. What are good ways to make it almost impossible to lose the item?

One of my favorite PrC's of all time is the Charlatan. It's a class that uses bluff checks to pretend to cast spells and have people believe they're being affected by them. Now, you can still be a good person and complete quests for people and even be fairly effective, but you're doing it all by lying.

TuggyNE

2014-04-29, 08:34 PM

Ok, everyone agrees that a good con artist can:

Who is this "everyone" of whom you speak?

One is easy, if they are evil you can con them.

Maybe. I'd consider this Neutral, at best. You're not actually doing anything in particular to reduce the impact of evil, you're merely picking a target for your own benefit that is less undeserving of your attentions. (That is, at least you are not conning someone who's actively Good.)

Note that various D&D books clarify that not all Evil acts become Good when targeted against Evil: torture, for example. I believe the rationale for this is substantially the same as given above for conning.

Two...well....everyone ''hates'' the rich, right? And conning something from someone that they won't notice or miss is not bad.

Minor Evil. "Being rich" is not some sort of magical "stealing is totally OK" mark, it just means it hurts them less. As above, except that being rich isn't even as bad as being Evil. (It's not bad at all, in fact.)

Note that Robin Hood managed to get around this in two ways: first, he stole chiefly if not solely from those who'd gained their wealth unfairly, and second, he gave substantial amounts to those it had been taken from originally, though not the exact amounts and people involved. That in itself would really only be Neutral with good PR, but he also went around rescuing those unjustly imprisoned, so CG is attainable.

Three, greed is evil. No way around that. A good person should not be greedy. If someone really thinks your glass bead is a gem of great value, that your willing to sell for a couple coppers, then it is their own greed that is harming them, not you. It is just about impossible to defend greed as anything but an evil act.

And, of course, you the con artist are the one divinely appointed to recompense them for this sin. Chaotic Neutral, since it doesn't attempt to fix anything, just take advantage of someone's evil for one's own benefit in some sort of invisible "punishment". (Punishment without ever informing the punished of what they did wrong and how they have been punished is not actually any sort of true punishment at all.)

Four should be a no-brainier. If they cheat or con and wrongly take something, then it is alright for you to con it back. As long as you give back all that was taken.....but you can keep the left overs.

Probably Good, but how often do you get to con a fellow con artist? Keeping the leftovers is just Neutral. And if you can't figure out who lost money to them and so just keep it all, that's again Neutral on the whole, not Good.

Five. The greater good is tricky. Say some giants where going to break a dam at noon and flood the town. No one in town believes this will happen(''the dam is unbreakable!''). So the con artist comes up with a 'plague' to get everyone to flee town and meet at Highrock.....as the empty town flooded.

That works, assuming this con artist does not then rob the empty houses blind. Good.

However, without routinely performing Good acts as well as avoiding Evil acts, it's impossible to have or maintain a Good alignment, so just doing 1-3? That's a Neutral character fooling themselves into thinking they're Good. Pretty standard, really.

jedipotter

2014-04-30, 06:28 AM

Maybe. I'd consider this Neutral, at best. You're not actually doing anything in particular to reduce the impact of evil, you're merely picking a target for your own benefit that is less undeserving of your attentions. (That is, at least you are not conning someone who's actively Good.)

Note that various D&D books clarify that not all Evil acts become Good when targeted against Evil: torture, for example. I believe the rationale for this is substantially the same as given above for conning.

So killing and evil person or creature is all fine and good, but conning one is neutral? And keeping the loot from a dead evil foe is ok, but if you leave them alive and con them out of loot, that is not right?

Minor Evil. "Being rich" is not some sort of magical "stealing is totally OK" mark, it just means it hurts them less. As above, except that being rich isn't even as bad as being Evil. (It's not bad at all, in fact.)

As long as your doing your con for a good cause, a rich person is a great target....even better if they fall into another category.

And, of course, you the con artist are the one divinely appointed to recompense them for this sin. Chaotic Neutral, since it doesn't attempt to fix anything, just take advantage of someone's evil for one's own benefit in some sort of invisible "punishment". (Punishment without ever informing the punished of what they did wrong and how they have been punished is not actually any sort of true punishment at all.)

Well....every good person is 'divinely appointed' to judge and take actions. Otherwise they would not be good people. If someone does an evil act, sin or something against the law, a good person gets to judge them. Rosco is a thief, he steals all the time, but does not get caught.....and if comes into a good persons shop to sell anything, that good person can say ''I won't do business with you''.

Not every good person is a teacher and dispenser of ''punishment''.

Probably Good, but how often do you get to con a fellow con artist? Keeping the leftovers is just Neutral. And if you can't figure out who lost money to them and so just keep it all, that's again Neutral on the whole, not Good.

There are lots of con artists.... Though the returning the lost money gets a bit odd. Does the good adventurer have to return all the loot they get when they kill? Is it even possible to track down every person robbed by a group of bandits and figure out how much each one lost?

hamishspence

2014-04-30, 06:39 AM

"Killing" requires a lot of justifying factors to qualify as "Not-Murder" and/or "Not-Evil".

Shouldn't "defrauding" require similar factors?

nedz

2014-04-30, 06:47 AM

A baseline statement might be: Anyone whom it is acceptable for a good aligned character to kill can be conned instead.
This is good in the sense that it uses less force to achieve the same end.

prufock

2014-04-30, 07:14 AM

"Good" implies helping other people and self-sacrifice, and contradicts hurting others (except those who deserve it, 'cause it's D&D after all) and personal gain. So as long as your cons meet that description, you can be a good-aligned con man.

Possible good uses of cons:

The Robin Hood: Robs from the greedy, powerful, scrofulous rich folks to give to the poor. Makes him a bit of a folk hero.
The Comeuppance-Server: While he may also use his skills to help the poor, he's more concerned with giving villains their due.
The Socrates: Uses his cons to teach valuable lessons to good and evil folks alike. Doesn't do so with malice, and if he takes anything or messes anything up, he repays or fixes it in the end when the lesson is learned.
The Competitor: Uses his skills to detect other cons and out-con the con-man, saving much trouble for the unwary victims.

TuggyNE

2014-04-30, 07:52 AM

A baseline statement might be: Anyone whom it is acceptable for a good aligned character to kill can be conned instead.
This is good in the sense that it uses less force to achieve the same end.

That seems reasonable, until you realize that conning someone out of a fair chunk of resources almost never actually stops them from being evil, which is the presumed goal of any Good character who decides to kill them. It may, in some cases, slow the effects of their evil down, but it is not generally guaranteed to do so.

Obviously, if you have some specific con where you e.g. trick the BBEG out of the artifact they need for the fell ritual, that's OK, but just "this guy is bad, I'm going to con him out of 500 plat" is actually even less effective, as a general problem-solving technique, than murdering his face in. Which is pretty sad.

"Good" implies helping other people and self-sacrifice, and contradicts hurting others (except those who deserve it, 'cause it's D&D after all) and personal gain. So as long as your cons meet that description, you can be a good-aligned con man.

Possible good uses of cons:

The Robin Hood: Robs from the greedy, powerful, scrofulous rich folks to give to the poor. Makes him a bit of a folk hero.
The Comeuppance-Server: While he may also use his skills to help the poor, he's more concerned with giving villains their due.
The Socrates: Uses his cons to teach valuable lessons to good and evil folks alike. Doesn't do so with malice, and if he takes anything or messes anything up, he repays or fixes it in the end when the lesson is learned.
The Competitor: Uses his skills to detect other cons and out-con the con-man, saving much trouble for the unwary victims.

More or less, although note that serving comeuppance, unless it accomplishes something a little more useful than mere vengeance, is not Good, but Neutral.

I'm kind of tired of answering this particular line of argument, so I'm going to zero in on one chunk. OK, two chunks.

Well....every good person is 'divinely appointed' to judge and take actions. Otherwise they would not be good people. If someone does an evil act, sin or something against the law, a good person gets to judge them. Rosco is a thief, he steals all the time, but does not get caught.....and if comes into a good persons shop to sell anything, that good person can say ''I won't do business with you''.

Not every good person is a teacher and dispenser of ''punishment''.

I cannot rightly comprehend the confusion of mind that mingles "don't do business with (at own expense)" and "actively defraud (for own profit)" in the same category of "things to do if you consider X an immoral person". One is the right (however seldom exercised) of everyone, the other is violating another's rights.

There are lots of con artists.... Though the returning the lost money gets a bit odd. Does the good adventurer have to return all the loot they get when they kill? Is it even possible to track down every person robbed by a group of bandits and figure out how much each one lost?

Not without magic. However, if you don't make a pretty substantial effort to do so, and if you do nothing else of note that is Good, you certainly cannot consider yourself a Good con artist, because you aren't Good. You're just a con artist that is maybe not evil. Congrats.

For that matter, it is possible that, if you do nothing but con bandits and futilely try to return their loot to the original owners, you will still fall short of Good, because you aren't actually getting anything done. Some things just cannot be made to line up with Good, and being a con artist is a career choice unusually likely to exemplify that.

nedz

2014-04-30, 08:47 AM

That seems reasonable, until you realize that conning someone out of a fair chunk of resources almost never actually stops them from being evil, which is the presumed goal of any Good character who decides to kill them. It may, in some cases, slow the effects of their evil down, but it is not generally guaranteed to do so.

Obviously, if you have some specific con where you e.g. trick the BBEG out of the artifact they need for the fell ritual, that's OK, but just "this guy is bad, I'm going to con him out of 500 plat" is actually even less effective, as a general problem-solving technique, than murdering his face in. Which is pretty sad.

Well there are any number of possible scenarios whereby removing some resources from an Evil character would help slow them down, or even outright stop them achieving some goal. The rest of your argument is about effectiveness, which is not really relevant as to deciding whether an action is justifiably good — after all there may not be very much a relatively weak character can do to kill a BBEG, but weakening their power by stealing some resources, with which to do good perhaps, should count as trying to make a difference.

ThirtyThr33

2014-04-30, 09:48 AM

Has anyone mentioned that an under-cover law enforcer is practically a lawful good con-artist?

DrMike105

2014-04-30, 10:20 AM

There's always Face Man, from the A-Team. Con artist and a good guy. While he did escape from prison, it was for a crime he didn't commit. Basically an example of ThirtyThr33's point.

jedipotter

2014-04-30, 11:05 AM

A baseline statement might be: Anyone whom it is acceptable for a good aligned character to kill can be conned instead.
This is good in the sense that it uses less force to achieve the same end.

I'll agree with this. If a good person can kill them, then they can con them. Seems simple enough.

I cannot rightly comprehend the confusion of mind that mingles "don't do business with (at own expense)" and "actively defraud (for own profit)" in the same category of "things to do if you consider X an immoral person". One is the right (however seldom exercised) of everyone, the other is violating another's rights.

You keep making the con artist out to be selfish and out for their own profit. That would be an evil con artist....the one that tricks little old ladies into buying worthless swamp land. A good con artist will use he ''profit'' for good, and that is a good thing. The good adventurer even more. So when the good con artist cons the alchemist out of some potions, and then uses the potions to fight evil, that is good. As long as that alchemist is a valid target to kill, then you can con him.

You sure put a lot of burdens and restrictions on good. Do you apply this to all good people, or just con artists? Does every good adventurer that kills a bandit have to return all of the stolen loot? Does every good adventurer have to ''punish'' others and ''teach them a lesson''?

Keep in mind the D&D time too. There is not much Law and Order. And the reach of ''man's law'' does not go to far out side the towns edge. So your average good person adventurer is judge, jury and executioner.

Talya

2014-04-30, 01:51 PM

Respect for some concept of "rights" isn't part of the D&D alignment system. Respect for legal rights might be part of the law/chaos axis, depending on several factors, but some nebulous metaphysical concept of inherent rights is irrelevant to both good/evil and law/chaos.

Cikomyr

2014-04-30, 02:55 PM

Ever heard of the TV Series and the movie "The Saint"? That's a textbook definition of a well made "good" con artist.

Doesn't meant you are necessary a stable or a trustworthy person. More often than not, you end up screwing and manipulating everyone around you. But you always strive to make sure the innocents and the worthies end up ahead, while the wicked and the cheaters gets cheated.

I made 2 characters of the kind. One was a Warlock (Beguiling Influence, Spider-walk and Hat of Disguise FTW), while the other was a Beguiler. In either cases, I always travelled under an assumed identity. I had lots and lots of alternate personalities/identities to fall back to in case of problems, made sure I had perfect skills in observation/sense motives in order to detect tales in my marks.

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTgwMzg0NTg2OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTc5ODAyMQ@@._ V1_SY317_CR3,0,214,317_AL_.jpg

CarpeGuitarrem

2014-04-30, 03:04 PM

But the OP was also asking about Nymph's Kiss. And Nymph's Kiss is an Exalted feat. And being "not Evil" isn't enough. Heck, being "pretty okay" isn't enough, either. Exalted means super-Good. Ultra-Good. Gooder than Good. Exalted borders on stupidly, absurdly, self-cripplingly Good.

Good people can lie. Good people can cheat. Good people do that sort of thing on an almost daily basis. It's a much bigger deal for an Exalted person.

You don't have to lie or cheat to deceive someone, technically. It's all in how you present a situation. Bluffing can totally subsist on telling the truth in a particular fashion.

TuggyNE

2014-04-30, 06:30 PM

Well there are any number of possible scenarios whereby removing some resources from an Evil character would help slow them down, or even outright stop them achieving some goal. The rest of your argument is about effectiveness, which is not really relevant as to deciding whether an action is justifiably good — after all there may not be very much a relatively weak character can do to kill a BBEG, but weakening their power by stealing some resources, with which to do good perhaps, should count as trying to make a difference.

If the action is a) ineffective at achieving its notional good ends and b) effective at achieving some non-good (and self-interested) ends, it is worth seriously considering whether it is just delusional self-justification.

You keep making the con artist out to be selfish and out for their own profit. That would be an evil con artist....the one that tricks little old ladies into buying worthless swamp land.

Also known as a standard con artist, yes. Any departure from the norm of con artists should be marked if your argument depends on it, because otherwise your argument fails when anyone else who does not share your implicit assumptions considers it.

You sure put a lot of burdens and restrictions on good. Do you apply this to all good people, or just con artists?

All Good adventurers, yes. Why wouldn't I do so consistently?

Does every good adventurer that kills a bandit have to return all of the stolen loot?

Not necessarily, but I do expect them to realize that failure to do so is non-Good; if their actions are characterized by such, they will eventually slip into Neutral.

And I think it should be fairly clear that attempting to justify the concept of a Good-aligned X by listing only things they can do that are not really Evil but are certainly not Good either is rather futile; active Good is needed to have or maintain the alignment.

Does every good adventurer have to ''punish'' others and ''teach them a lesson''?

Non-sequitur. Of course they don't. Indeed, to rephrase earlier responses to this same curious notion, such is not sufficient to be Good; not only is it not required, it won't even help unless it's done the right way. Punishment can easily be Evil.