rogue pocketing loot

[khachaturian]

i'm sure this has come up in other campaigns, but has anyone else had the experience of a rogue in the party pocketing loot on the sly and not wanting to include it when it comes to splitting up shares? the two arguments that come up, are

1. it's what my character would do
2. it was my extra-special stealthy talent that allowed me to pick this up.

this strikes me as being especially galling when he really doesn't contribute much in the first place. his actions in combat are usually hiding and fiddling around with something remote from the fight, or joining the fight and being relatively ineffective. one could argue that wbl is the only way for him to contribute, but he has rubbish for umd, and doesn't seem to want to use consumables. any suggestions?

[Studoku]

Catch him, take the loot back and kick him from the party since you're not going to let someone you can't trust have your back in life or death adventuring situations. Say it's what your character would do.

[jiriku]

Yeah. Common problem. You will probably get a lot of complicated advice and suggestions for dramatic in-game tactics on this topic. I would suggest that there's no need for such things. This is an issue to be settled out of character. All players should sit down and agree how they want loot to be distributed. Everyone agrees, or no one games. Once the agreement is made, stick to it. That's all that's needed.

[Bloodgruve]

He's being greedy. Either it stops or you kick him from the party. If he wants extra loot he and the DM can have some private sessions for him to go burgling.

TBH, your group as a whole should setup an out of game and in game charter stating how loot is dealt with and how decisions are made. It will save your game if people agree on it. We recently had some in game/out of game drama which may tear the group apart and it was due to people taking actions without regards to the groups decision which spilled over to the people sitting around the table. I'm sure he's just exercising his characters ability because its fun.

IMHO
Blood~

[Red Fel]

This is an issue to be settled out of character.

This, so much.

Whether your party has a standing agreement as to loot division or not, the stereotypical "I'm a wacky rogue, look at me, I'm in your party, stealing your loot," isn't an acceptable choice. Ever.*

That said, settling out-of-character problems with in-character resolutions rarely ends well, and will likely cause more hurt than fix. The better choice is to take the player aside, and inform them that (1) their play style is not entertaining or appreciated, and (2) it is disruptive. If they persist, advise them that (3) their PC is outnumbered, and if necessary, (4) they can be asked to leave the table. The latter two options, particularly the last, are more in the vein of "ultimate solutions," and generally only to be applied where all else fails. But keep in mind that they are options.

* Except in instances where (1) PVP is expected, accepted or encouraged, or (2) the player wholly anticipates, or desires, negative consequences for his character. In both cases, an out-of-character understanding is still mandated.

[Lightlawbliss]

stupid rogue, stealing is for wimps. Claiming npc possessions the party can't even look at without help is for pros.

[SowZ]

I don't have a problem with it. I've been on all three sides of this, (rogue, non-rogue, and DM.) I was once kicked out of the base permanently and a close eye was kept on me during missions when they found out about it. And the outside world was dangerous and full of monsters. Out of game, I didn't complain at all because them's the breaks. As a DM, only put a limited amount of the treasure in a place where the rogue can just pocket it. I don't think I ever ended up with more than 10-15% greater a cut than anyone else because the DM was reasonable with loot placement. Except in our star wars 1-2 shots. Anything goes in those. Also, make sure the DM is giving him ample opportunity to excercise his pick-pocketing skills. If he steals money from a building/NPC that the rest of the party wasn't going to get anyway, he should keep it. As a DM, I would consider incentivising more cooperative play by promising more opportunities for thievery if he toned it back. Further, stealing from another player directly is so obviously PvP that no one should be mad if you respond with lethal damage. If the rogue fights back, you have no need to back down, keep going. He might die. I wouldn't kill a rogue for taking more cut of the loot, (and haven't in the past,) but I would from picking my pocket. As a non-rogue player, make sure the rogue realizes all this. "I'm a wacky rogue, this is my character," is only a valid excuse if, "I'm a raging Barbarian, I'm beating the living crap out of you because that's my character." is an equally valid excuse.

Alternatively, if you are a game that plays with heavy gentleman's agreements, hash it out OOC and come to a compromise. Something like stealing 5-10% more of a cut so that he feels like he is being true to his character, but holding back and not taking anything truly valuable, is something that a reasonable party should be able to live with.

[Gnaeus]

Alternately, when your wizard and cleric hit the point that they are crafting the magic items that the party need to be awesome, charge the fighter 50%, charge each other 50%, and the rogue 95%. Explain that out of game, you are helping out the fighter for balance reasons, but since the rogue wants to play with the big boys, he should be happy with his 5% discount. Or in character, explain that you give each other a discount because you each have a crafting feat, and you give the fighter a discount because you really like him, but you don't like the rogue that much and he isn't contributing, so he can pay with a markup.

Good luck stealing enough to catch up with people getting gear at half price.

[Jowgen]

My two cents:

An Out-of-Character approach is the most efficient solution to this common problem, since the rogue has the luxury of maxing out his stealthyness in a way that is nigh impossible for most other characters to match without considerable investment of resources that they should rightfully be able to invest elsewhere.

Any in-game solution would -in my opinion- need to involve the DM, as it is mostly his responsibility to ensure that the game is not ruined by abuseable elements (e.g. Diplomancers). If you're not keen to approach the problem out of game, and either you or the DM aren't comfortable with depriving the rogue of a portion of his character concept by nerfing his thieving abilities, then I think the next best option is for the DM to level the playingfield in some other way.

One minor fix I found to work when DMing parties featuring sticky-fingered individuals was to make sure to give rewards in a way that allowed everyone to get an idea of what rewards there were to be had before any thieving could occur. It is much harder for a rogue to get away with lifting the magical amulet of the BBEG when everyone saw it on him during combat, swipe one of 14 bags of gold if everyone saw them lying openly on the evil altar, or pocket a big shiny ruby if it needs to be carved from the eye-socket of a dragon statue first. With this, it's still possible for the rogue to try and do his thieving stick, but it requires more effort (e.g. cleverly distracting/bluffing the party) and carries more risk. If your DM does go for this, hopefully the rogue will enjoy the challange and people won't resent him if he does manage to get an extra piece.

In either case, I'd advise talking to the player to make sure he understands why things are changing.

[Dalebert]

Detect Thoughts on the rogue and say "That's what my character would do." Because it probably is.

Even when I'm playing an evil character in a basically good party, I have a general policy to not poop where I eat. It's just too risky when you're going to be spending a lot of time with those people. The rogue is being an idiot.

[MrBright01]

1) Try to solve OOC. Best, easiest, most polite, and if the rogue as a player is worth keeping around, this should solve it. If not, it's fun time.

2) If that does not work, talk to DM. Privately.

3) Suggest a Bag of Devouring in a good place for a theft.

4) If DM agrees, laugh when it happens.

5) Argue a one handed rogue with already questionable combat ability and an obvious inclination to steal at will is a poor asset to the party, and decline to donate towards the Regeneration costs, if not flat out booting that character.

Apologies if it seems cruel, but before you snap at me, remember, option 1 is the best

[Thiyr]

I've had the experience of this. In part because I was the one doing it.

Now, before the torches and pitchforks come out, I did it because I trust our group, and its kinda expected from certain character archetypes (personality wise, not mechanically speaking). We don't do a ton of PvP, but we leave table at table, and it wasn't, like, "One share for you, one for you, and fifty seven for me!". More often, it was either the spare change (who cares about someone pocketing spare copper when the shares are 100s of platinum?), or at most shaving 10-100gp (depending on what the original amount was, never enough to make it obvious ) off each person and adding it to my share. Either nobody noticed/cared, or if i mentioned it/they figured it out, it was generally a "yea, that makes sense, i'm down". Like that time i beheaded a party member for the bounty on his head (they wanted their shares to res him. I wanted my money, couldn't stand the character IC, even if i had other reasons to stick around. They could still afford their res, and I had a bit more to play around with.)

But I would never try to play that game with a group i've not played with before. It's something I know we're all gonna be cool with, but if its people i know won't be, you just don't do that. Its rude.


Takeaways from my experience to help your situation? As others have said, talk to him out of game. Let him know you don't much enjoy that, and let him know what consequences will occur if he keeps it up. From there, stick to your guns. He tries to skim off the top again? Follow through on what you said.

[NecessaryWeevil]

I notice the complaint in the OP that the rogue doesn't do much in combat and is ineffective when he tries. Perhaps his sticky-fingeredness is a desire to do something interesting, or a desire to get rich enough to become relevant. Perhaps if the party/DM addresses this problem, the irritating symptoms will go away.

[Chronos]

Every party, no matter the classes, alignments, or personalities that make it up, needs some reason to stay together. They don't necessarily have to like each other, but they have to be willing to work as a team. For your standard goodie-two-shoes, this is easy: They work together because they all want to save the world and foil the villain and rescue the princess and so on. If that's not your goal, you can still make it work, but you have to put more effort into it, because teamwork has to happen.

Meanwhile, his contributions or lack thereof in combat are an entirely separate issue. If he's not contributing much in combat, that just means that he's playing a rogue like they were intended, without trying to force it to be something it's not. Rogues are supposed to contribute primarily out of combat. If he's not getting enough opportunities to do so, then that's something that he needs to talk to the DM about.

[icefractal]

If he's not contributing much in combat, that just means that he's playing a rogue like they were intended, without trying to force it to be something it's not. Rogues are supposed to contribute primarily out of combat.Depends entirely on the edition. In 3E and forward, Rogues ...
1) Are fully capable in combat.
2) Don't have any monopoly on out of combat.

[Chronos]

They're "fully capable" in combat in the sense that they can contribute, but what they can do out of combat is far greater than what they can do in combat. If, by the time you roll initiative, the BBEG is naked and unarmed, the rogue has done his job well.

And I never claimed that they were the only ones who could contribute out of combat. Spellcasters can contribute a great deal both in and out of combat. But that's a balance issue with spellcasters, not with rogues.

[Vogonjeltz]

i'm sure this has come up in other campaigns, but has anyone else had the experience of a rogue in the party pocketing loot on the sly and not wanting to include it when it comes to splitting up shares? the two arguments that come up, are

1. it's what my character would do
2. it was my extra-special stealthy talent that allowed me to pick this up.

this strikes me as being especially galling when he really doesn't contribute much in the first place. his actions in combat are usually hiding and fiddling around with something remote from the fight, or joining the fight and being relatively ineffective. one could argue that wbl is the only way for him to contribute, but he has rubbish for umd, and doesn't seem to want to use consumables. any suggestions?

I've done it and seen it done. It's really personality dependent of the character.

If you're not encountering life ending traps, the rogue can seem less useful than they are.

[Erik Vale]

A good way to solve it IC is to take appraise checks on each others gear between adventures, such as when doing regular maintenence while camping in the middle of no where. It's not a trained only skill, and when you consistently see him getting more and more treasure, you have an IC reason to watch him/ask to check his pockets, which makes things that much harder for him to steal large amounts of loot.

[HockeyPokeyBard]

I've had experience watching this happen in parties. It's even happened to me as a DM. All the suggestions have been valid so far, but you've got to remember. If he's actively skimming more than a fair share from the party, he's a bum-head. End of story.

The excuse "it's what my character would do" is bull. I've PK'd before using that excuse and even I regret it looking back. Fanatical RPing at the expense of the party is stupid and in no way productive.

So without further ado, here are my 2 cents
1 - OOC, talk to him. Explain he's being a bum-head. Ask him to quit it. This is the best way but sometimes, like in my case, they could just ignore you and continue doing it.

2a - as players, if you know it's happening, don't go like for like by killing him in the name of Roleplaying. Just remove him from the party. Teach him why the no.1 rule is "don't split the party". And be ready with some form of binding deal when he comes grovelling back.

2b - as players, if you don't know about it, remember that metagaming is just as annoying. So ask questions about where he got his awesome new gear from, how he afforded that dagger, etc etc. Then resort to booting him or skinning him or whaterver. See 2a.

3 - as a DM, give him some wholely un-rogue challenges between him and treasure. Like the chest is really a mimic. Or have the treasure somewhere at least two characters are needed to get it, if not the whole party.

[facelessminion]

The primary question for whenever someone is stealing from the party: Are they going to OOCly throw a fit when their character is inevitably pummeled unconscious, has all their loot and gear taken, and is left in a ditch somewhere?

[Hazrond]

The primary question for whenever someone is stealing from the party: Are they going to OOCly throw a fit when their character is inevitably pummeled unconscious, has all their loot and gear taken, and is left in a ditch somewhere?

Now here is where i see the problem, everybody seems to be extremists when these discussions come up, you have one side saying "KILL HIM, ROB HIM, LEAVE HIM TO DIE" and then the other side saying "Either handle it OOC or dont invite people like this to your group" why cant there be a middle inbetween? i personally would say that you should give the party a chance to see it happen, but then remind them that stealing is by no means a capital offense, the paladin WILL fall if he cuts off his head or takes his things (his ACTUAL posessions, not what they just saw him steal) because that is an evil act, tell them that fighting evil with more evil is probably not the best way to handle things and if they have a good character in the party then tell them that the GOOD thing to do is punish him (proportionally, dont chop his head off for trying to pocket a ring) take the item he stole and then continue on with the warning that if they catch him doing it again, worse will be in store

Edit: of course you probably shouldnt do this directly unless somebody has a phylactery of faithfulness or something, but try to hint at it

[Hazrond]

I've had experience watching this happen in parties. It's even happened to me as a DM. All the suggestions have been valid so far, but you've got to remember. If he's actively skimming more than a fair share from the party, he's a bum-head. End of story.

The excuse "it's what my character would do" is bull. I've PK'd before using that excuse and even I regret it looking back. Fanatical RPing at the expense of the party is stupid and in no way productive.

So without further ado, here are my 2 cents
1 - OOC, talk to him. Explain he's being a bum-head. Ask him to quit it. This is the best way but sometimes, like in my case, they could just ignore you and continue doing it.

2a - as players, if you know it's happening, don't go like for like by killing him in the name of Roleplaying. Just remove him from the party. Teach him why the no.1 rule is "don't split the party". And be ready with some form of binding deal when he comes grovelling back.

2b - as players, if you don't know about it, remember that metagaming is just as annoying. So ask questions about where he got his awesome new gear from, how he afforded that dagger, etc etc. Then resort to booting him or skinning him or whaterver. See 2a.

3 - as a DM, give him some wholely un-rogue challenges between him and treasure. Like the chest is really a mimic. Or have the treasure somewhere at least two characters are needed to get it, if not the whole party.

I like alot of these ideas minus the whole "skin him" part:smallsmile:

[SowZ]

I've had experience watching this happen in parties. It's even happened to me as a DM. All the suggestions have been valid so far, but you've got to remember. If he's actively skimming more than a fair share from the party, he's a bum-head. End of story.

The excuse "it's what my character would do" is bull. I've PK'd before using that excuse and even I regret it looking back. Fanatical RPing at the expense of the party is stupid and in no way productive.

So without further ado, here are my 2 cents
1 - OOC, talk to him. Explain he's being a bum-head. Ask him to quit it. This is the best way but sometimes, like in my case, they could just ignore you and continue doing it.

2a - as players, if you know it's happening, don't go like for like by killing him in the name of Roleplaying. Just remove him from the party. Teach him why the no.1 rule is "don't split the party". And be ready with some form of binding deal when he comes grovelling back.

2b - as players, if you don't know about it, remember that metagaming is just as annoying. So ask questions about where he got his awesome new gear from, how he afforded that dagger, etc etc. Then resort to booting him or skinning him or whaterver. See 2a.

3 - as a DM, give him some wholely un-rogue challenges between him and treasure. Like the chest is really a mimic. Or have the treasure somewhere at least two characters are needed to get it, if not the whole party.

This completely depends on the group. When I DM games, I expect each player to have their own motivations and goals that they only reveal to other players if they have a reason to. Working together to achieve their individual goals generally benefits each player, but there's always a slight sense of paranoia among my people.

I remember a D&D game where the rogue did just as you said. It wasn't a problem, since it ended up balancing out in the end. I run fairly neutral worlds, let cards play as they lie, etc. etc. But I'll tweak things. I just tweaked the value of drops where the other players got better 'drops,' if you will. The rogue can do his shtick, but everyone plays on the same field. Before you say that would result in going over WBL, this was a group punching way above their weight class. I think they were level three when they defeated, (not killed,) the fourth highest caster in the setting, (level 10.) He wasn't prepared for them, of course, but still. They frequently went for 10 CR+, though, so they had well above WBL. Because of this, the 'give everyone else better stuff to compensate' might not work for other DMs who stick to WBL. If you're like me, though, it works.

On the issue of Party Killing, it isn't always bad. The last long campaign I ran, (year plus, and everyone still talks about how epic it was/missing it years later,) had four-party kills and the BBEGB was the former party leader. They killed him, too, but I don't count that as a PK since the player forfeited control at the end of the session he became a villain.

My last game as a player was A Song of Ice and Fire by Green Ronin, where betrayal is basically a given.

[Curmudgeon]

Well, if this Rogue is pocketing loot because they're getting there first by doing all the work of disabling/bypassing the traps protecting the treasure, they're not doing anything egregious. If the Rogue is looting bodies while other party members are in combat, they're just a parasite. Context matters. Whatever the actual situation is, deal with in-game problems in the game. Don't tell people how they're "supposed" to play their characters. If the other PCs don't know the Rogue is picking up loot on the sly, there's no known problem and consequently nothing to do.

[Hazrond]

...Don't tell people how they're "supposed" to play their characters...

I totally agree, im just saying if this comes up the DM should probably tell them that ___ is evil and ___ is good, especially if there is a paladin or someone around, its their choice they should make it informed is what i am meaning :smallamused:

[Hazrond]

My last game as a player was A Song of Ice and Fire by Green Ronin, where betrayal is basically a given.

Wait, are you telling me that game of thrones is essentially televised D&D? omg i am laughing so hard right now

Edit: A Song of Ice and Fire is the name of the Game of Thrones books isnt it? i could have sworn it was...

[SowZ]

Wait, are you telling me that game of thrones is essentially televised D&D? omg i am laughing so hard right now

Edit: A Song of Ice and Fire is the name of the Game of Thrones books isnt it? i could have sworn it was...

Other way around, A Song of Ice and Fire is an RPG based upon the novel series. As for the book question, yeah. Game of Thrones is the name of one of the books in the A Song of Ice and Fire series.

[HockeyPokeyBard]

@ SowZ

I understand what you're getting at with the handing out of different "drops". I too frequently have characters destroying encounters well above their intended CR. I've got no problem skewing the WBL guidelines. The main problem I come across is that most of the time, treasure doesn't just drop off a monster like in an MMO. I find it breaks the suspension of belief if a Lizardfolk is carrying around a priceless portrait, a few sheep and a couple of hundred gold coins, all the while fighting party members and gods knows what else. So I find it challenging to adjust "drops" unless, as I said, you force the players to work together to acquire the treasure, usually stashed somewhere close by.

I'm fine with rogues doing their thing, and I do very much dislike telling players how to play their characters. But if a player makes a character that isn't contributing in a meaningful way (In this case it would appear to be combat), and is routinely damaging party interests, they need to be spoken to. D&D is a social game.

On the subject of PKing, I have no problem with it, if it's done for a reason or all other actions have been exhausted. I've killed a fair few characters in my time playing. Simply killing someone because it's "what their character would do" though, is a bum-head move. It damages party cohesion, since new social ties need to be formed with the new character, slows the narrative pace of the game, and can mess with DM plans. I've just grown to dislike needless player killing.

@ Hazrond, I just threw in the skinning part to see if anyone was paying attention.

[facelessminion]

the paladin WILL fall if he cuts off his head or takes his things (his ACTUAL posessions, not what they just saw him steal) because that is an evil act, tell them that fighting evil with more evil is probably not the best way to handle things and if they have a good character in the party then tell them that the GOOD thing to do is punish him (proportionally, dont chop his head off for trying to pocket a ring) take the item he stole and then continue on with the warning that if they catch him doing it again, worse will be in store

Edit: of course you probably shouldnt do this directly unless somebody has a phylactery of faithfulness or something, but try to hint at it


That's why you don't kill them, just subdue them. As for looting their unconscious body, Paladins in adventuring parties condone that all the time when dealing with bandits, and that's all that the character is!

Is this the ideal situation? Heck no. I'd say the ideal situation is that, if the person has a strong desire to be pernicious, the GM allows them to knock out profession checks to represent their criminal leanings while not actually harming the other party members.

[facelessminion]

Well, if this Rogue is pocketing loot because they're getting there first by doing all the work of disabling/bypassing the traps protecting the treasure, they're not doing anything egregious.

Of course it's egregious. Otherwise, other party members should be yanking a slice of the treasure for killing foes, mages should haggle their prices for buffs, and the rogue shouldn't get healing without donating to the party healer.

[Hazrond]

That's why you don't kill them, just subdue them. As for looting their unconscious body, Paladins in adventuring parties condone that all the time when dealing with bandits, and that's all that the character is!

Is this the ideal situation? Heck no. I'd say the ideal situation is that, if the person has a strong desire to be pernicious, the GM allows them to knock out profession checks to represent their criminal leanings while not actually harming the other party members.

As for looting their unconscious body that would definitely be stealing, paladin falls (if they are looting stuff that actually belongs to the rogue obviously). I havent ever personally run into a situation where a paladin looted unconscious bandits but that would still be stealing, no matter if the bandits were bad or not

[facelessminion]

As for looting their unconscious body that would definitely be stealing, paladin falls (if they are looting stuff that actually belongs to the rogue obviously). I havent ever personally run into a situation where a paladin looted unconscious bandits but that would still be stealing, no matter if the bandits were bad or not

So what is it when you loot corpses?

[Hazrond]

So what is it when you loot corpses?

its picking up now unowned items, the people are dead and the dead dont own anything

Edit: funny how the D&D rules think better of looting the dead than they do of knocking a guy out and takings his watch :smalltongue:

[facelessminion]

its picking up now unowned items, the people are dead and the dead dont own anything

Edit: funny how the D&D rules think better of looting the dead than they do of knocking a guy out and takings his watch :smalltongue:

So now we're back to murdering a bandit and taking their unowned items, which is the fate of most bandits, I suppose.

[Hazrond]

So now we're back to murdering a bandit and taking their unowned items, which is the fate of most bandits, I suppose.

Well if this assumed paladin murdered his rogue party member that would be two things, 1. EXTREME overreaction unless he stole something like an artifact 2. he would fall due to killing what is likely a nonevil character (most rogue PCs are CN which would mean killing him is evil, instafall)

[HockeyPokeyBard]

funny how the D&D rules think better of looting the dead than they do of knocking a guy out and takings his watch :smalltongue:

It's not looting. It's re-purposing. Like cleaning the rust off a blade. No point leaving useful items lying around. If anything, you're being evil by littering and polluting. If the poor mug is still alive though, that's a different story. He's still alive to enjoy his stuff. Better that you knock him out face-down in a puddle of water...

[jiriku]

Whatever the actual situation is, deal with in-game problems in the game. Don't tell people how they're "supposed" to play their characters.

Now, Mudge, I generally agree with most everything you say, but I have trouble getting behind this idea. There's a human being here, out of the game, who says he's got a problem. That doesn't look like an in-game problem to me. "We accidently summoned Orcus" is an in-game problem. "You're having fun at my expense" is not.


Now here is where i see the problem, everybody seems to be extremists when these discussions come up, you have one side saying "KILL HIM, ROB HIM, LEAVE HIM TO DIE" and then the other side saying "Either handle it OOC or dont invite people like this to your group" why cant there be a middle inbetween?

Three reasons:
1. If the OP preferred to initiate PC-on-PC conflict, I don't think he'd be asking us for advice here. Likewise, I'm not getting a vibe from him that say "Oh, one of the other characters is stealing from my character! What a great roleplaying opportunity!" It seems more like he's uncomfortable with the situation and wants it dealt with and done.
2. In-game, a "realistic" solution to finding that one of your close associates is robbing you would be to make him your former associate. Continuing to hang out with someone who steals from you -- who does that? Not anyone wise. I view ejecting a PC from the party as a drastic solution, and the offending player could reasonably feel upset and respond "If it was a problem, why didn't you talk to me about it first?"
3. The player in question is behaving in a selfish way and increasing his enjoyment at the expense of his friends. If no one has "the talk" with him, he may not pick up on the idea that his friends want him to show them a little more respect. His next PC could be just as problematic. And the one after. Pointing out the elephant in the room ensures that, at a minimum, he's going to hear how other people feel about what he's doing.

[SowZ]

@ SowZ

I understand what you're getting at with the handing out of different "drops". I too frequently have characters destroying encounters well above their intended CR. I've got no problem skewing the WBL guidelines. The main problem I come across is that most of the time, treasure doesn't just drop off a monster like in an MMO. I find it breaks the suspension of belief if a Lizardfolk is carrying around a priceless portrait, a few sheep and a couple of hundred gold coins, all the while fighting party members and gods knows what else. So I find it challenging to adjust "drops" unless, as I said, you force the players to work together to acquire the treasure, usually stashed somewhere close by.

I'm fine with rogues doing their thing, and I do very much dislike telling players how to play their characters. But if a player makes a character that isn't contributing in a meaningful way (In this case it would appear to be combat), and is routinely damaging party interests, they need to be spoken to. D&D is a social game.

On the subject of PKing, I have no problem with it, if it's done for a reason or all other actions have been exhausted. I've killed a fair few characters in my time playing. Simply killing someone because it's "what their character would do" though, is a bum-head move. It damages party cohesion, since new social ties need to be formed with the new character, slows the narrative pace of the game, and can mess with DM plans. I've just grown to dislike needless player killing.

@ Hazrond, I just threw in the skinning part to see if anyone was paying attention.

See, the one thing you have the most control over is quest rewards. When I noticed that everyone had more gold than the ranger, for example. The party was defending an elvish town from invasion and the Elves gave the party magic gear as a preliminary reward. The Ranger's bow was worth a lot more than the other items.

Quest rewards man, quest rewards.

[HockeyPokeyBard]

See, the one thing you have the most control over is quest rewards. When I noticed that everyone had more gold than the ranger, for example. The party was defending an elvish town from invasion and the Elves gave the party magic gear as a preliminary reward. The Ranger's bow was worth a lot more than the other items.

Quest rewards man, quest rewards.

Very good point. I hadn't thought of that. But then there's the problem of perceived fairness, which is infinitely more important than actual fairness. In the end, it's easier to snip the bud in the root, as it were. In my opinion at least.

[Lightlawbliss]

The solution I have found makes everyone happiest is if the rogue steals stuff and sells it to the party at a discount. the groups I'm in tend to consider it effectively crafting it.

[SowZ]

Very good point. I hadn't thought of that. But then there's the problem of perceived fairness, which is infinitely more important than actual fairness. In the end, it's easier to snip the bud in the root, as it were. In my opinion at least.

Sure, and if anyone had complained I would have come up with a fluff reason, (elves are traditionally archers so they spend more care on their bows,) followed by the real reason. You guys haven't been splitting treasure fairly and he's a nice enough guy not to say anything and he is way, way behind. So yeah, I'm giving him a +1 Splitting Force Longbow.

No one said anything. I actually ended up giving him 100,000k worth of loot that session at level 4 which gives you an idea of how far behind he was and probably why little was said. (Yes, they were absurdly overgeared. No, I'm not a Monty Haul DM. A reputation as a killer DM, really, though I'm not sure it is entirely deserved. But when your party is taking on encounters four times their CR, there total wealth is going to reflect that.)

[paperarmor]

As a DM I like to set up a scenario that the rogue ends up naked in a cold breeze due to a slieght of hand check from good old ollie, being the patron of thieves I'm sure he doesn't cotton them being so stupid. (Only if the problem has to be solved in game which sometimes it does.) As a player it depends I love playing "Rogues" but I have rules for myself that I like to follow. If I'm not the "Rogue" for some odd reason then anyone who pulls that on one of my characters is getting the same treatment if it's healing, a buff a potion etc. Again, I only act in character when ooc doesn't resolve things as people can be remarkably stubborn.

[Curmudgeon]

Of course it's egregious. Otherwise, other party members should be yanking a slice of the treasure for killing foes ...
Those things are not equivalent.
egregious
-adjective

1. extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant: an egregious mistake; an egregious liar. Synonyms: gross, outrageous, notorious, shocking. Antonyms: tolerable, moderate, minor, unnoticeable. You're talking about issues of relative fairness. I was talking about egregious behavior: issues of gross violations of conduct, worth killing someone for. Do you think a spellcaster should be killed for failing to provide the buff another PC wants? Dungeon Master's Guide says this on page 37:
Only characters who take part in an encounter should gain the commensurate awards. You can read this as the other party members get all the XP for killing foes if the Rogue doesn't participate in combat (one encounter), and the Rogue gets all the treasure if they do all the work of getting through the traps protecting it (another encounter or series of encounters). (In practice, things are rarely so clear-cut.) Thus skimming just some of the loot isn't beyond what's provided for in the game rules, even if that's not conduct you consider "fair".

[DevilsAttorney]

Part of the game. If you don't like it, ASSUMING YOUR CHARACTERS NOTICE IN GAME, find a way to let him know (almost let his character die or something like that). It adds another dimension to your roleplay as a team.

[MrBright01]

i personally would say that you should give the party a chance to see it happen, but then remind them that stealing is by no means a capital offense, the paladin WILL fall if he cuts off his head ...

I cheerfully point out that, in many societies, especially pre-industrial-era societies, theft was a capital offense, or at the very least, cost the thief a hand, and it was considered justice. Naturally, if the pally is worshiping a neutral good deity, no dice, but lawful good... Well. Just saying ^_^

That said, I also point out that many of the posters suggested OOC conversation as a first line of defense, and only then offered in game solutions. You cannot "reward" your way out of the situation, from my point of view, so if it really is a party detriment, and OOC conversation is not sufficient, you can only use negative reinforcement to train the rogue to at least think twice before sticking his precious hand in the cookie jar of hand ripping goodness.

[Hazrond]

I cheerfully point out that, in many societies, especially pre-industrial-era societies, theft was a capital offense, or at the very least, cost the thief a hand, and it was considered justice. Naturally, if the pally is worshiping a neutral good deity, no dice, but lawful good... Well.

Stop there. Lawful Good is still GOOD, that would be at the very least Lawful Neutral, Killing for no REAL reason is an evil act, the rogue may have grabbed those fancy gauntlets but that does NOT make him this "Bandit" that everybody describes him as and you know why? Because the rogue isnt some highwayman killing people for gold, he is a valued ally who fights in self defense or in anticipation against creatures that sometimes live for no other reason than to destroy, hate, and kill. Think of how many times this rogue has probably saved your life without you realizing it, how many times that you survived that fight with only a small handful of hit points that you wouldnt have had if the rogue hadnt risked his life finding and disarming that pit trap, think of how many times in his searching he found that secret door that led you deeper into the dungeon, possibly even circumventing monsters that would have otherwise drained your resources, think of all the things that rogue has done for you and the rest of the party and ask your self, does he really deserve to die over something so trivial as a few items? you could always take the items from the rogue and distribute them fairly without over-reacting and possibly costing yours and everybody elses lives because the rogue wasn't there to warn you about that tile that would bring the walls crushing in, do you really want to take that chance and brand yourself as a monster for killing over something so trivial as a few trinkets?

TL;DR dont kill the rogue over items, you have no idea when it can come back to bite you

[Heliomance]

There is a way to do this well. Campaign I've recently finished, we had a Changeling social-focused Binder. Okay, not a rogue, but quite rogue-like in outlook. He didn't steal from the party. What he did instead was appoint himself our broker, sell all the loot we had no use for, use his ludicrous diplomacy to get better prices, and pocket the excess. We all got the same amount of money we would have if we'd sold it ourselves, and he got a bonus.

[Erik Vale]

-snip-


Let's pick this apart.
-He's worse than a bandit killing people on the road, he goes into peoples [monsters] homes and kills them to take their stuff. That's worse... At least in my opinion.
-The rogue hasn't saved lives, the OP stated the rogue is more or less useless in combat, and only steals stuff out of combat. He's not a valued ally. He's instead a liability, you can't depend on him, and you're weaker because he's actively stealing from you [as an extension from stealing from the party]
-The rogue needs to save himself as well, which requires him to tell you not to step on the pressure plate of doomy doomness.

Hmmm... Yea, I'd accept cutting off one of his hands as a minimum IC appropriate [for time period] response.

[Hazrond]

Let's pick this apart.
-He's worse than a bandit killing people on the road, he goes into peoples [monsters] homes and kills them to take their stuff. That's worse... At least in my opinion.
-The rogue hasn't saved lives, the OP stated the rogue is more or less useless in combat, and only steals stuff out of combat. He's not a valued ally. He's instead a liability, you can't depend on him, and you're weaker because he's actively stealing from you [as an extension from stealing from the party]
-The rogue needs to save himself as well, which requires him to tell you not to step on the pressure plate of doomy doomness.

Hmmm... Yea, I'd accept cutting off one of his hands as a minimum IC appropriate [for time period] response.

He is not worse than a bandit on the road, a bandit on the road kills innocents for gold but a rogue in an adventuring party would only be killing either crimes against nature (Aberrations,magical beasts,undead,constructs) Mindless creatures who attack on sight (Oozes, vermin) or intentionally hostile and most commonly evil enemies who are usually attacked in retaliation to what they did beforehand (Humanoids, Monstrous Humanoids, Outsiders). (This is assuming said rogue is good and not evil)

if you read my text you would realize that rogues should be saving lives outside of combat most of the time, handling issues like traps, scouting (sometimes), and other skills that the class is built around, as apposed to the fighter beatstick

just because he is saving himself does not change the fact that he is saving you as well, if the only way a person could save themself also involved saving your life by pushing you out of the way of a car or something would you REALLY be so ungrateful?

[Erik Vale]

He is not worse than a bandit on the road, a bandit on the road kills innocents for gold but a rogue in an adventuring party would only be killing either crimes against nature (Aberrations,magical beasts,undead,constructs) Mindless creatures who attack on sight (Oozes, vermin) or intentionally hostile and most commonly evil enemies who are usually attacked in retaliation to what they did beforehand (Humanoids, Monstrous Humanoids, Outsiders). (This is assuming said rogue is good and not evil)

if you read my text you would realize that rogues should be saving lives outside of combat most of the time, handling issues like traps, scouting (sometimes), and other skills that the class is built around, as apposed to the fighter beatstick

just because he is saving himself does not change the fact that he is saving you as well, if the only way a person could save themself also involved saving your life by pushing you out of the way of a car or something would you REALLY be so ungrateful?

1: That's a great deal of assumptions.

2: They should be. Based on the OP, he's not, so that doesn't matter.

3: I wouldn't be, no. But if we deliberately step out in front of the car tied together because we chose to, and the only way to stop it was the emp gun the guy said he'd bring along, and he did so, I'd just say "Thanks" because he did his job. I don't know the survival rate of people hit by cars, but I've a feeling it's similar to the theoretical survival rate of adventurers.

[Hazrond]

1: That's a great deal of assumptions.

2: They should be. Based on the OP, he's not, so that doesn't matter.

3: I wouldn't be, no. But if we deliberately step out in front of the car tied together because we chose to, and the only way to stop it was the emp gun the guy said he'd bring along, and he did so, I'd just say "Thanks" because he did his job. I don't know the survival rate of people hit by cars, but I've a feeling it's similar to the theoretical survival rate of adventurers.

Wow dude, do you even know how bad that sounds, someone SAVES YOUR LIFE and you just brush it off, its not like the rogue has to try and keep you people alive, he could just as easily walk at the back of the party and let you eat all the traps but he doesnt because he wants you to survive, whether or not it serves his own purpose is irrelevant he is SAVING YOUR LIFE MAN, :smallannoyed:

Edit: maybe its the people i play with but generally the rogue is a pretty good guy, he doesnt take much and honestly i had more trouble with that cleric, i was playing a SAD char based on charisma and the cleric was like "Belt of charisma +6? MINE" i was fuming

[sleepyphoenixx]

It's a matter of degrees. As long as he doesn't steal major magic items or a double share of the loot i'd probably let it slide.

A kleptomaniac rogue who can't help pocketing shiny trinkets and spare change can be great comedy (and a source of plot hooks, too).
If or how it works depends on the relationship between party members of course.

Really, getting right to the removal of limbs is a little heavy handed for a (supposedly) good party. Even the straightest paladin can respond to some minor thieving with something other than violence.


Paladin: Ok, rogue, show us what you found
Rogue hands over some loot
Paladin: OK, now show us the rest
Rogue tries expression of wounded innocence
Paladin: *taps foot* Do we have to do this every time?
Rogue grumbles and hands over the loot (keeping a few minor coins that won't be missed for himself)

You get RP, the rogue gets to indulge his kleptomania, nobody starts removing limbs.

As long as the rogue doesn't get greedy and tries to steal major magic items or similar things most parties really shouldn't have too much of a problem with a variation of that.

[Erik Vale]

Wow dude, do you even know how bad that sounds, someone SAVES YOUR LIFE and you just brush it off, its not like the rogue has to try and keep you people alive, he could just as easily walk at the back of the party and let you eat all the traps but he doesnt because he wants you to survive, whether or not it serves his own purpose is irrelevant he is SAVING YOUR LIFE MAN, :smallannoyed:

Yes, the rogue could let you die, as could you in combat, but if he hangs out of that and is just there, then he's not part of the party, and he's just stealing from you, making him a thief to deal with appropriately.

And put it this way, I save his life in combat [or doing whatever it is that's my job], and he saves mine from traps. Sure, greatful, and liable to become great friends, but you still only say thanks, you don't give him the lions share of the loot. And given that the rogue as described doesn't contribute to combat, every combat he gets to owe his life to the rest of the party, and instead of doing his job, he's stealing from the party, and saving is now coincidental and he's a thief to be punished. Perhaps with some leniency, but he needs punishing.

I'm not the sort of a$$hole that would torture somebody as punishment, depending on the values/how much I catch, the punishment might just be slapping him upside the head while wearing my guantlet and taking the stuff he stole and share it without him getting a share as part of stealing from us, but as described, the party rogue is useless and being a d*ck, so the old timey punishment sounds pretty appropriate.

[HockeyPokeyBard]

See, Hazrond, you're making generalisations about rogues, and specifically, the rogues you play with. The answers so far though, have been geared towards the details given by the OP. You may have good experiences with rogues in general but this rogue is viewed as doing little for the party.

As for the whole, "saving lives becuase the rogue is good" thing... You can't assume these things. He could just as easily have been saving them to ensure he got to the end of the dungeon and the loot.

The main crux here though, is our knowledge of good and evil, or right and wrong. These have adapted insanely over time. It used to be entirely within the bounds of a good person to own slaves. There was nothing wrong with it. And the alignment system is based on the actions of a character and how the social environment percieves these actions. While in most campaigns, its bad to have slaves. But very few DM's touch on theft. So without a standard, we have to default to period laws. Horse thievery (a horse costs 200gp). Horse thievery is a hanging offence. Logically, stealing an amount equal to this is a hanging offence. Losing a hand is for stuff like stealing bread. This rogue, if we follow these guidelines, is, as we in the business say, boned.

The Lawful Good thing to do here is to uphold the laws and protect the interests of society. The law says choppy-choppy. The society, and the people in it are used to this (it was a common punishment dating back to Egypt) and so it would be seen as the good thing to do to. The paladin would be lauded, if anything, for chopping the rogues hand off. He upheld the law successfully, to the letter and even, in this case, mercifully.

[HockeyPokeyBard]

I'm not saying Choppy-choppy is the best option. I didnt even consider it an option when I listed my set. But it is a legitimate option for a good party and a paladin.

Just saying.

[MrBright01]

Stop there. Lawful Good is still GOOD, that would be at the very least Lawful Neutral, Killing for no REAL reason is an evil act...

Stop right there. Paladins are lawful, as well as good, and I don't recall anything stating that the good part is somehow more weighty then lawful. Also, he has a reason: The theif is breaking the law, not to mention breaking the law to directly harm a presumably good-aligned group, which from the point of view of the Lawful Good pally, is an act of evil. And besides, he is just as bad as the NPC's.

Here, have a scenario: A (X) rogue sneaks into camp at night and steals your pally's (Y). The party chases after him, and when they catch him, they __________.

Second scenario: The party theif steals your pally's (Y). The party catches him, and when they do, they _______.

Insert (Y) according to what he is stealing, and check how poor (X) turns out. If the two blanks are not filled in an identical manner, it's an evil act. It is showing preference to the party member because they are or are not (X). If anything, I question your (IN CHARACTER, mind, this is a theoretical debate, not a flame) moral code, because you claim that the rogue is fighting creatures whom only exist to destroy, hate, and kill. That goblin you killed earlier, it had no family, no home? Did you kill the raider on the field, or kill the father and mother in its den? Will its family not starve now? Did you seek them out to aid them? Or are they somehow unworthy because they are green instead of some other, more socially acceptable color?

You talk about facing a fight after a terrible trap that was not disarmed by the rogue. What about when you drop to low health, and need a health potion that's not there, because the rogue took it, or took the gold you would use to buy it? Frankly, if that is your excuse, that the rogue is a valued ally, despite stating in your first post that he has almost no value, then why are you upset when he skims some creme off the top? Is he not a valued ally?

Then again, for the same money/value that is being lost to the rest of the party, could they not hire a rogue who is not a party thieving bugger?



All that said, OMG THANK YOU! I have not had a good morality debate in a long time. So glad I found this board. I also point out that, as far as I know, he is pocketing a fair deal of money/goods. As sleepyphoenixx said, if it's some piddly amount, it's not worth the complaint and might even be fun.

PS: I never said kill him, which makes quoting my post and then complaining about "roguicide" kinda unfair. I proposed crippling them, and only used the gold standards of dealing with theft in a pre-industrial era as an example.

[Hazrond]

I'm not saying Choppy-choppy is the best option. I didnt even consider it an option when I listed my set. But it is a legitimate option for a good party and a paladin.

Just saying.

Nothing about Choppy Choppy is good in my mind, its crippling a person and causing them undue pain, i would call it Lawful Neutral at best

[Hazrond]

Stop right there. Paladins are lawful, as well as good, and I don't recall anything stating that the good part is somehow more weighty then lawful. Also, he has a reason: The theif is breaking the law, not to mention breaking the law to directly harm a presumably good-aligned group, which from the point of view of the Lawful Good pally, is an act of evil. And besides, he is just as bad as the NPC's. That there be Miyazaki thinkin :smalltongue:
All that said, OMG THANK YOU! I have not had a good morality debate in a long time. Your welcome, i got a bit fired up because of all the hate rogues seem to get with threads like this popping up every week or two

PS: I never said kill him, which makes quoting my post and then complaining about "roguicide" kinda unfair. I proposed crippling them, and only used the gold standards of dealing with theft in a pre-industrial era as an example. meh was going by popular opinion on that bit

[khachaturian]

It's a matter of degrees. As long as he doesn't steal major magic items or a double share of the loot i'd probably let it slide.

A kleptomaniac rogue who can't help pocketing shiny trinkets and spare change can be great comedy (and a source of plot hooks, too).
If or how it works depends on the relationship between party members of course.

Really, getting right to the removal of limbs is a little heavy handed for a (supposedly) good party. Even the straightest paladin can respond to some minor thieving with something other than violence.


You get RP, the rogue gets to indulge his kleptomania, nobody starts removing limbs.

As long as the rogue doesn't get greedy and tries to steal major magic items or similar things most parties really shouldn't have too much of a problem with a variation of that.

part of my frustration is that the interaction you described above feels like such a tiresome trope and diminishes fun much more than it enhances any sort of immersion or role-playing. and i kind of feel the same way about chopping off hands and pvp as a solution. i guess what i'm saying is that as mature game players, it would be nice to have a moratorium on this terrible idea of the kleptomaniac rogue which has managed to worm itself into the game.

[sleepyphoenixx]

part of my frustration is that the interaction you described above feels like such a tiresome trope and diminishes fun much more than it enhances any sort of immersion or role-playing. and i kind of feel the same way about chopping off hands and pvp as a solution. i guess what i'm saying is that as mature game players, it would be nice to have a moratorium on this terrible idea of the kleptomaniac rogue which has managed to worm itself into the game.

That's really something that you should take up with your group. It's a matter of taste.
Personally, having someone a little clichè is tons better than having a munchkin or someone who doesn't roleplay at all.

The OP is a little sparse regarding this, but it ultimately comes down to the rogue player. Does he actually roleplay or is it just a thin justification for his OOC greed?

[HockeyPokeyBard]

Nothing about Choppy Choppy is good in my mind, its crippling a person and causing them undue pain, i would call it Lawful Neutral at best

If it was good in you're mind, I would be rather worried, and you and I might need to have a little chat behind closed doors about said opinions.

However

What I said is that the society at the time would most likely think it was good, or at least, not inherently bad, especially since the usual punishment for stealing large amounts of money is death. And whether an action is good or evil is decided by the society otherwise you would end up with Miyazaki's all over the place.

[MrBright01]

Personally, having someone a little clichè is tons better than having a munchkin or someone who doesn't roleplay at all.

That. That's the only reason I would let this happen in my games. If it gets the usually sword slinging dice roller to actually think in a manner that could be even close to in character, I would let is slide. Until the others players QQed and they would not listen to reason, in or out of game. Then it's Bag of Devouring time.

[Vogonjeltz]

Of course it's egregious. Otherwise, other party members should be yanking a slice of the treasure for killing foes, mages should haggle their prices for buffs, and the rogue shouldn't get healing without donating to the party healer.

It's independent looting if the rogue is the only one present.

It's not party loot in that circumstance unless you have a party contract stating that all things all characters find are to be divided equally amongst the group, even when members are not present for and do not participate in the acquisition of said things. However, I know I would never sign such a document, it encourages free riders.

And another thing: Why is it assumed anyone else even knows about the rogue collecting things?
Either: They weren't present, or weren't closely observing the Rogue, in which case they know nothing john snow.
Or: They were, but the Rogue should have an astronomical Sleight of Hand check. Good luck to basically every other class that doens't have Spot as a class skill.

In the PHB classes only a Druid, Monk, Ranger, or another Rogue have a remote chance of seeing it happen, and that's if they're closely observing the Rogue handling the loot in question.

I think this is just an issue where all too often people hear something out of character and try to act on it in character.

[sleepyphoenixx]

It doesn't take a genius to notice that the rogue is wearing/using a lot of magic items that appear seemingly out of nowhere and are far beyond what he could afford with his share of the treasure.
That's the difference between stealing from strangers and leaving before you're caught vs stealing from people you presumably spend most of your time with.
Also, scouting ahead and emptying all the chests really doesn't count as "nobody else was there so it's mine".

There's a difference between some subtle padding of his share and blatantly screwing over the party. The latter will get him booted, beaten up or killed, and he'd deserve it for being an idiot.

This topic comes up a lot with people who don't care at all about IC motivation and just want to justify OOC greed.
I'm fine with it IC as long as it's kept within reason but the selfish OOC greed will get zero tolerance from me. That's a surefire way to destroy your gaming group.

[Hazrond]

What I said is that the society at the time would most likely think it was good, or at least, not inherently bad, especially since the usual punishment for stealing large amounts of money is death. And whether an action is good or evil is decided by the society otherwise you would end up with Miyazaki's all over the place.

No, no no, society has no say in what is a good or evil act in D&D, the upper and lower planes do, to me your hypothetical paladin is sounding more like :miko: with each post

[sleepyphoenixx]

No, no no, society has no say in what is a good or evil act in D&D, the upper and lower planes do, to me your hypothetical paladin is sounding more like :miko: with each post

The punishment of criminals is more a matter of law. If the paladin has the authority and the laws of the land punish thievery with death he could kill a thieving rogue and be within the bounds of his alignment/oath. Killing in D&D is not inherently Evil.

There's a quote that comes to mind though: "A paladin should be merciful as well as righteous" (NWN - SoU iirc). Just because you can lawfully kill someone doesn't mean you have to, or even that you should. Where you fall on the spectrum of Law vs Good is, again, a IC question that differs from paladin to paladin (assuming you actually RP).

[Hazrond]

The punishment of criminals is more a matter of law. If the paladin has the authority and the laws of the land punish thievery with death he could kill a thieving rogue and be within the bounds of his alignment/oath. Killing in D&D is not inherently Evil.

There's a quote that comes to mind though: "A paladin should be merciful as well as righteous" (NWN - SoU iirc). Just because you can lawfully kill someone doesn't mean you have to, or even that you should. Where you fall on the spectrum of Law vs Good is, again, a IC question that differs from paladin to paladin (assuming you actually RP).

More and more like :miko: with the whole lawful more important than good thing, and btw killing a sentient creature IS evil, if i remember there are specific exceptions like in self defense etc.

[HockeyPokeyBard]

The planes are influenced, (yes, even the planes of hell) by society. The gods make the rules,the people make the gods. People won't wordhip a god who's laws they don't agree with and conversly, a god will not be created with a different mindset to it's main batch of followers.

As for the righteous and merciful, I explained how death was a legitimate punishment for stealing even 200gp. Chopping said hand off IS merciful, in the eyes of the society. Especially in a world with magic to replace that hand.

A Miyazaki decides that their view is the only correct one and therefore her actions are good. This paladin works within the bounds of the law of which he is subject too. Giving a slight reprimand for the stealing could even be seen as an Chaotic or even evil act because it's showing bias for one person simply becasuse "i know thst guy"

[SciChronic]

Kinda skimmed the thread so most of what i'm going to say has probably been stated already.

If your thief-type character is skimming very small amounts, it really shouldnt be a problem, sure that character might end up with a 5-10% more gold, but he should be spending that extra gold on items that help the party. Thief type characters tend to be the ones who use a lot of consumables during fights, so the extra income is typically used to just replace things like wands, potions, tanglefoot bags, flour pouches, etc.

I myself have a character who skims loot. Its always been small amounts that just round out the gold such has swiping 33 gold when i come across a bag with 733 gold. However, this gold has always been used to replace consumables used in fights or replace spent wands (in one case our caster used up a wand, so i "found" a similar one). As a side note there has yet to be a fight that i didn't have an item in my haversack that helped during a fight.

[Erik Vale]

Nothing about Choppy Choppy is good in my mind, its crippling a person and causing them undue pain, i would call it Lawful Neutral at best

True. But until the invention televising war war was considered glorious instead of, you know, the hell it is. Your morality isn't necessarily relevant compared to:
-That the DM chooses to impose.
-That of the time period, which is much harsher than in modern times.


More and more like :miko: with the whole lawful more important than good thing, and btw killing a sentient creature IS evil, if i remember there are specific exceptions like in self defense etc.

Why yes it is, if you use BoED/BoVD. However in this case the Paladin immediately falls for attacking beings in their dungeon should he win initiative and then attack, and kill something, since that's a evil act he committed willingly.
Now, would you like to go and enforce that rule? :smallamused:

[sleepyphoenixx]

More and more like :miko: with the whole lawful more important than good thing, and btw killing a sentient creature IS evil, if i remember there are specific exceptions like in self defense etc.

I like how you ignored the second half of the quote. A paladin is Lawful AND Good. He can value one over the other (and almost certainly has to in the course of his career) but that doesn't automatically make him a fanatic. A rogue stealing magic items is very different from a man stealing bread so his family can eat.

Killing a sentient creature is not evil in D&D. Killing an innocent is evil (which a thief is not). Killing out of greed is evil. Killing a bunch of orcs or goblins is business as usual. Killing bandits is a service to society. Killing a thief may be against the law in some places and fine in others. Medieval law wasn't exactly full of disney-style happy endings and valuable character lessons.

D&D ethics are not identical to modern first world ethics. Life is cheap. Violent death is a common fact of life.


As for the righteous and merciful, I explained how death was a legitimate punishment for stealing even 200gp. Chopping said hand off IS merciful, in the eyes of the society. Especially in a world with magic to replace that hand.

A Miyazaki decides that their view is the only correct one and therefore her actions are good. This paladin works within the bounds of the law of which he is subject too. Giving a slight reprimand for the stealing could even be seen as an Chaotic or even evil act because it's showing bias for one person simply becasuse "i know thst guy"

Just because you think your actions are good doesn't mean they are Good. Good and Evil are not a matter of opinion in D&D, they are universal constants. Neither society nor the gods have any influence over what is Good and what is Evil. And most people can't afford a magical limb regeneration even if they save for a decade or more.

Lawful doesn't necessarily mean "obeys the local law" either. Someone who follows a personal code of conduct (or a religious one) can be absolutely lawful and still break local laws.
Not enforcing or even following the law is chaotic but not evil unless the act would be evil regardless. Not punishing someone is not an evil act, no matter what.

A paladin is not judge, jury and executioner. A PC paladin isn't even an officer of the law most of the time. There is enough room for a paladin who favors good over law to go for redemption instead of punishment.
Not going for the harshest punishment you can doesn't mean tolerating or condoning it, so it doesn't conflict with either your oath or your alignment.

[Vogonjeltz]

It doesn't take a genius to notice that the rogue is wearing/using a lot of magic items that appear seemingly out of nowhere and are far beyond what he could afford with his share of the treasure.
That's the difference between stealing from strangers and leaving before you're caught vs stealing from people you presumably spend most of your time with.
Also, scouting ahead and emptying all the chests really doesn't count as "nobody else was there so it's mine".

There's a difference between some subtle padding of his share and blatantly screwing over the party. The latter will get him booted, beaten up or killed, and he'd deserve it for being an idiot.

This topic comes up a lot with people who don't care at all about IC motivation and just want to justify OOC greed.
I'm fine with it IC as long as it's kept within reason but the selfish OOC greed will get zero tolerance from me. That's a surefire way to destroy your gaming group.

Actually the appraise checks would require a character who is a genius to make, otherwise they'd be quite off.

Players might notice if the rogue is just showing off their wealth, but probably not.

Scouting ahead is assuming all the risk, rewards should be commensurate.

[HeroZ]

If you know how to build a rogue and how to work in combat but a rogue normally does more than his fair share within a fight and out of combat. All it takes is a lil weapon finesse to help you become effective and suddenly you become essential to the party!

[Hazrond]

Actually the appraise checks would require a character who is a genius to make, otherwise they'd be quite off.

Players might notice if the rogue is just showing off their wealth, but probably not.

Scouting ahead is assuming all the risk, rewards should be commensurate.

http://treasure.diylol.com/uploads/post/image/369482/resized_winter-is-coming-meme-generator-brace-yourselves-a-flame-war-is-coming-c07a90.jpg

[Erik Vale]

Actually the appraise checks would require a character who is a genius to make, otherwise they'd be quite off.

Players might notice if the rogue is just showing off their wealth, but probably not.

Scouting ahead is assuming all the risk, rewards should be commensurate.

Probably on the first two, as to the last one, they shouldn't be if he isn't helping in combat because he's busy off looting. Oh, and the party had to help him get there in the first place, so I'd so no in any case.

[arkangel111]

not sure if its been mentioned. but in my last group the DM and the player arranged the majority of the "stealing" separate from the group, usually in the form of an extra 2-5% for the rogue that the party never even saw. on top of that his character in game once took a gem worth 5k because it was "pretty" and he thought it could be worth more, and then gave up a portion of his share of treasure to make up for it. in all it ended up fine for the party.

Something else he would do was steal obvious things from the group, mostly our paladins holy symbol which he specifically used for his morning rituals, the missing item would then be given back to the paladin with the rogue claiming to have had an extra lying around which the paladin could borrow, or perhaps it fell out of his saddlebags, or even better it was pulled from the stomach of a recently slain monster which had swallowed the paladin during the fight, the rogue was kind enough to clean it up for him and hand it back. in all it improved the attitude of our paladin toward the thieving rogue. there were times where the dice just kept going wrong for sense motive and our group would be laughing all night from the ridiculous things our rogue would make up on how he acquired said item.

both these are possible options to help the player do "what his character would do" with the latter leading to fun times and a more cohesive party.