Paladin and rogue in the same group - what's allowed and what's not?

[Synovia]

Has anyone here actually said that?

The thread-starting question was about a paladin's reaction when a rogue in the same party enters a city and "just starts stealing around." So it seems to be much less a matter of some people saying "stealing is always evil" than a matter of some people saying "stealing is NEVER evil and only a ridiculously anal paladin/hall monitor/narc could have a problem with it."

No one has said stealing is never evil, and several posters have said the exact words you're questioning anyone having said.

It would help if you actually read this thread before commenting.

The baker was harmed, or at least would have been, according to the information the beggar had. Admittedly, it was a minor harm, and did more good than harm. But as I said, I reject utilitarianism.

The beggar deliberately and willfully violated the rights of the baker. That's a (very, very, very) minor Evil act.

Its an act that breaks the local laws. Its not an evil act. Again, real world morality has no intrinsic value in D&D. What is good and evil is not the same thing as right and wrong, and are completely set by the campaign setting.

It could be argued that the baker not stealing the bread is harming his family, and is thus an act of evil.

so I'm real unclear on why you're treating "pings on Detect Evil" as having any moral significance whatsoever.
\

There is no moral significance, because there is no moral significance anywhere in the game. This is not a question of morals. Its a question about what is EVIL and what is GOOD. Not what is right and wrong. These are two completely different things.

Morals are irrelevant. Your morals don't exist in the D&D world. Walking up to someone and stabbing them in the face on Earth is a bad, illegal, etc act. If they're a fiend, in the D&D world, its a GOOD act.

What is moral or immoral on this planet means absolutely nothing in the context of D&D.

Yes. (You can probably guess I don't go for utilitarianism, huh?)

Better would be to ask the shopkeeper to let you use the sword.

However, even a Good character might do so. That doesn't mean that the act isn't Evil. But a Good character would try to compensate the shop owner after the fact - either by paying him outright, returning the sword, etc.

You're confusing GOOD and LAWFUL here. A lawful character would feel the need to reimburse the shopkeeper. A chaotic good character would say "Screw it. Take the sword, it'll help"

Robin Hood is a chaotic good character. He steals from the Sheriff of Nottingham all the time. He doesn't return things, he doesn't offer to pay, he doesn't appologize, and yet, hes still good, and the acts hes doing, are still good.

You're confusing good, and Lawful.

If you're doing something that you think helps people, its a good act in the D&D system. Period. (if the PHB is to be believed).