Thief/rogues, a character class that should not be?

[xBlackWolfx]

I'm not saying they're overpowered or something like that, I question the morality of this class.

I mean seriously, why would thieves be a core class along side soldiers and intellectuals? And really, who would want to go on any sort of trip with a guy who's likely to rob you? And that's the best case scenario: he could just sneak attack you and walk off with all your belongings, leaving you to rot in the middle of nowhere.

I mean, in all seriousness why would you have a class that is by its very definition a criminal? Yeah okay, adventurers tend to be racist and essentially genocidal, but at least they aren't a problem to their own society.

They kind of fixed this with rogues, and not just with the re-naming. You don't have to be a pick-pocket if you so choose. But it seems that the only reason to bring one along is to deal with traps. And they still reak of 'criminal', despite the fact that they can be any alignment.

Why do I have such thoughts? Well, I was reading up on stuff about the Kender (I'm only really familiar with the Forgotten Realms, just so we know), and everywhere I see criticism of them being kleptomaniacs. Also a lot of criticism of them (and halflings) being infantile, but that's not relevant here. But I do agree, why would anyone tolerate a race of kleptomaniacs? It makes no sense. I certainly wouldn't see a miniature and somewhat immature thief as cute.

Not that I'm trying to troll, but I honestly don't see why this is a core class. It seems more like something you would see in the supplements that detailed the assassin and blackguard class. And playing on that NWN server, most people played their rogues as either thieves or assassins (though strangely enough, few were evil, though most were chaotic neutral). I mean, at the very best they're grave-robbers and spies.

Why is it that one of the classes by its very nature has to be either selfish or evil? Unless you go with a robin-hood character, I don't see anyway you could be good (and even that is questionable, I don't recall hearing anything about robin hood stabbing people in the back). I mean seriously, what kind of a decent person would have a skill set like this??? The things you excel in are lockpicking, sneaking around, disabling people's defenses, and stabbing people in the back. Oh, and you can also be a pick-pocket.

Is there anyway to play a rogue that isn't an obviously atrocious individual? I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but I don't understand why this class is one of the standard options. Clerics make sense, druids make sense, fighters, monks, wizards. Yeah, sorcereres and barbarians are iffy, but sorcerers is more just the stereotype that having a high charisma means your character is arrogant. And just because you prefer brute force in combat doesn't mean you're evil, its just a different tactic. And besides, barbarians don't have to be stupid. I mean Conan himself was fairly clever, and just because you like brute force doesn't mean you can't be good at other things, like smithing or riding or whatnot. Honestly, you think about it intelligence is kind of a dump-stat, since really the only characters that have high intelligence are wizards, for everyone else its only above charisma on the priority list (unless you're a paladin or sorcerer or bard or something else that relies on charisma). Heh, you think about it there's actually more classes that rely on charisma than there are for intelligence! But that's kind of a tangent...perhaps something for another thread.

[some guy]

I'd say you'd want a criminal in the party because going into a dungeon and taking loot requires someone familiar with breaking and entering, stealing, subterfuge.

Gandalf hires a burglar to rob a dragon.

[Mr Beer]

You mentioned Conan, who was a heist man and thief in his spare time. Seems to me that someone could do some of that and be as much of a hero as Conan.

[Karl Aegis]

By creating a class that is specialized in a particular area the game designers can feel justified in making every other class unable to model that particular archetype. Normally this doesn't work and you end up with every class being weaker because of it. It's there basically to trap players into playing a unnecessary class while bringing every other class down with it.

[Lord Raziere]

feudal societies are basically a bunch of protection rackets layered on top of one another. the law is whatever a noble says it is unless its whatever the king says it is. "justice" is usually whatever the strongest person around decides to do to you, regardless of how unfair or badly judged it is. most knights never followed their chivalrous code, the church was corrupt and launched bloody crusades for what they believed in and all thats without being in a world of monsters, powerful cosmic forces that can do pretty much anything in the hands of a small number of people and other dimensions that are even more dangerous than this one.

calling a rogue evil in this world is calling someone who has had to steal, beg, sneak, lie, outwit and outcheat everything around them just to survive when most people have divine or arcane powers or the protection of the higher classes of society on their side, evil. rogue isn't a class the person chooses, its a class they either learn growing up or they die, because most people who becomes rogues? probably didn't start in a good place to begin with. they started at the bottom of society where all the people who just listed? the warriors, the wizards, the clerics? they left these people in the gutter and the slums.

the nobility, the so-called society that you think is "good"? they're the ones that left those people poor and destitute to begin with and created the conditions for rogues to arise at all. not every beggar is going to accept their lot in life and content themselves asking for coins when their belly is grumbling and their mouth starts to become dry. some are going to do whatever they can to not die, and they're not going consider the society that created the conditions for what they had to do in any "good".

the rogues that survive the streets, are the best ones of the lot. the competent ones that know exactly what kind of injustices happen to them because of the nobility killing them for sport, because of wizards kidnapping them to use for experiments, or priests grabbing them to sacrifice them to their god. they the leanest toughest people who are tired of seeing the downtrodden suffer everyday while wizards nobility and clerics live relatively cushy lives- and they will use the only methods they know how to beat them to make things right. they will lie, cheat, steal, sneak, ambush, manipulate for Good causes- because thats the only things they know how to do. they never knew anything else.

[Mastikator]

A rogue isn't necessarily a criminal, an intelligence officer (spy) would have the rogue class. As would some types of police and private detectives.

[Kalmageddon]

I think all of these issues would be fixed if the "Rogue" class was instead called "Expert", "Specialist" or something similar. Their role is to be the guy that uses brains and agility to overcome obstacles, that's it.

[veti]

Why would fighters be a core class? I mean, seriously, who wants to go adventuring with someone whose first instinct when faced with a problem is 'stab it in the face'?

Why would magic-users be a core class? Weedy men who sit around in dimly lit rooms inhaling mercury fumes until they work out how to put people to sleep once a day, don't sound that much of an asset to a well organised team.

And as for clerics... what, a spellcaster whose powers are dependent on an outside patron of inscrutable goals and capricious temperament, which might choose to withdraw its support at any time? Next please.

And why are you disparaging grave robbers? Isn't that, when all's said and done, how most adventurers make most of their money?

Seriously, you can make any class sound bad if you frame it in the most negative light you can. What's your point?

[Comet]

I'd say that murdering someone with a longsword is about as evil as picking the lock on their front door and sneaking into their bedroom to steal their golden necklace.

edit: seems like the above poster beat me to the punch. All cuteness aside, though, Dungeons & Dragons was built on pulp fantasy where immoral men and women venture into underground places full of monsters and traps with the sole intention of getting rich. The thief fit right into that and now we're left with a relic that still works in a tamer adventuring group as the 'edgy' member of the group that can still be relied to help everyone out when the going gets tough.

[oxybe]

Going back to the historical use of the Thief class? It was the only gamespace allowed that could locate and disarm traps. Either you had one in your group to try and deal with them, or you dealt with the trap via brute force and a HP buffer.

Later versions tweaked the class to be more of an opportunistic fighter and opened the trapfinding skills up a bit more. It keeps the criminal-themed name for legacy purposes in the sense that not all priests are Clerics and not all Clerics, priests.

Heck, for the most part your class is an entirely metagame concept. No one in-universe goes around asking if you're a fighter, a rogue or a ranger. If you belong to a given organization you likely refer to yourself by your title. Some classes like "wizard" or "magic-user" tend to be a bit more vague and useful when it comes to describing a profession, but even then you're likely to be more of a "Carl the Seer", "Bobby the Sage", "Steven the fix-it-mancer" or "Ben, the guy who makes zombies do dances in funny costumes for the seniors' entertainment every Thursday".

Few classes, like the Cleric or Paladin refer to actual positions inside their organizations, and again, even then you're likely to be called "Father Ted" or "Sargent Dorf".

Do note that if you question the morality of the rogue, you should also question that of the fighter, the class who's entire purpose is "Pointy-pointy end goes in the squishy-squishy bits. Hard." or how noble and righteous the wizard is, when he's immolating people alive with arcane fires.

Both of which I have heard are rather painful and horrible ways to die.

Not much difference between stabbing someone in the back or the front. Honor and fairness be darned, most people calling for fair fights are using shorthand for "a fight where I'm obviously going to be at an advantage because I'm bigger and tougher then you".

Seriously, next time a paladin or fighter or any big dumb sharp metal stick user calls ANYONE out for not fighting "fair", tell them to describe what's fair about forcing someone into a fight that plays specifically to the aggressor's strengths?

Long story short, D&D is a game about a group of sociopathic murder hobos with a fantastic PR agent, having found out that "adventurer" is a more socially acceptable title then "jobless maniac with a sword, a blast of unrefined magical energy and a hair trigger" and you can make a killing by finding the ugliest species you can, branding them "monsters" and routinely kicking in their doors and stealing all their valuables, then returning to town victorious in having vanquished the "monsters" in the middle of eating a supper of quiche and ale.

The rogue fits in just fine.

[xBlackWolfx]

Find it funny how everyone is defending the rogue class as outright evil, and even demonizing the other classes.

{scrubbed}

Defending yourself is obviously necessary, murdering and robbing civilians is something completely different. Some of you make it sound like a rogue is basically a person who screws over everyone else just so they can survive themselves. Screw over the rest of the city, so you can eat like a pig.

What, do you all play openly evil characters or something? I actually find it disgusting the one guy who justified an obviously evil character as 'necessary for his own survival'. A campaign where everyone's evil, that would definitely be something.

And over the past few hours, I did manage to think up a rogue character who ISN'T selfish and his actions are justifiable: a bounty hunter, or a monster hunter perhaps. A person who hunts down wanted criminals would certainly have a skill-set like what you see in a rogue's kit. Someone like this could easily be good, hell they could even be lawful perhaps.

[Joe the Rat]

See, and here I am thinking "Well, Thief isn't as problematic as those other reprehensible core classes like the Assassin (who must be Evil, and is probably a half-orc) or Paladin (who must be played by a total jackwagon)." But that's me showing my age.

It's not like you can have a Heroic protagonist who's schtick is being sneaky and taking stuff. Besides Aladdin, or Ali Baba, or Jack, or Jason, or Odysseus (for Classic definitions of "Heroic"), or Puss-in-Boots, or Robin Hood...
But yon scoundrel doesn't have to be the protagonist. Many a noble hero has had a loyal if somewhat surreptitious lackey to do less-than-noble deeds, allowing the knight in shining armor to remain clean. The key there is Loyal.

No, the silly thing was that regardless of any particular theme or concept, thieves were expert in all things Felonious (box man, freeclimber, stealth ninja, pickpocket, polyglot cryptographer). Later editions did let you decide how much of each (if at all) you want your thief (later rogue) to master.

And as for clerics... what, a spellcaster whose powers are dependent on an outside patron of inscrutable goals and capricious temperament, which might choose to withdraw its support at any time? Next please.

Oh... now I want to run a game with nothing but Clerics and Warlocks for spellcasters.

[Comet]

If everyone was walking around with guns shooting people for petty reasons does that mean you shouldn't have one yourself?

Ideally, yes. If there's any chance of avoiding those gunners, I'd take it.

Thing is, D&D is an action fantasy and as such it makes violence and might-makes-right as easy as it can. There are absolute evils that deserve to die. Do they also not deserve to be robbed? What if you use all your stolen goods to make yourself a better defender of justice or donate them to a temple that is absolutely good? All kinds of exciting yet realistically depressing actions are okay in D&D because the world is different from ours.

[Thrudd]

Because "morality" is not a concern. The thief class was based on a certain type of fictional pulp hero/anti-hero, such as the Grey Mouser of Lankhmar and Cugel the Clever of Vance's Dying Earth. As was pointed out, Conan spent a number of his stories as a thief and pirate as well. While in fiction, characters aren't as bound by rules and limitations, for the purposes of the game, thieves are a little more restricted.

As for assassins, it is true that you won't usually see an assassin running around with a party of do-gooder heroes. But there is such a thing as playing evil characters, and even having an all-evil party. Such parties stick together for protection and mutual profit, someone that kills or robs their associates will soon find themselves alone without anyone to help fight off the ghouls and owl bears and carrion crawlers...

[hookbill]

You could also look at it as a Robin Hood type class, or even (I know it’s a bit much) but Aladdin was also one, not generally a bad dude. my assassin types were always those with a code, never just wanted them evil, more of a necessity to do the dirty work that most didn't want to in order to balance the scales. He was loyal to the party and hid what he was (just played it off as a rogueish type/light fighter (because lets face it, if everyone knows you're an assassin, it wouldn't be very good for business) and only took those contracts that he approved of (fit within the code), corrupt merchant, dirty mayor, family abuser, etc. and depending on how the quests were laid out, sometimes there were "pro bono" type work that he provided.


eta - I had a third party assassin book that i would run by the DMs to allow the class (instead of the DMG version) these were not always evil and could "exist" within a party if played smartly, even with a pally *lead sheet*

[Hypername]

Not a Rogue player so I think I am as objective as I can be.
First of all a thief isn't necessarily evil. Think of Bilbo Baggins in the Hobbit. He was a burglar, essentialy a thief.
Also the rogue's archetype is a broader archetype than the thief's. All thieves are rogues, not all rogues are thieves.

[Dexam]

I mean seriously, why would thieves be a core class along side soldiers and intellectuals?

Not all warriors are soldiers; not all magic users are intellectual.

And really, who would want to go on any sort of trip with a guy who's likely to rob you? And that's the best case scenario: he could just sneak attack you and walk off with all your belongings, leaving you to rot in the middle of nowhere.

Who says that a thief/rogue class is more likely to do this than any other class? Such behaviour is an aspect of the character, rather than of the class.

I mean, in all seriousness why would you have a class that is by its very definition a criminal? Yeah okay, adventurers tend to be racist and essentially genocidal, but at least they aren't a problem to their own society.

Bwhahahaha!

Oh, wait... you're serious?

Once again, 'criminal' and 'problem to society' are aspects of the characters, not the class. In most games I've played in, the wizards and fighters have been bigger criminals and menaces than any thief-type.

They kind of fixed this with rogues, and not just with the re-naming. You don't have to be a pick-pocket if you so choose. But it seems that the only reason to bring one along is to deal with traps. And they still reak of 'criminal', despite the fact that they can be any alignment.

Not just traps; thief/rogue classes tend to be the most highly skilled of the classes, and sometimes you need to solve a problem in ways other than lopping limbs off or turning people into toads.

Why is it that one of the classes by its very nature has to be either selfish or evil?

It doesn't. A skill set is neither good nor evil, selfish nor unselfish - it's all about what you do with it.

Unless you go with a robin-hood character, I don't see anyway you could be good (and even that is questionable, I don't recall hearing anything about robin hood stabbing people in the back). I mean seriously, what kind of a decent person would have a skill set like this??? The things you excel in are lockpicking, sneaking around, disabling people's defenses, and stabbing people in the back.

How about "sensible"? I mean, if you're opposing evil overlords who can take your head off with one swing of an axe, or set you on fire with a word and a snap of the fingers... well, the sensible person sneaks up on them to give them a poke in the kidneys.

Is there anyway to play a rogue that isn't an obviously atrocious individual?

Yes. I've played lots of rogue-type characters, most of them good and decent people.

And just because you prefer brute force in combat doesn't mean you're evil, its just a different tactic.

And just because you prefer stealth and subtlety in combat doesn't mean you're evil, its just a different tactic.

Basically, just because it says "thief" or "rogue" on a character sheet, it doesn't mean the characters have to behave in any prescribed way. Speaking personally, I could argue that most of my rogue characters have been better people, morally speaking, than other characters because they will often look for non-violent solutions, or choose to sneak in and eliminate just the main threat rather than slaughterin dozens of minions.

[Frozen_Feet]

The underlying idea behind this objection seems to be that there's something wrong with playing attrocious characters. Considering the popularity of games such as GTA, I think the premise is flawed. Obviously, people like playing the bad guy(s) from time to time. Why not let them?

[Red Fel]

I'm not saying they're overpowered or something like that, I question the morality of this class.

Okay. I'm going to ignore the issues with the name, because the name of the class is mutable. I'm also going to try not to retread arguments other people have made, because they're pretty good ones. Instead, I'm going to look at one instance of the class itself - the Rogue from D&D 3.5 - as an illustration, and determine which parts of it are more criminal or immoral than any other class.

In 3.5, the Rogue has the following class abilities:

• Sneak attack
• Trapfinding
• Evasion
• Trap sense
• (Improved) Uncanny dodge
• Special abilities (e.g. feats, ability damage, improved evasion)

So let's run down the list. Trapfinding, trap sense, and (improved) uncanny dodge can be checked off - there's nothing immoral about that. Indiana Jones navigated and disarmed traps. (Sometimes successfully.) These are survival skills, totally fine.

So let's look at what remains. Sneak attack. What is sneak attack? When the enemy is denied their Dex bonus to AC (fluffed as "unable to defend himself effectively"), the Rogue deals bonus damage. That's it. It's a very precise, effective attack. Given that the Rogue, along with everyone else in the party, will be participating in combat, there is nothing immoral about a "hit harder" ability. At least, nothing immoral compared to the Fighter's increased BAB and feats, the Barbarian's rage, the Monk's increasing ability to punch people in the face, and the Wizard's fireballs.

And then special abilities. Defensive roll, improved evasion, skill mastery, slippery mind? Utilities. No morality there. Feat? Everyone gets those. Opportunist? Attack someone as an AoO. That's just teamwork. Crippling strike? When you deal sneak attack damage, you injure and disable your opponent. You disable him! That's just horrible.

Look, I'm not defending the class because there is nothing to defend. This is a dexterous, survival-oriented combatant who focuses on multiple precise strikes rather than individual powerful ones, and brings a skillset to the table. Anything beyond that is what the player brings to the character.

You keep coming back to the word thief, and the problem is that that word has been removed, for many versions of the class, from the lexicon. Even those who have it have similar terms for other classes. Thieves, sure. Sellswords and mercenaries. Guns for hire. Dark wizards. Cultists. Any class can have a dark side. But not every class has to embody solely that dark side, and you seem entirely focused on it.

The thief is dead. Long live the rogue.

[Maglubiyet]

If you want to break into an impenetrable fortress, avoid being seen, and do semi-legal things, hiring people who specialize in that kind of thing makes sense.

Anyway, I like Matthew Broderick's character in Ladyhawke. I think his nickname was the Mouse. A thief who could squeeze through any opening, escape from any cell.

[Spiryt]

All I can really say is that specifing on what exactly you're talking about here...

Because, for simple example, in 3.5 'rogue' is combination of skills and features, that one can, well or baldy (mostly badly, unfortunately) build character out of.

Almost nothing, really about their morality, character or whatever.


Going, into earlier editions, of course, things looked a bit different, but still those were 'guidelines' at most AFAIU.

[VoxRationis]

Because the thief is a character archetype, particularly in fantasy, and this is a fantasy game which is all about filling classic archetypes, particularly in older editions before everyone was a magic robot. Because there are certain skillsets which become very useful to a party (not just sneaking... Forgery is a wonderful skill in 3rd edition, and the AD&D thief's "I can climb walls like a gecko" ability was also useful). Because a thief still has loyalty to his friends, and stabbing your compatriots in the back in an environment filled with deadly supernatural monsters is suicidally insane, even for untrustworthy types.

[Berenger]

I think it's quite ridiculous to call thieves "immoral" or "evil" when they exist in a world that doesn't even provide the possibility of making a honest living to a lot of people. The standard fluff for nearly every other base class assumes an amount of privilege most rogues can only dream of. Even an apprenticeship to become an NPC tradesman requires social status and money you pretty much have to be born with.

[Submortimer]

"Of course there is a mark," said Gandalf. "I put it there myself. For very good reasons. You asked me to find the fourteenth man for your expedition, and I chose Mr. Baggins. Just let any one say I chose the wrong man or the wrong house and you can stop at thirteen and have all the bad luck you like, or go back to digging coal." He scrowled so angrily at Gloin that the dwarf huddled back in his chair; and when Bilbo tried to open his mouth to ask a question, he turned and frowned at him and stuck out his bushy eyebrows, till Bilbo shut his mouth tight with a snap. "That's right," said Gandalf. "Lets have no more argument. I have chosen Mr. Baggins and that ought to be enough for all of you. If I say that he is a Burglar, a Burglar he is. or will be when the time comes. There is a lot more in him than you guess, and a deal more than he has any idea about himself. You may (possibly) all live to thank me yet. Now Bilbo, my boy, fetch a lamp, and let's have a little light at this."

Despite the fact that Bilbo wasn't ACTUALLY a thief at the outset, Gandalf knew that they needed him. As such, he convinced the dwarves that a "burglar" would be needed because he would have been trained to hide in the shadows and to access that which should not be accessed. Thorin and his crew understood that he was correct, and brought him along.

In terms of Tolkien Fantasy Tropes, the only REAL classes we ever see are Wizard, Fighter, Rogue(Specifically thief), and (spell-less) Ranger, maybe Barbarian if you count the orcs/Uruk-hai.

[Seto]

Sooo, if fighters are evil sociopaths, then I guess every soldier to ever fight in a war is a sociopath? Were the people who rampaged through nazi germany liberating the concentration camps and overthrowing a war-mongering despot evil for what they did? Get real. Yes, most wars are wrong and shouldn't happen, but just because they're wrong doesn't mean you shouldn't have some way to defend yourself. If everyone was walking around with guns shooting people for petty reasons does that mean you shouldn't have one yourself?

Except there's no reason to equate "soldier" with "Fighter". Among the base classes, Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Monk and Rogue can all be convincing soldiers (even if the Fighter's more iconinc). Let's admit that wars are sometimes necessary. Ok, then. In that context, having a guy who can sneak into the enemy camp (Rogue, Ranger), snipe the enemy from afar (Ranger, Rogue), spy as a double agent (Bard, Rogue), sabotage from the inside (Rogue) is a pretty useful asset. Useful becomes necessary if the enemy is using tactics like these.

Defending yourself is obviously necessary, murdering and robbing civilians is something completely different.

As others have said, Rogue is a skillset, not a job or a personality. Absolutely nothing states that a Rogue has to rob or murder civilians. Even looking at the PHB's basic fluff, even though it's mentioned that Rogues are often untrustworthy and good at getting what people don't want them to get, we are reminded that "Rogues have little in common with one another", that they fill many roles and "what they do share is adaptability and resourcefulness".

You do have a point, however, in that the archetype of the Rogue-Thief is still extremely iconic, even in the minds of the writers who try to get away from it, and it's often how that class is played. Which is actually a flaw in reasoning, in that "the iconic representation of a thief would best be portrayed by a Rogue" does not logically entail that "the iconic representation of a Rogue would best be portrayed as a thief" (which by the way is meaningless in-game, since "thief" is an in-game concept and Rogue is a metagame concept).

[LibraryOgre]

So let's run down the list. Trapfinding, trap sense, and (improved) uncanny dodge can be checked off - there's nothing immoral about that. Indiana Jones navigated and disarmed traps. (Sometimes successfully.) These are survival skills, totally fine.

If you look at Indiana Jones, he's pretty much the perfect example of a AD&D thief. Raiders opens with him using Find and Remove Traps, and the switch he attempts is arguably a Pick pockets attempt that ALMOST works. Climb Walls? Temple of Doom, after the bridge breaks. His facility with written Greek and Latin can be the fact that he has a high intelligence, but you can also put him down with the Read Languages ability. He picks locks, he sneaks around. He's not a bad fighter, able to hold his own against mooks, but any time a REAL fighter type shows up (say, a bald, shirtless German mountain), he wins by guile after getting his butt kicked... or by shooting the guy who brought a sword to a gunfight.

I prefer to name them thieves, myself; it leaves "rogue" open for other classes (as Hackmaster calls their equivalent to a 2e bard).

[YossarianLives]

I'd rather have someone steal my jewelry than melt my face with acid.

[eleazzaar]

Why is it that one of the classes by its very nature has to be either selfish or evil? Unless you go with a robin-hood character, I don't see anyway you could be good (and even that is questionable, I don't recall hearing anything about robin hood stabbing people in the back). I mean seriously, what kind of a decent person would have a skill set like this??? The things you excel in are lockpicking, sneaking around, disabling people's defenses, and stabbing people in the back. Oh, and you can also be a pick-pocket.

Is there anyway to play a rogue that isn't an obviously atrocious individual?

Sure.

The next character I look forward to playing is a Lawful Good Locksmith (Guild Merchant Background). He's an ordinary and honest citizen, but he has a few odd hobbies that collectively add-up to the Rogue skill set. He's interested in Comparative Anatomy and Street Performers (among other odd hobbies).

• Comparative anatomy gives him backstab (“hmm, this is a goblin, so i can reach his heart by stabbing under the scapula at this angle!”)
• Street performance gives him acrobatics and slight of hand
• Stealth is a natural part of his forest gnome upbringing
• Locksmithing gives him lock-picking

There's tons of other possibilities if you look past the standard rogue character, and think of other characters that might have those abilities.

[Ralanr]

I don't think any class should be considered straight up evil or good (Screw you Paladin, you're a tradition now and we have to have the alignment equivalent don't we! .) The rogue/thief I've always just seen as the specialist in stealth, sabotage, scouting, spying, espionage, etc. Can other classes do that? Yeah, but that relates to poor balancing (Cause wizards could apparently do anything in 3.5. I know that's a specific game, but the concept of the caster doing everything and do it better seems to be a stigma). Are rogues more likely to be of a not so nice morality? Yeah, but it's about as equal as a fighter.

The abilities of rogues and rogue like classes are not abilities that are commonly used in peace time or in accordance to the law. The same can go for fighters (though they can work as guards). A rogue doesn't have to be a thief however, they could just be quick on their feet and useful in a variety of tasks. Maybe the rogue works as a delivery person who uses parkour to get around a city?

Honestly to argue against the core class of the rogue/thief is to argue against core classes in general. Some people like them, some people don't. If someone doesn't like rogues, then they don't play them. If someone they play with plays a rogue, well guess they should deal with it since they can't control what other people do (And they shouldn't try to, beyond offering their opinions).

[Lord Raziere]

Find it funny how everyone is defending the rogue class as outright evil, and even demonizing the other classes.

Sooo, if fighters are evil sociopaths, then I guess every soldier to ever fight in a war is a sociopath? Were the people who rampaged through nazi germany liberating the concentration camps and overthrowing a war-mongering despot evil for what they did? Get real. Yes, most wars are wrong and shouldn't happen, but just because they're wrong doesn't mean you shouldn't have some way to defend yourself. If everyone was walking around with guns shooting people for petty reasons does that mean you shouldn't have one yourself?

Defending yourself is obviously necessary, murdering and robbing civilians is something completely different. Some of you make it sound like a rogue is basically a person who screws over everyone else just so they can survive themselves. Screw over the rest of the city, so you can eat like a pig.

What, do you all play openly evil characters or something? I actually find it disgusting the one guy who justified an obviously evil character as 'necessary for his own survival'. A campaign where everyone's evil, that would definitely be something.

And over the past few hours, I did manage to think up a rogue character who ISN'T selfish and his actions are justifiable: a bounty hunter, or a monster hunter perhaps. A person who hunts down wanted criminals would certainly have a skill-set like what you see in a rogue's kit. Someone like this could easily be good, hell they could even be lawful perhaps.

...... ok.....this is either going to be hilarious or very fail, can't tell which.

1. nothing is inherently morally good. the only class that starts off guaranteed as good is a paladin, and even they can fall. problem is, rogues don't have alignment restrictions either, so are not inherently morally bad.

2. godwins law! -1 internet from you sir!

3. your not in the modern world where the law is an inherently good thing and justice is considered to be completely impartial. every ruler in a feudal world is a despot who has been told that they have a divine right to rule from birth and that if anyone says differently? that they do whatever they want to them. call the king a jerk and they might just have your head just because.

4. No, how about you trying reading Mistborn or A Song of Ice and Fire sometime? because feudal society is anything but a truly lawful place with good bureaucracy or anything like that. feudal society is a bunch of scheming lords all trying to get more power by any means necessary, kept in check only by a single guy who has more power than them, who all rule over a bunch of peasants and commoners who bow to their lords so that they continue growing their crops.

5. the local lord, one who routinely kidnaps peasant girls from the village to rape them while sending his thugs to beat up anyone who speaks out against him, lately has had trouble with a certain roguish fellow standing up to him with cunning and guile and evading his usual thugs. you, the bounty hunter are hired to go kill said fellow.