Ok, this thread is closed. Too many dishonest asshole trolls on this site.
Quote from: DeadVerySoon on January 18, 2022, 04:04:26 PM
I am neither advocating nor condemning anything. This is NOT a political post.
An obscure board game, Museum Caper Clue, posits a group of detectives inside a museum, trying to prevent one player, the thief, from absconding with the goods. The thief player must honestly record his movements on a paper pad map of the game board. A paradox of sorts.
Can there be any sort of unharmful theft? If a person steals a physical book, that is a tangible loss all the way down the supply chain to the original author. There is one literal fewer physical book available, less profits.
If a person steals a digital copy of the book, is it the same thing. I say yes, but ONLY if that thief could have afforded to purchase a legitimate digital copy. If not, no money has actually been lost, the data is still there for those who can afford it to buy.
Then, it comes down to, define "afford" and define "broke".
If a book goes out of print, if the price of copies skyrockets on the collector market, does that really fulfill the vision of the author?
If someone creates a PDF and shares it with folks who would never otherwise get to buy it, what do you think of that?
The ethical thief is the entire theme of the Netflix show
Carmen Sandiego.
Ok, this thread is closed. Too many dishonest asshole trolls on this site.
Quote from: DeadVerySoon on January 18, 2022, 04:04:26 PMIf a person steals a digital copy of the book, is it the same thing. I say yes, but ONLY if that thief could have afforded to purchase a legitimate digital copy. If not, no money has actually been lost, the data is still there for those who can afford it to buy.
This assumes that the thief would have spent money at all in the first place. Ability to pay does not imply willingness to do so.
Obviously that problem only applies to digital goods. Theft of physical items is still theft regardless of whether or not the thief could afford the goods.
Ok, this thread is closed. Too many dishonest asshole trolls on this site.
10 - 1 this turns into a piracy debate at some point...
But can there be an ethical thief? No. By definition there cannot. Value is irrelevant. Medium is irrelevant.
Quote from: FingerRod on January 18, 2022, 05:06:41 PM
10 - 1 this turns into a piracy debate at some point...
Oh, you know that it will!
Ok, this thread is closed. Too many dishonest asshole trolls on this site.
The ethical thief goes way back in legends and deeds in various forms.
People who rob the wealthy and donate to the needy. Sometimes bordering more on resistance movements.
People stealing from those that robbed them. This one goes quite far back. And pops up in more modern tales too.
People stealing from other criminals. The Green Hornet for example pretended to be this, the Shroud does it too. These tales are fairly old too of the hero joining the enemy to ruin them from within.
The vigilante who pockets anything of value off those they defeat or slay so as to afford survive, pay the bills, and to keep fighting crime or injustice.
And so on. Lots of examples out there ranging the full spectrum of altruistic to anything but.
An ethical thief / reformed thief; would steal and return, that which should have never been stolen in the first place. They would be an anti-thief, fighting fire with fire.
Quote from: Omega on January 18, 2022, 05:33:46 PM
The ethical thief goes way back in legends and deeds in various forms.
People who rob the wealthy and donate to the needy. Sometimes bordering more on resistance movements.
People stealing from those that robbed them. This one goes quite far back. And pops up in more modern tales too.
People stealing from other criminals. The Green Hornet for example pretended to be this, the Shroud does it too. These tales are fairly old too of the hero joining the enemy to ruin them from within.
The vigilante who pockets anything of value off those they defeat or slay so as to afford survive, pay the bills, and to keep fighting crime or injustice.
And so on. Lots of examples out there ranging the full spectrum of altruistic to anything but.
Not really relevant to the OP
Quote from: DeadVerySoon on January 18, 2022, 05:15:52 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on January 18, 2022, 05:06:41 PM
10 - 1 this turns into a piracy debate at some point...
But can there be an ethical thief? No. By definition there cannot. Value is irrelevant. Medium is irrelevant.
If no one is harmed by an act of taking something without paying for it, is it still theft?
Is the law itself not harmful in many cases?
Who determines what is not harmful?
Alot of advocates for pirating games and RPGs love to claim "we arent harming anyone so its fine!"
And this rolls back into role play. The supposedly ethical thief might actually be negatively impacting someone with their theft. Much how shoplifting can and does for stores.
Ok, this thread is closed. Too many dishonest asshole trolls on this site.
Quote from: DeadVerySoon on January 18, 2022, 04:59:44 PMI'm saying that if the thief were NOT able to pay, it calls into question whether digital theft harmed the owners. \What do you mean by "..would have spent money at all in the first place."?
I meant exactly what I said.
If someone wasn't going to pay for a digital product at all to begin with, as in the owner of the good would never have received money from the person, then their theft of said digital product causes no damage because the owner wasn't going to get paid even if the thief didn't steal it.
Ok, this thread is closed. Too many dishonest asshole trolls on this site.
Quote from: DeadVerySoon on January 18, 2022, 06:17:34 PM
You've completely confused the situation. There is a huge difference between ABLE AND UNWILLING to pay (selfish prick scumbag who makes life bad for everyone) and UNABLE but taking away no potential sale, due to being unable and a virtual product, not tangible.
Name one person in a country with access to the internet and a PDF viewer who can't pay $10 for a PDF of a game that they could play for years.
There's not this razor's edge between starving to death in 3 weeks, and buying a game. You could buy that avocado at Walmart instead of Whole Foods, or buy a bag of rice instead. Or more likely, in any first world country, not buy 2 expressos one morning, or maybe put off your purchase of a new big screen TV for 30 seconds.
It's not between the unable and the unwilling. It's all about the entitled; people who think they are owed more than they're willing to save and pay for.
it depends...
Ethical 'thievery' could be legitimate if your doing some good with it. But then how do we define thievery, and what good is it doing? I suppose you could be an ethical hacker as an example - stealing data, then passing it on to the authorities to stop a suspected terrorist attack. But technically you are still stealing.
The only way I think you can ethically steal a pdf is if the game is long out of print. Then you are doing some good by playing and preserving the game, and passing it on for others to enjoy.
Because you can't afford something doesn't entitle you to have it. And while you may not be stealing per se, you are partaking in copyright infringement and stealing the I.P.
However, some thievery may be more ethical than others. ;D
As OP said, paying for a pdf is pretty low bar. It's not like you're buying a Ducati or something. A pdf is only a few of quid (in most cases).
Quote from: DeadVerySoon on January 18, 2022, 06:17:34 PMIt appears as if you are saying that " When someone who could pay, but chooses to steal instead, the owner would not be harmed, because there never would have been a payment"
Your logic is flawed. There IS harm if the thief COULD have paid, but simply chooses not to do so. That is a lost potential sale, when the thief is ABLE but unwilling, to pay.
No, my logic is not flawed. You are conflating ability and willingness.
Just because an individual is able to pay for something, does not mean they would do so.
If a person would not pay for a digital item in the first place, then their theft of a copy of said item is not a loss for the producer of the item because there was not going to be a sale to begin with.
QuoteUnder your model, those who CAN pay but do not destroy the motive and ability for others to create and sell. That is an actual loss of a sale, stolen potential, because the money COULD HAVE BEEN PAID.
Just because it
could does not mean that it
would have.
Whether or not such behavior that I am discussing - ability to pay, but unwillingness to pay, resulting in theft of digital product - destroys motivations for production is a bit of a broader scope. You could probably make a cogent argument for your position, but I'm not sure it would hold water all that well.
No matter how you slice it, it's still bologna.....
Ok, this thread is closed. Too many dishonest asshole trolls on this site.
Ok, this thread is closed. Too many dishonest asshole trolls on this site.
Quote from: DeadVerySoon on January 18, 2022, 09:48:46 PM
A person who could NOT afford to pay, does no harm.
But that would assume a few things though. Like, that person would never pass it on to others. And also, that they 'would never' buy the pdf in the first place. But should they ever be in a position, to be able to 'buy' the pdf in question, but then don't, then they are harming the author, in a way.
There are too any variable to say that they are doing no harm in my opinion.
Ok, this thread is closed. Too many dishonest asshole trolls on this site.
Ok, this thread is closed. Too many dishonest asshole trolls on this site.
Quote from: DeadVerySoon on January 18, 2022, 09:46:58 PM
Quote from: Pat on January 18, 2022, 07:51:22 PM
Quote from: DeadVerySoon on January 18, 2022, 06:17:34 PM
You've completely confused the situation. There is a huge difference between ABLE AND UNWILLING to pay (selfish prick scumbag who makes life bad for everyone) and UNABLE but taking away no potential sale, due to being unable and a virtual product, not tangible.
Name one person in a country with access to the internet and a PDF viewer who can't pay $10 for a PDF of a game that they could play for years.
There's not this razor's edge between starving to death in 3 weeks, and buying a game. You could buy that avocado at Walmart instead of Whole Foods, or buy a bag of rice instead. Or more likely, in any first world country, not buy 2 expressos one morning, or maybe put off your purchase of a new big screen TV for 30 seconds.
It's not between the unable and the unwilling. It's all about the entitled; people who think they are owed more than they're willing to save and pay for.
PDF viewers are free, as is library access to the internet.
You are the one who sounds entitled
In most first world countries. But Bangladesh? Nigeria? It's going to be a bit more erratic.
I included literally everyone in all those countries who can meet the bare minimum standard of a computer and internet, and your response was completely oblivious to anything except your own first world privilege.
Tell me again how
I'm the one who sounds entitled.
Ok, this thread is closed. Too many dishonest asshole trolls on this site.
Ok, this thread is closed. Too many dishonest asshole trolls on this site.
Quote from: DeadVerySoon on January 18, 2022, 09:57:52 PM
It's a totally different act to be unable to pay and steal a copy for yourself, and to steal it and give it to those who CAN pay but won't.
I'm trying to drill down to the core here.
I think some of the replies here are very insincere, just trolling.
Well... Given the fact that you don't want to talk about those certain factors. And appear to want to make it more of a binary argument (which is not the way to approach it in my estimation). Then 'technically', if we follow your playbook - it does not harm the author per se.
That said, it does not make it an ethical action. If you were stealing for food (because you had no other choice) then I'd see that as more ethical. PDF games are not a necessity (obviously).
Quote from: DeadVerySoon on January 18, 2022, 10:16:03 PM
Ok, this thread is closed. Too many dishonest asshole trolls on this site.
And you may be one of them!
Quote from: DeadVerySoon on January 18, 2022, 10:16:03 PM
Ok, this thread is closed. Too many dishonest asshole trolls on this site.
LOL. Opens a can of worms and is surprised when they crawl out.
.
I'm surprised that this happened so soon, but I knew something was up and would end badly when I read the OP's user name and first thread, which seemed to be semi-autobiographical and sounded like they weren't well.
(https://i.imgur.com/rafQwgT.png)
I don't know what happened but I made this to commemorate the drama.
Quote from: palaeomerus on January 19, 2022, 11:47:16 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/rafQwgT.png)
I don't know what happened but I made this to commemorate the drama.
I wish i could give you +1's and Likes for this.
Quote from: jeff37923 on January 18, 2022, 11:09:56 PM
Quote from: DeadVerySoon on January 18, 2022, 10:16:03 PM
Ok, this thread is closed. Too many dishonest asshole trolls on this site.
And you may be one of them!
What the heck is he? A forum crawler bot?
Quote from: Omega on January 19, 2022, 06:33:00 PM
What the heck is he? A forum crawler bot?
No, he's just a precious little princess who deleted all his posts when people didn't agree with him.
Well, I thought he was bitchin'. Come baaaack!
He was just trying to inflate his post count.
Dammit, missed the dishonest asshole trolls by this much.
Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on January 19, 2022, 06:51:27 PM
Well, I thought he was bitchin'. Come baaaack!
Yeah. Thought his threads were ok and did not see anyone being rough in their answers so it is a bit of a "wha?"
Oh well, back to discussing ethical thieves without him.
As noted up above that got dismissed by him.
Theres a fine line between thief and vigilante or resistance fighter depending on how far someone stretches the term thief. And we know some nuts out there have stretched it to "everything on earth."
If you are stealing from enemy camps during war or after war occupation. Are you a thief or a resistance fighter?
Or to take it to the ad nausium extreme end... If the law confiscates stolen goods from criminals and return it to the original owners are they stealing from the criminals?
Quote from: Omega on January 20, 2022, 12:11:53 AM
If you are stealing from enemy camps during war or after war occupation. Are you a thief or a resistance fighter?
Exactly, it's a highly nuanced question. And yet the gimboid didn't want to talk about it. Hm..
I could think of Lawful Good Thief being a corporate raider, moneychanger, or creative accountant. By Legal it is Lawful, by Good it would be something supportive of a humanistic ethos, such as short selling against harmful speculator bubbles, currency manipulation during a time of war against a rampaging war machine enemy, or pro bono clever tax write-offs for struggling charities. :o Or you could be a locksmith.
I dunno, what were we talking about anyway? ;D
Quote from: Shasarak on January 19, 2022, 07:11:03 PM
Dammit, missed the dishonest asshole trolls by this much.
Fret not the dopamine rush for these guys is too much for them to step away for long.
Quote from: DeadVerySoon on January 18, 2022, 09:46:58 PM
Ok, this thread is closed.
No, no it isn't. ;)
QuoteToo many dishonest asshole trolls on this site.
Quite true, indisputable. In the twenty years I've been at the "Don't retort, report!" sites, I find it a bit intimidating to handle jerk responses on my own rather than casting Summon Mod; but also oddly refreshing.
Quote from: Pat on January 19, 2022, 06:38:53 PM
Quote from: Omega on January 19, 2022, 06:33:00 PM
What the heck is he? A forum crawler bot?
No, he's just a precious little princess who deleted all his posts when people didn't agree with him.
I predict the OP has a great future as a TBP moderator. He has the perfect "only trollers would disagree with
my opinion" attitude.
Re the OP question, here is my first thought:
QuoteWhen freedom is a memory and justice is outlawed, the just must become outlaws.
While Zorro isn't so much a thief as a resistance fighter, the concept still stands.
So what would be the difference between an ethical thief and a moral thief?
Quote from: jeff37923 on January 20, 2022, 04:46:28 PM
So what would be the difference between an ethical thief and a moral thief?
There isnt alot of difference in the action.
But there might be some difference in the mental outlook of the individual in the how and why.
Most seem to consider morals to be personal creed. While ethics tend to be viewed as social?
So I'd guess the moral thief will steal from robbers to give to the poor because its the right thing to do. While the ethical thief will steal from them because they broke the law and this is furthering justice?
Probably totally YMMV depending on the individual much like how no two players can agree on what D&D alignment means or even that D&D HP means.
This probably comes into play too when you have a morals vs ethics conundrum in dealing with those pesky orc babies. Is killing them wrong or right because they do or do not have a chance to be whatever? Or is killing them or not wrong because they are babies and killing them is not what people should do. (Or is it?)
Quote from: Opaopajr on January 20, 2022, 09:03:57 AM
I could think of Lawful Good Thief being a corporate raider, moneychanger, or creative accountant. By Legal it is Lawful, by Good it would be something supportive of a humanistic ethos, such as short selling against harmful speculator bubbles, currency manipulation during a time of war against a rampaging war machine enemy, or pro bono clever tax write-offs for struggling charities. :o Or you could be a locksmith.
I dunno, what were we talking about anyway? ;D
I played a dwarven thief who was a "treasure reclamation specialist" reclaiming all the wealth monster had stole from the dwarfs and others. Knowing how to pick locks and disarm traps was the most important thing.
I once ran a rogue/wizard who was a 'freelance security specialist', similar to your dwarf, Nephil. A little bit of treasure reclamation, a little bit of bounty hunter, and a little bit of 'here's how to keep people like me out of your stuff'.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 21, 2022, 08:01:58 AM
I once ran a rogue/wizard who was a 'freelance security specialist', similar to your dwarf, Nephil. A little bit of treasure reclamation, a little bit of bounty hunter, and a little bit of 'here's how to keep people like me out of your stuff'.
Awesome! So, a Lawful Good "Thief" is perfectly possible, and even easy to do.
Quote from: Nephil on January 21, 2022, 05:21:57 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 21, 2022, 08:01:58 AM
I once ran a rogue/wizard who was a 'freelance security specialist', similar to your dwarf, Nephil. A little bit of treasure reclamation, a little bit of bounty hunter, and a little bit of 'here's how to keep people like me out of your stuff'.
Awesome! So, a Lawful Good "Thief" is perfectly possible, and even easy to do.
So are assassins, necromancers, etc.
Quote from: Omega on January 18, 2022, 05:33:46 PM
The ethical thief goes way back in legends and deeds in various forms.
People who rob the wealthy and donate to the needy. Sometimes bordering more on resistance movements.
People stealing from those that robbed them. This one goes quite far back. And pops up in more modern tales too.
People stealing from other criminals. The Green Hornet for example pretended to be this, the Shroud does it too. These tales are fairly old too of the hero joining the enemy to ruin them from within.
The vigilante who pockets anything of value off those they defeat or slay so as to afford survive, pay the bills, and to keep fighting crime or injustice.
And so on. Lots of examples out there ranging the full spectrum of altruistic to anything but.
I don't know what the OP was on about - since the twit deleted his posts - but I thought this was the start of a discussion that had potential.
Quote from: Omega on January 20, 2022, 04:56:45 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on January 20, 2022, 04:46:28 PM
So what would be the difference between an ethical thief and a moral thief?
There isnt alot of difference in the action.
But there might be some difference in the mental outlook of the individual in the how and why.
Most seem to consider morals to be personal creed. While ethics tend to be viewed as social?
While sometimes synonyms, I think of morals as related to the mores of the society. So one who obeys those mores is moral vis a vis that society. Ethics I see as something that aspires to be a universal prescription or rule.
"The Flinx was an ethical thief in that he stole only from the crooked."
--The opening sentence of The Tar-Aiym Krang by Alan Dean Foster
He was the product of eugenic gene editing by the Meliorare Society though.
Quote from: jeff37923 on January 20, 2022, 04:46:28 PM
So what would be the difference between an ethical thief and a moral thief?
In my way too many years of theological classes, the prime separation between moral and ethics is: moral is principle (ideal), ethics is applied.
So if we are defining thief as one who steals, and the principle of theft/stealing is a moral wrong (along with a legal wrong), then there never can be a moral thief. Morals are absolutist ideals. They are an abstract guidance, like cardinal directions, for behavior a complicated real world.
But just as cardinal directions, like "True North," does not exist beyond its contextual reference (such as deep space vs. planet Earth in the Sol system), neither does principles/ideals. Ethics draws from context to actualize a moral, sometimes (oftentimes) in ways contradictory to competing morals. And given societies have more than one moral, often quite a lot of them, morals come into conflict and have to be given priorities. That prioritization to apply a moral system is ethics.
So it's like competing code in software, it has to check current context, then check any conditional statements advising prioritization of responses in said context.
So an ethical thief is applied nonconsentual redistribution for a cause greater than its harm. :) Hope that helps!
Quote from: Opaopajr on January 22, 2022, 02:14:57 PMEthics draws from context to actualize a moral, sometimes (oftentimes) in ways contradictory to competing morals. And given societies have more than one moral, often quite a lot of them, morals come into conflict and have to be given priorities. That prioritization to apply a moral system is ethics.
I'm changing my answer to this.
Quote from: Bren on January 23, 2022, 02:01:38 AM
Quote from: Opaopajr on January 22, 2022, 02:14:57 PMEthics draws from context to actualize a moral, sometimes (oftentimes) in ways contradictory to competing morals. And given societies have more than one moral, often quite a lot of them, morals come into conflict and have to be given priorities. That prioritization to apply a moral system is ethics.
I'm changing my answer to this.
Ha ha ha! ;D And it didn't have to come from almost two decades of religious classes! 8) Hard times, hard times.
Privateers are government-sanctioned pirates, so they are lawful, I guess.
The character I thought of was Indiana Jones. He does not shrink from stealing (at least, in "The Last Crusade"), but his intention is to deliver artifacts to the museum, rather than keep them for himself.
Quote from: cavalier973 on January 23, 2022, 12:28:41 PM
Privateers are government-sanctioned pirates, so they are lawful, I guess.
The character I thought of was Indiana Jones. He does not shrink from stealing (at least, in "The Last Crusade"), but his intention is to deliver artifacts to the museum, rather than keep them for himself.
Well that is the thing. When is a thief a thief and when is taking from the enemy thievery and not just liberating supplies. Supplies that may have been stolen and likely are now being used to further wars?
Sure to the enemy its thievery and totally unethical and morally wrong to boot most likely. But to the resistance its the exact opposite and not getting this stuff out of there hands is likely ethically and morally wrong.
What if they instead just torch the stuff instead of taking it from them? Iare the thieves? Vandals? Can there be an ethical vandal??? 8)
'The thief who steals three kopeks is hanged; the thief that steals thirty kopeks is praised.'
Sometimes, it's all a question of scale.
Ethical vandal (as in destruction of property)? Well many religious movements were (or are) in fact iconoclastic (destroys imagery), or at least put heavy injunction against forbidden things (oppositional faiths, e.g. satanism). So the answer on Earth is an emphatic yes. In fact it is often a duty of the new order replacing the old order, to prevent the past opposition from returning as a threat.
(Further, the defacing and destruction of living things, including people, can be in that argument against lawful or good fighters. But for defense, survival, gold, and glory has already been established as allowed justifications for those who fight in manifold variations. Yet complications always ensue, hence codes of conduct, internal military jurisprudence, etc. Certain morals take a backseat to necessity, but the nod to ethical application -- and ethical internal review -- is frequently present.)
It may not be in your fantasy world as you get to define the moral compasses and cultural expressions in your table's fictional world, naturally. :)
I play 1E, which to me gives a lot of clarity, or at least narrows down the questions I'm asking.
The tenets of good are "human" rights, which are enumerated as life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Evil is not merely the opposite of these things. For evil, purpose is determinant. Evil is willing to trod on human rights to further its ends. Its ends itself might be noble, but still evil. Neutrals are either those consciously balancing good with evil, or else those so indifferent to good or evil, having neither respect for the human rights, nor some great purpose that urges then to tread on those rights.
The right to property is not one on the list. Although indirectly, if you steal someone's excess, you might hamper their prospect of happiness. And if you continue to steal forcing them to work more, you might make them relatively less free. And if you continue to steal to the point where you steal the very food off their plate, you might be robbing them of life itself. So taken to an extreme, stealing will be considered evil according to the parameters laid out by the game. But not taken to such an extreme? That would be indifferent.
That's what follows from the alignment guidance. So here is where the wiggle room is.
1) In the fantasy world "human" may be expanded to a number of creatures. Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, etc, for sure. Where exactly the line is drawn between human and monster is up to the DM. For my own game, I draw the line between PC and non-PC races. Half-Orcs are considered "human"; full orcs are not.
2) Remember, evil has purpose. Evil may even have an ethical code. Under the ethical code of evil, even murder may be justifiable within that code. You could thus easily have examples of an "ethical thief" but it wouldn't make the thief of Good alignment.
3) The rules don't apply to the divine. Consider. If you take something from someone else, is that stealing? Well, not if the thing you are taking was rightfully yours. Same thing with vandalism. If the thing you're defacing or destroying belongs to you, that's not vandalism. Well, consider a world that is created by God or gods. As creators of all, they are also owners of all. They may take or destroy what is theirs without that act being subject to the normal judgments or categories of alignment.
Ex: A great flood that destroys the lazy, the sinful, and the squanderers of wealth, sparing only those who have worked to gain excess and then uses that excess to safeguard against calamity, may be said to serve a higher purpose--if a mortal were to do this, it would be an evil act as it violates the human rights, but a god has only destroyed what was already rightfully his. (Note that when there are many Gods, there could be cases where a god stakes claim on a mortal hero, rendering them untouchable by other gods who must act indirectly to take vengeance on a hero who has offended them.)
Where would an IRS auditor fit into these paradigms. An auditor is taking someone elses hard earned gains which is thievery by most definitions.
Lawful because that is the law and gov needs some money to run (how much and how spent are different issues).
Good, Neutral, Evil I guess would depend upon methods and the government?
Not all thieves pick pockets.
p.s. I'm surprised nobody brought up Bilbo as an ethical thief. Stealing back was mentioned, but Bilbo is a great example of exactly that.
WTF is going on in this thread?
Can there be an Ethical Fighter? Let's parse what a "Fighter" means. Then, after 200-pages of debate and sifting through the ashes of that dead horse, long beaten and charred to dust, we can parse what a "Fighter" actually does (Kill things with objects), then have a 200-page thread of discussing alignment and moral/ethical justifications of each alignment type blah blah blah.
The answer is simple: Yes, you can have ethics and be a thief. The real question is how ethical are you relative to WHAT? Are you talking about the Class, or the act of thievery itself?
The issue is what kind of moral framework you're leveraging it against and what degree are the moral and ethical hazards presented by your actions.
Stealing is stealing. But there is a difference between stealing from the wealthy evil Baron to feed your family, and stealing indiscriminately for fun and pleasure.
Thieves are less ethical than most. But you can definitely scale them within their own context of behaviors.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 25, 2022, 11:03:53 AM
p.s. I'm surprised nobody brought up Bilbo as an ethical thief. Stealing back was mentioned, but Bilbo is a great example of exactly that.
Mainly not mentioned because he is not a thief. He's just some poor joe who gets press ganged into this and called a thief when he is anything but.
The only reason he takes anything from the hoard is because they literally force the poor guy to go in alone.
On top of that what he was doing was recovery of stolen goods. If anything hes more like a constable. A constable forced to recover stolen goods.
Bilbo is about as far removed from being a thief as one can get. Unless your definition of thief is "everything on Earth"
Quote from: tenbones on January 25, 2022, 12:21:54 PM
WTF is going on in this thread?
Can there be an Ethical Fighter?
Of course there can!
PACIFIST CRUSH! and of course...
;D Yay! Slayers! Good times, good times. 8)
Also makes me think of Buddhist and Jaina empires. Right thinking and Right action and minimal harm for all living things -- to the face! >:( How dare you eat root vegetables! Gaining material attachment and killing an organism to satiate your hunger! Boo!
;) The fun part is to avoid all of this we leave the responsibility for universe alignment and the ethos for fictional cultures to the GM. That way they can answer their players direct and we don't have to iron out all of imagination to one "correct" group think. ;D And thus with context localized to individual campaigns the many flowers of gaming tables may bloom.
Quote from: Omega on January 25, 2022, 12:23:37 PM
Bilbo is about as far removed from being a thief as one can get. Unless your definition of thief is "everything on Earth"
Bilbo was picked primarily because of his stealth and is hired as a burglar by the Dwarves. He tries to steal food from the Trolls. Steals keys from the Wood Elf jailers. Scouts around before the party enters Lonely Mountain. And yes, he recovers stolen goods but then gives the Big Sphere to the men of lakedown instead of the party. Seems pretty Thief like to me.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 25, 2022, 11:03:53 AM
Where would an IRS auditor fit into these paradigms. An auditor is taking someone elses hard earned gains which is thievery by most definitions.
Over the entire course of human history, I can't think of a single profession more universally reviled than the tax collector. They needed armed guards, because given the slightest chance, the locals would slit their throats and toss them in a ditch.
Which should answer your question about whether most people would consider it theft.
The exception of course being the pawns of the modern spendthrift regime. They love taxes, especially the ones
you have to pay.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 25, 2022, 11:03:53 AM
Where would an IRS auditor fit into these paradigms. An auditor is taking someone elses hard earned gains which is thievery by most definitions.
Lawful because that is the law and gov needs some money to run (how much and how spent are different issues).
Good, Neutral, Evil I guess would depend upon methods and the government?
Not all thieves pick pockets.
p.s. I'm surprised nobody brought up Bilbo as an ethical thief. Stealing back was mentioned, but Bilbo is a great example of exactly that.
An IRS Auditor is lawful evil. They LOVE rules and rules and rules, and they also revel in using their power and position to bury a poor sap to did not dot an I. Pretty much the definition of Lawful Evil (petty tyrants).
The only thieves I've known, all of them, about say 6 in 40 years, were kind of "unethical" in that while they might seem quite moral the rest of the time, they could always rationalize a casus beli for righteous thefts as easily as your wife can manufacture an excuse to argue over nothing. I've got one cousin that has probably stolen a million dollars worth of tools and crap from various big box outfits to trade for pills or pill money, ask about it and he will tell you how he is robin hood, sticking it to the man.
He will also catch you gone and steal your vacuum cleaner (that was a wedding gift you shit head) or even the damned copper out of the walls. If ever caught, he will make up something about how he is correct and right in what he was doing; he is playing defense and you are the aggressor, he stole your dogs pups because you are cruel to animals see, he stole your lawn mower to encourage you to get a new one that's less loud, he did not blow your change at the gas station he got robbed coming out of the bathroom and sorry he also forgot the cigs you sent him after in the first place.
This trait of rationalizing justification seemed to be common across all but one of the thieves I've known, only one was of the mindset that "stealing is wrong, i am stealing, i am in the wrong, but i'm doing it anyway and i don't care". The rest were just on various layers of self delusion. "It's ok to rob the dope dealer, it's ok to rob corporations, it's ok to rob drug addicts, it's not rape if she got her pill" etc.
Somehow and I caution, this topic tends to meander into the weeds surrounding the concept of ownership itself, at least, these types I speak of like to turn the conversation toward any accusers having to defend the concept of ownership itself in each given case rather than simply focusing on the factual act of theft.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 25, 2022, 02:11:10 PM
Bilbo was picked primarily because of his stealth and is hired as a burglar by the Dwarves. He tries to steal food from the Trolls. Steals keys from the Wood Elf jailers. Scouts around before the party enters Lonely Mountain. And yes, he recovers stolen goods but then gives the Big Sphere to the men of lakedown instead of the party. Seems pretty Thief like to me.
Except not one bit of that makes him a thief. Moreso because half of it was under duress. Gandalf pressganged Bilbo into coming along. The dwarves bullied him into resking his life to steal stuff and etc.
Try again please.
Quote from: Omega on January 26, 2022, 01:51:34 AM
Except not one bit of that makes him a thief. Moreso because half of it was under duress. Gandalf pressganged Bilbo into coming along. The dwarves bullied him into resking his life to steal stuff and etc.
Try again please.
I don't think I need to try again. I think your arguments are unconvincing. Taking on the role of a thief in a party makes him a first level thief, he does not need to make a lifetime commitment to the profession.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 26, 2022, 08:30:43 AM
Quote from: Omega on January 26, 2022, 01:51:34 AM
Except not one bit of that makes him a thief. Moreso because half of it was under duress. Gandalf pressganged Bilbo into coming along. The dwarves bullied him into resking his life to steal stuff and etc.
Try again please.
I don't think I need to try again. I think your arguments are unconvincing. Taking on the role of a thief in a party makes him a first level thief, he does not need to make a lifetime commitment to the profession.
Of course because your own arguments fall flat on scrutiny.
Keep struggling.
I was going to bring up the basic "party contract" type of ethics.
Things like "Don't steal from the other party members" and "When combat starts, you have to fight on the party's side."
Looks like it's a little late, though.
Clearly he was a ranger cleric.
I don't know if this is a serious question, but it should be!
Was Jean Valjean unethical for stealing food when he was starving?
Was it unethical for the Allies to steal German scientists and secret research?
What exactly is the definition of theft? If the government authorizes me to 'steal' from you is it no longer theft?
If someone steals my cow, and I steal their goat, is it theft or retribution?
I could go on...
I brought that up earlier.
Thief? or resistance fighter?
Thief? or recovering your own stolen goods/or equivalent?
Thief? or vigilante?
To the nuts here and elsewhere the answer is YES! because their definition of thief is "everything on earth"