I tend to think of D&D classes as sets of abilities rather than strictly defined character themes. A rogue or thief merely has a certain set of abilities, they may or may not use those abilities to steal. So it's entirely possible to be a "thief" without actually stealing anybody's property.

Now, is it ever moral to steal? Well, taking another persons property has the potential to be evil, then again so does killing people, yet there are cases when killing isn't considered evil. Self defense, in war, or in carrying out justice. Stealing should probably be the same. You could steal something from a person who stole it themselves, that doesn't necessarily seem immoral, especially if the property is going to a good cause or being returned to rightful owners.

If killing people in a war is morally acceptable, then stealing during a war would seem to be alright too. What about stealing the big weapon from the enemy camp before they have a chance to use it? What about stealing the enemy's secret plans? Stealing resources from the enemy so they can't use them for the war effort. A thief could be legally employed by the rightful authorities to carry out missions like this, not necessarily in war but against criminals or enemies of the ruling authority.

Quote from: Jam The MF on January 24, 2022, 09:09:04 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 24, 2022, 06:50:05 AM
A better word might be 'technician', but that would generally indicate someone from a more modern time.

How about, "Specialist"?

You mean like a proctologist?   Ehh, no; I'll stick to thief.  Always thought that rogue was really lame too.  Sounds more like a womanizer than an adventurer.  "Who him?  Oh yeah, he's quite the rogue."  So we need a lock picked but that halfling bastard is picking up the barmaid.  Rogues....

Quote from: ShieldWife on January 24, 2022, 09:51:53 PM
I tend to think of D&D classes as sets of abilities rather than strictly defined character themes. A rogue or thief merely has a certain set of abilities, they may or may not use those abilities to steal. So it's entirely possible to be a "thief" without actually stealing anybody's property.

Now, is it ever moral to steal? Well, taking another persons property has the potential to be evil, then again so does killing people, yet there are cases when killing isn't considered evil. Self defense, in war, or in carrying out justice. Stealing should probably be the same. You could steal something from a person who stole it themselves, that doesn't necessarily seem immoral, especially if the property is going to a good cause or being returned to rightful owners.

If killing people in a war is morally acceptable, then stealing during a war would seem to be alright too. What about stealing the big weapon from the enemy camp before they have a chance to use it? What about stealing the enemy's secret plans? Stealing resources from the enemy so they can't use them for the war effort. A thief could be legally employed by the rightful authorities to carry out missions like this, not necessarily in war but against criminals or enemies of the ruling authority.

If we're going to start up the is thievery moral discussion again, I don't think the comparison to killing is useful. Because there are very few sets of moral principles where killing is given a blanket dispensation. Rather, such exceptions are typically restricted to self defense or defense of others, with war being an elaborate variation of the latter case. Life is typically considered sacred, not something to just throw away. That's why the prerequisite for many atrocities was a justification for why the targeted groups of people were subhuman.

Conversely, theft is considered a personal violation by many people, but it doesn't engender anywhere near the same response. Part of that is the distance; it's not a violation of someone's person, but of things on which the person has a claim. That's inherently weaker, and the degree of proximity is also a factor (personal possessions > title to some distant plot of land). Also, many moral philosophies define property in very different ways. Not everything is ancap; from communism or socialism, to feudalism, to concepts of personal property vs. public goods, to intellectual vs. physical property, to homesteading vs. rent seeking, to mineral or bandwidth rights, and so on there many different interpretations that all fall within the normal range of thought. On top of all that, it's generally considered a lesser evil. Even when morally condemned, stealing by the poor or to help the poor is often excused. Especially when the entity being stolen from is abstract, like a corporation, and thus any harm caused by the theft is widely distributed; or when the person is wealthy, which is often considered a kind of unjust taking or theft in itself, and thus fair retribution.

From a game standpoint, I've rarely seen much concern about the morality of stealing. If a thief wants to steal, that's just part of their character. What other players react to most is either stealing from them (never steal from the party), or stealing from sympathetic NPCs, particularly the poor.

I view classes as being these things that have one foot in "abstract classifications" and "in-world organizations." The organizations help explain why the characters have such special skills, and they give characters ties to the game world. But they are also abstract categories in that, well, take a soldier for an example. It's not like a general is going to have the same hierarchical authority upon walking into an enemy camp. But at the same time, you're not going to negotiate a ceasefire with a private. You do recognize rank even in something that is technically a separate organization. So they're sort of universal in-game social organizations.

This ties directly into how I approach demi-human level limits. The common argument says that you need level limits in order for there to be a humanocentric world. Without them, demi-humans would take over. My take is the exact opposite. It's because I begin with the premise of a humanocentric world, the universal in-game social organizations are going to be mainly human social organizations. And therefore they can impose any limit they like. And so we have level limits. And this undercuts any argument to suggest they don't make sense.

The thief is the exception that proves the rule. Here we have the class of those who operate outside of the established (human) social order, and lo and behold, they are suddenly allowed limitless advancement.

Thieving as such is not something that fits in with the good alignment. But the thief class allows for rare instances of Neutral Good thieves. These are those who do not make a profession out of stealing per se, but they do operate outside of the established social order.

I have always disliked thief as a class entirely. It always felt poorly glued on to the rest of the framework. The D&D thief as we know it is little more than an agile locksmith who can be replaced in the party almost easily and seemlessly by using magic or just adding more fighter meat to the pile.

Quote from: Pat on January 24, 2022, 06:42:22 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on January 24, 2022, 05:05:15 PM

Quote from: Aglondir on January 24, 2022, 01:44:51 PM

Quote from: cavalier973 on January 24, 2022, 06:41:24 AM
My perspective is that the D&D thief is not actually a thief—a criminal who steals things—even though the rules push that interpretation of the class. Lamentations of the Flame Princess gets it more right by changing the class title to "specialist". This character has skills that are useful for exploring D&D-style dungeons. The whole, "build a hideout, and then a thieves' guild" element of the rules for higher-level thieves seems tacked on to me. The idea that "thieves might steal from party members" is stupid, if the player does not envisage his character prone to that type of behavior.

The D&D thief made his money by exploring ancient ruins and twisting labyrinths, not by breaking into houses and banks, or extorting money from the small businesses in his neighborhood. What would the D&D thief know about running a successful criminal enterprise—anymore than a fighter, cleric, or magic-user? A magic-user would have an advantage if he wanted to engage in extortion rackets. "Pay the protection money or meet my little friend!" *casts magic missile—the proper one, that hovers threateningly over the magic-user's shoulder for ten minutes* The cleric would be in a perfect position for conducting blackmail. "Lord Sherman just made his weekly confession; now I will write an anonymous letter, threatening to expose him if he does not send money."

D&D thieves can pick locks and find traps, for sure, which would be useful for breaking into places. But he can make more money by using those skills in a dungeon—in the D&D world(s).

I posit that, instead of a thieves' guild, the D&D thief should have access to an organization similar to the old explorers societies. A dungeoneers' guild, where dungeon survival techniques are taught and practiced. Members can study maps of explored dungeons, sit in plush chairs by the fireplace to read the guild books about the exploits of past members, learn how to read ancient languages and eventually how to cast spells from scrolls (without, apparently, needing to cast "read magic" first). When the D&D thief acquires enough money, he can start his own dungeoneers' club, where members pay dues and training fees.

It's a great character concept. One of my favorite characters was a medeival Indiana Jones type. It was a city game, where the dungeons were under the streets. Something like Waterdeep. His goal was to get maps of the dungeons before the party entered, to plan the raid. The campaign didn't last, but if it did, he would have established a guild something like what you described.

But I don't see the need to change the game or the name. I don't find "thief" that bad in a game with "monks" and "druids."

I think the one that seemed off to me a few years back was SotDL using "Dervish" for someone that specializes in two-weapon fighting.

It's from the phrase "whirling dervish". Which is ultimately derived from a religious dance, but the game use is more about the superficial associations (spinning, lots of energy) than real dervishes or their practices.

I'm aware, but it still seemed off to me, just as using druid to describe shapeshifting spellcasters does.

Quote from: HappyDaze on January 25, 2022, 02:01:35 AM

Quote from: Pat on January 24, 2022, 06:42:22 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on January 24, 2022, 05:05:15 PM

Quote from: Aglondir on January 24, 2022, 01:44:51 PM

Quote from: cavalier973 on January 24, 2022, 06:41:24 AM
My perspective is that the D&D thief is not actually a thief—a criminal who steals things—even though the rules push that interpretation of the class. Lamentations of the Flame Princess gets it more right by changing the class title to "specialist". This character has skills that are useful for exploring D&D-style dungeons. The whole, "build a hideout, and then a thieves' guild" element of the rules for higher-level thieves seems tacked on to me. The idea that "thieves might steal from party members" is stupid, if the player does not envisage his character prone to that type of behavior.

The D&D thief made his money by exploring ancient ruins and twisting labyrinths, not by breaking into houses and banks, or extorting money from the small businesses in his neighborhood. What would the D&D thief know about running a successful criminal enterprise—anymore than a fighter, cleric, or magic-user? A magic-user would have an advantage if he wanted to engage in extortion rackets. "Pay the protection money or meet my little friend!" *casts magic missile—the proper one, that hovers threateningly over the magic-user's shoulder for ten minutes* The cleric would be in a perfect position for conducting blackmail. "Lord Sherman just made his weekly confession; now I will write an anonymous letter, threatening to expose him if he does not send money."

D&D thieves can pick locks and find traps, for sure, which would be useful for breaking into places. But he can make more money by using those skills in a dungeon—in the D&D world(s).

I posit that, instead of a thieves' guild, the D&D thief should have access to an organization similar to the old explorers societies. A dungeoneers' guild, where dungeon survival techniques are taught and practiced. Members can study maps of explored dungeons, sit in plush chairs by the fireplace to read the guild books about the exploits of past members, learn how to read ancient languages and eventually how to cast spells from scrolls (without, apparently, needing to cast "read magic" first). When the D&D thief acquires enough money, he can start his own dungeoneers' club, where members pay dues and training fees.

It's a great character concept. One of my favorite characters was a medeival Indiana Jones type. It was a city game, where the dungeons were under the streets. Something like Waterdeep. His goal was to get maps of the dungeons before the party entered, to plan the raid. The campaign didn't last, but if it did, he would have established a guild something like what you described.

But I don't see the need to change the game or the name. I don't find "thief" that bad in a game with "monks" and "druids."

I think the one that seemed off to me a few years back was SotDL using "Dervish" for someone that specializes in two-weapon fighting.

It's from the phrase "whirling dervish". Which is ultimately derived from a religious dance, but the game use is more about the superficial associations (spinning, lots of energy) than real dervishes or their practices.

I'm aware, but it still seemed off to me, just as using druid to describe shapeshifting spellcasters does.

Much less weird than level titles. It's really bizarre to go from 17th century France to the Heroic Age of Greece just by leveling from 5th to 6th level in fighter (swashbuckler to myrmidon). Or all the instances in the bestiaries where alternate spellings or names of the same monster (medusa/gorgon, cockatrice/basilisk, etc.) were turned into entirely new monsters. Other games do it too, like all the abuses of English and Romance languages in World of Darkness. RPGs have a long history of taking mildly obscure words, and turning them into terms of art to define a loosely related game object.

I just did a quick scan-through of various editions and their description of thieves/rogues.

The class wasn't in OD&D. I understand that the thief class was introduced in the Greyhawk expansion, but I do not have that book. I scanned through the copy I have (the pdf) , and it mentions that dwarves can identify traps, and in "the underworld" book it talks about traps, but I haven't seen anything about the characters dealing with traps.

In B/X, it says that thieves are humans trained in the arts of stealing and sneaking, and that they do steal.

In BECMI, Aleena tells "you" that "you" "may think that thieves are bad, but many of them aren't." She mentions that you have to keep an eye on your coin purse, though. Later in the same book, it describes thieves as humans who specialize in "stealth, lockpicking, trap removing, and other activities." It goes on to mention that thieves do steal, but not (usually) from members of their own party.

In the Rules Cyclopedia, the text is the same as in the Mentzer Player's Book (the later description, not the part where Aleena is talking). As an aside, I recommend getting the Print on Demand of this book. For twenty bucks, you get the entire game in a hardback tome. A real steal!

Ahem...

The idea of a thief hideout and establishing a guild is introduced in B/X, and is developed in BECMI/the RC. The thief can become a "rogue" if he or she wishes not to settle down in one place.

In 1e, the thief profession is described as not dishonorable, but isn't honorable, either. A couple of paragraphs down, it limits the alignment of the thief to neutral or evil (a thief can be lawful or good, but not lawful good). It says that the primary thief functions—pickpocketing, picklocketing, trap administration, moving about noiselessly, and hiding in shadows—are all self-explanatory. Then, the text helpfully explains these activities. The thief rounds out his functions with listening to doors, climbing surfaces—both up AND down—and attacking people when they turn their backs to the thief.

2e: the name of the class officially (I guess) changes to "rogue". Nope, I am wrong. "Rogue" is the category; we still have our friend, the thief, but it is important to make new friends along the way. We meet the bard, here. The Thief is what we are looking at, though. Rogues generally, the book says, feel that the world owes them, and try to get as much as they can with the least amount of work. A list of skills is given, beginning with reading strange writings. Climbing (even better than hardy mountain men can) is next, then exceptional hearing, then "filching". The next paragraph mentions picking pockets and...hmmm...detecting noise. 1e's description of thievery being neither honorable or dishonorable is mimicked here. The text advises that thieves can be seen as romantic figures, but I don't think it means that thieves are dreamy lovers. Ali Baba and Renault the Fox are mentioned. A chart with the thief skills is on the page, so they are not referenced directly in the text until a couple of paragraphs down, where a detailed explanation of each of the thief skills is given.

3rd Edition: unfortunately, I do not have any 3e products, so someone else may want to chip in on that edition's description of thieves. I used to have the Basic Game—the one with 16 miniatures—but I can't find it anywhere. I am afraid someone stole it.

Fourth Edition: The class is called "rogue", here. The Core PHB gives some background ideas—an "agent from the deposed king's intelligence network, an accused criminal on the lam, seeking to clear your name, a wiry performer whose goals transcend the theatrical stage, a kid trying to turn around your hard-luck story", etc. Skills are not mentioned, except in the box that lays out the basic elements of the class (Hit points, defense bonuses, etc.) The rogue gets stealth and thievery, plus four others of the player's choice. There are two builds—basically the thug and the sneak-thief.  In the 4e Essentials book, the "Thief" class is introduced as a particular rogue build. Skills *are* emphasized with the 4eE Thief.

5th Ed:(I only have the free Basic Rules for 5e) still a "rogue" here, rather than a "thief"; the emphasis is on the character's variety of skills. In a later paragraph, the class is associated with "burglars, assassins, cut-throats, and con artists", but allowance is made for rogues who are honest "locksmiths, investigators, and exterminators."

D&D 6th edition: sixth edition dungeons and dragons keeps a lot of the core elements of the thief, but adds some very interesting twists that I think will please fans of the class, but I am not going to spoil those for you. You will just have to wait.

2E had four ... call them 'overclasses', where the classes were kind of set up. Warrior, Wizard, Rogue, Priest.

Warriors were fighters, paladins, and rangers. Wizards were mages/magic-users, and specialists (illusionists, etc). Rogues were thieves and (I think) bards? Priests were clerics and druids.

3E shifted the whole thief class to rogue (I guess the logic was that rogues weren't always thieves? Got me). Like I said, 'technician' or 'specialist' might be a better term, since 'skillmonkey' is so undignified Although Starfinder had 'operative' which would be neat too.

Quote from: Pat on January 25, 2022, 02:23:38 AM
Much less weird than level titles. It's really bizarre to go from 17th century France to the Heroic Age of Greece just by leveling from 5th to 6th level in fighter (swashbuckler to myrmidon).

  Try completely changing your religion when reaching 7th (B/X) or 8th (1E) as a cleric, becoming a "Lama", and then switching back to "Patriarch" at the next level.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 25, 2022, 10:51:46 AM
2E had four ... call them 'overclasses', where the classes were kind of set up. Warrior, Wizard, Rogue, Priest.

Warriors were fighters, paladins, and rangers. Wizards were mages/magic-users, and specialists (illusionists, etc). Rogues were thieves and (I think) bards? Priests were clerics and druids.

3E shifted the whole thief class to rogue (I guess the logic was that rogues weren't always thieves? Got me). Like I said, 'technician' or 'specialist' might be a better term, since 'skillmonkey' is so undignified Although Starfinder had 'operative' which would be neat too.

"Dungeoneers" or "Dunjuneer" is my particular favorite. "Treasure Hunter" also works. It is possible that simply calling the character an "adventurer" would fit, as well.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 25, 2022, 11:20:05 AM

Quote from: Pat on January 25, 2022, 02:23:38 AM
Much less weird than level titles. It's really bizarre to go from 17th century France to the Heroic Age of Greece just by leveling from 5th to 6th level in fighter (swashbuckler to myrmidon).

  Try completely changing your religion when reaching 7th (B/X) or 8th (1E) as a cleric, becoming a "Lama", and then switching back to "Patriarch" at the next level.

We typically used the titles to gauge relative strength. You weren't literally a Swashbuckler, you could just fight as well as one. And then if you are on the high seas and run across fighters/pirates/whatever, they are likely to be Swashbucklers. If you found yourself fighting in an arena, you might be fighting a Champion. A Lord was the BBEG. The Village Priest was a level three cleric. 

We did that primarily because of the ridiculousness that you and Pat are pointing out. We couldn't make it work in our heads. Of course, I later learned this is all due to the war gaming roots, etc., but that was not apparent to us at the time. Now it is a valuable tool when creating OD&D/early edition campaigns from scratch.

Greetings!

Cortez, Pizzarro, and the other Conquistadors were all bad-asses with balls of fucking steel. They were often heavily outnumbered, and it was not certain they were going to win, through many battles they were in. And yet, the answer was always, load up the pistols, draw our swords, and God is with us!

Absolute courage. Rain or shine, they stomped and kicked ass. It's amazing what they accomplished!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on January 25, 2022, 03:17:36 PM
Greetings!

Cortez, Pizzarro, and the other Conquistadors were all bad-asses with balls of fucking steel. They were often heavily outnumbered, and it was not certain they were going to win, through many battles they were in. And yet, the answer was always, load up the pistols, draw our swords, and God is with us!

Absolute courage. Rain or shine, they stomped and kicked ass. It's amazing what they accomplished!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Cortez did benefit from being so obscenely lucky it was almost unfair. Seriously. Napoleon once quipped, when interviewing a general for a staff position, 'But is he lucky?'. Well, Cortez is the kind of guy who'd probably roll 3d6 six times for a D&D character and never roll below a 12.

It helped that he was able to (after a couple kickings) get the Tlaxcalans on his side, which gave him much better parity against the Aztecs in terms of numbers.

Now if the Spanish had been bright enough to realize 'El Dorado' was just a pipe dream...

If I remember correctly Francisco Pizarro was super-lucky as well. Potato crops kept the Incas alive and they could only reliable be harvested during a small window of time and that required all hands. That and the Incas had just finished a civil war and the Inca emporer was busy at a big dinner to celebrate or something when Pizarro and his boys showed up.

A religious zealot would take that and Cortes's experience as a sign of divine favor no doubt.