Situational ethics as you describe (basis of need) would best suit a Chaotic Good character, who strives for the greater good and is quite willing to break the law. Rationalized theft also works for a Neutral Good character who occassionally must break the law in order to further the greater good. For the NG character, this would probably require a more extreme case, such as stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving child. Lawful Good characters (and this is just for role-play and the sake of an argument) would never break the law because, to them, any and all good begins with law and honor. Lawful Good characters would rather die than lose honor. I know it's quite a dogmatic position, but LG is that kind of alignment.

Of course anyone can play however they want. I'm just throwing in my unsolicited opinion.

Situational ethics as you describe (basis of need) would best suit a Chaotic Good character, who strives for the greater good and is quite willing to break the law. Rationalized theft also works for a Neutral Good character who occassionally must break the law in order to further the greater good. For the NG character, this would probably require a more extreme case, such as stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving child. Lawful Good characters (and this is just for role-play and the sake of an argument) would never break the law because, to them, any and all good begins with law and honor. Lawful Good characters would rather die than lose honor. I know it's quite a dogmatic position, but LG is that kind of alignment.

Of course anyone can play however they want. I'm just throwing in my unsolicited opinion. </font>[/QUOTE]well.. actually each allignement is made of 2 parts the good-evil and law-chaos...

so a neutral lawful character would never break the law... but would a lawful good? you said no... but the character is just as lawful as he is good... why do you assume his "lawfulness" comes before his "goodness"... what if the choice is do something lawful but evil or something unlawful but good? Then he *could* break the law to do the good thing...
I'm not talking about pickpocketing here which obviosly is not good enough to justify breaking the law... but some decision could be like that eg.
[BG2 spoiler]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Keldorn was faced with
-giving his wife to authorities (lawful but evil)
-not giving his wife to authorities (not so lawful but good)
both choices were justifiable to some extent... the 2nd one was IMO better in spite of being less lawful.

True stuff here. However, consider this:

No LG character can pickpocket. Thieves cannot be LG. Bards have to be at least partially neutral - LN, NG, etc. So as no LG character will be picking the pockets, it's ok, right? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yeah, you can talk about paladins in the party, but who says the paladin has to notice? :D

I didn't give alignment a second thought when I gave you my answer to your post. Earlier today I was thinking about it though. Edited out* There is a npc that can be stolen from that isn't who you think he is. Editied out* Not that my True neutral thief cared about that when she stole his ring. She is just a thief that hones her skills whenever she can.

For the sake of roleplay I usually remove my party from the area when she pickpockets or picks a lock in a home. Out in a dungeon it is a different story. Without her skills they would be left with broken armor and dull blades. She is the one that usually finds the traps and opens those chests with the goodies in them.

It comes down to "not asking and not being told" in the end for the good lawful characters in the party. Survival justifies the means. As long as no one gets hurt as a result of her actions they can accept what is done. Robbing from the rich to help the poor seems justified.

As it was pointed out the villagers aren't paying the party for their services. Some are a bit short to the party to boot. While my good characters might be satisfied with what loot they may find on their missions my thief is not. She is a career criminal. There is no other explanation for her actions.

You have brought up good points about this.

I made one error when posting this that a forum member was good enough to point out to me. I had included a spoiler without realizing it. I removed that bit of information so as not to ruin the game for anyone.


Situational ethics as you describe (basis of need) would best suit a Chaotic Good character, who strives for the greater good and is quite willing to break the law. Rationalized theft also works for a Neutral Good character who occassionally must break the law in order to further the greater good. For the NG character, this would probably require a more extreme case, such as stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving child. Lawful Good characters (and this is just for role-play and the sake of an argument) would never break the law because, to them, any and all good begins with law and honor. Lawful Good characters would rather die than lose honor. I know it's quite a dogmatic position, but LG is that kind of alignment.

Of course anyone can play however they want. I'm just throwing in my unsolicited opinion. </font>[/QUOTE]

[ 10-22-2004, 05:14 AM: Message edited by: Calagari ]

I think role-play is exatly about that... when you are good, you will not steal your friend.

I know, that Orrick will not use his ring of free action in the game, but surely in his life, in his virtual life. The game cannot be so detailed, to simulate everythink. But it is meaned like his own asset. Simply, as a good-character of virtual world, you should not (in the name of role-playing) steal.

What about neutral characteres (I have a neutral bard and neutral (future) fighter/thief and fighter/druid)? My rationale would be that since they are neutral, they wouldn't have a problem stealing since it is in the name of a higher purpose (defeating evil in the course of the game) as well as personal gain. Of course, in a game like this, evil is relative. For example, if you are playing an all evil party, you are only out to defeat evil for whatever you get out of it (ie. power, treasure, etc). Okay, this post is getting a little esoteric and off topic. What do you want on a Friday?