PDA

View Full Version : The Rogue and stealing.



Inquisitor Tremayne
07-02-2009, 10:22 PM
Lets say there are a party of adventures in a dungeon, if the Rogue walks into a room alone, searches it, and pockets a gem or small bag of coins but turns everything else over to the party coffers, do you consider that stealing from the party?

This is a Rogue that would gladly give money to any party member that needed it or share any of their other items with the party. They just happen to pocket a few small things here and there.

Is this harming the group?

Also, if you could, please explain your answers.

Thanks.

korhal23
07-02-2009, 10:44 PM
No he isn't harming the party. In the 4E group I ran, the artificer was the unofficial party leader and was also the one who divided up the loot. It was his policy that everything was split as even as possible, and then he kept the few leftover coins for himself. In a way, the rogue is doing something similar... a finder's fee of sorts, a perfectly logical thing for him to take due to being the first one in the room, and presumably the one shouldering most of the danger. My problem as both a player and a GM is not someone who skims off the top of the loot pile, but rather the one who steals from party members AFTER the fact. That's bad manners, and anti-social, and much like if you steal from someone in real life, a good way to get gutted like a fish.

So my answer to your question: No, it's totally justified, and I'd almost be willing to say it's almost his right.

Umiushi
07-03-2009, 03:09 AM
Yeah, I'd call it stealing, from a purely technical sense, but if the rogue's skillful, my character would never catch on. Is it harmful to the party? Again, what we don't know doesn't hurt us.

Personally, I think if the players know, but the characters don't know, that's harmful for the overall morale of the game. It's like the rogue's player is saying, "Hey, in your face!" For that matter, what's the rogue doing, going into the room first? As Korhal23 rightly pointed out, if this was agreed upon in advance, that the rogue would be the advance scout, then I could see the rogue having a plausible argument if caught that this was some kind of danger bonus.

However, from my gamist perspective, I've never been in favor of advance scouts, particular not rogues, because I, as a player, and any reasonably wise character of mine, would anticipate exactly this scenario occurring, especially if I knew in-game that the person in question was, well, "a rogue." Advance scouting, allegedly to gain intelligence for the party, time and again has turned into nothing more than an excuse to rip us off of treasure and experience points, in some cases even critical information, and is usually pushed upon the rest of the party in saccharine tones as "doing us a favor." Apparently some of my GMs have agreed, as many of these "advance scouts" meet spectacular, and slightly improbable, untimely ends, much to my quiet amusement.

The other question I have is, does this really have to be the nature of the rogue? I call it either kleptomania or embezzlement. I realize that some character concepts do entertain the notion of being klepto or embezzling, but you don't have to be a rogue to be greedy or opportunistic, any more than "rogue class" characters have to be greedy or opportunistic.

One of my more successful characters was a rogue who never indulged in this sort of behavior. His greatest sin was that he never contradicted the rest of the party, regardless of what course of action was decided upon. Once everyone else was dead from their own folly, he would help himself to the remains, stealing from the dead according to some ethos, and became rather rich that way.

Q-man
07-03-2009, 06:47 AM
Its technically stealing, but thats probably the personality of that character so I'd allow it. Eventually the rest of the party would figure out whats going on and deal with it in character somehow. I'd consider that an in character problem and for the most part leave it alone. I might include clues in the description of the rooms to help the party figure out that the valuables are missing.

A fun campaign I was in had halfling rogue and half-orc barbarian pair. The halfing often would do what you described and steal everything he could. However, he couldn't carry all of what he took, and stored it all in the half-orc's pack. The half-orc never knew what was his and what wasn't, so when he'd pay for things in a shop he grab a randy bag of gold or gems from his bag to pay for things. Often giving the shopkeep something worth far more than what he purposed. This never made the halfling happy, but without revealing that he stole it in the first place he couldn't say too much about it.

tesral
07-03-2009, 07:50 AM
Adventurers are hardly in a position to quibble over the rogue pilfering a few items when they are looting the tomb.

Q-man
07-03-2009, 07:57 AM
I think its more that they are supposed to be robbing the tomb as a team, which means they all should get an equal share. Besides if the dead really wanted those treasures the zombies and skeletons would have put up more of a fight.

Inquisitor Tremayne
07-03-2009, 08:13 AM
Now let me put these particulars out there.

The rogue has never taken significant items found and has only pocketed 2 diamonds and a small bag of coins. This has happened only 2-3 times over the course of our adventures from levels 1 - 6.

In addition the rogue is more than happy to share the wealth when needed.

I would really call it more akin to the rogue is really just holding onto some items the party doesn't know about and is willing to share it with the party should they need it.

If you can't tell it has come up in the game I am in.

Duellist
07-03-2009, 08:47 AM
Our party always had a rogue like that; as a DM, I knew that it was unpopular, but he made his rolls and never aroused suspicion in-character.

It sounds like a case for something I was introduced to called 'standing orders', which basically means that players tell the DM what they will most likely do in certain common situation. It is usually for combat, but 'I always try to grab something if I can' works for a rogue.

As a DM, I suppose I would always go by the reactions of the players. Letting the rogue skim something from the top is all fine, unless it threatens the enjoyment of the others in the group. If they don't mind (or don't know) then I suppose it is no great issue.

Q-man
07-03-2009, 08:56 AM
Its not a bad thing for the game. The rogue is playing his character correctly, so its perfectly fine. As you said he'd offer up some coins to help the party out so odds are they wouldn't get upset.

But its still stealing, he's hiding some party of the loot from the party and keeping it for himself. If its nothing major that he's taking then its not a big deal, but some characters might take offense to it. Just let him carry on with it until he fails a roll on it and the crime is revealed.

Oldgamer
07-03-2009, 09:34 AM
Rogues are simply that ... rogues. Any rogue-type character I've ever run as a player or as a DM has wanted to steal for their own personal wealth, whether it's from the party or not. The group should expect it as well and take precautions, a paladin wouldn't let a rogue out of his/her sight, nor should any character for that matter. The only time it's really a secret is if the characters don't know the rogue is a rogue, ie they're playing themselves off as something else.

So, IMO, it only harms the party if the party allows it. Not to mention the rogue usually can't pocket too much, enforce encumbrance rules to fight over-stealing. I know gems don't weigh much, but for the level to wealth ratio, the gems shouldn't be overboard in worth. If the rogue is overly greedy and successfully stealing too many or all gems and is harming the party's wealth, put a lower price on the ones stolen.

Duellist
07-03-2009, 11:02 AM
There is one thing that does occur to me; stealing from the party like this could be construed as an alignment violation if they are 'good' in any way.

Lawful good characters would be completely out of character, no matter the reason, while good characters of any other stripe in one of my campaigns had better need the money for an orphanage or a sick mother... But most rogues are neutral anyway, so it probably doesn't matter.

Lucian-Sunaka
07-03-2009, 01:18 PM
Honestly, I fail to see the problem, even in the more extreme cases. Character steals, party eventually get suspicious that these massive adventures are turning up low treasure, party hires an expert scrier, party finds out who done it, party executes the offender, problem solved.

Simply put, to me its part of the game. Love it, or leave it, things happen and you can either roll with the punches and take it like a man, or not.

kitsune1842
07-04-2009, 01:24 AM
My Two cents.

Yes it is stealing, but it is only a maybe on hurting the party if it actually hurts the party.

If the party finds out in character, they might be mad they might want to string him up and they may never let him be alone ever again. Then again, if they know he is a theif by nature and always has ready amounts of cash and is always willing to share they may not care.

If the party is bothered by it out of character, then maybe they need to talk about it and decide if it is really a good idea to keep doing it.

In the 4th game I am in now I play a Rogue who is a shameless thief. Everyone knows this out of character, and half of them know it in character. They are ok with it because the character, a Kobold, is a mix between a klepto and someone just keeping his skills sharp by practicing them often. Because he uses the money mostly to do things that help the group they are ok with it out of character, and have taken an in character view of what they don't know won't make them hurt him. Which makes scenes like the one just before he broke into a museum vault to get artifacts the party needed. They wanted me to promise, in character, to only steal the artifacts we needed. Closest thing they got was that I would not steal anything I did not have a fake of to replace them with. The number of times I promised that, or 'I will not steal anything I am not planning on stealing,' or other ways to leave myself some lee way to take a little extra was found pretty entertaining by the whole group.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
07-04-2009, 02:02 AM
Lets say there are a party of adventures in a dungeon, if the Rogue walks into a room alone, searches it, and pockets a gem or small bag of coins but turns everything else over to the party coffers, do you consider that stealing from the party?

This is a Rogue that would gladly give money to any party member that needed it or share any of their other items with the party. They just happen to pocket a few small things here and there.

Is this harming the group?

Also, if you could, please explain your answers.

Thanks.
Happens all the time, or until the party gets wise to the situation. He or she is a rogue, after all. That's their job. We've been doing this since the early days, back when dnd was less PC and we called our rogues thieves. Heck, if your alignment allowed it and you were a member of the party...of any class...and had an opportunity, you went for it. I'm actually surprised this is even a question.

Thalion
07-04-2009, 12:39 PM
Hmm... I think that is why I always grab the rogue/thief/scout role of any new campaign that is forming up. I like it better when nobody has to be suspicious of the actions of others.

Of course, I've been in campaigns where being a thief was not a function of character class... but player mentality.

RoryN
07-04-2009, 12:42 PM
I think a lot of us have dealt with this as either a player or a DM. As a player, when we found out our party rogue was pocketing a few extra baubles, we excluded him or her from the choice of magical items we may have picked up on the adventure. In rare instances, say when we had lost a party member or two, and needed the extra monies for resurrection, we would retrieve said baubles ourselves.

The only time we ever had any major confrontations is when a thief physically removed items from party members. That is the one thing we wouldn't tolorate as that is detrimental to the party. Sure, they may have only been going for a gem or piece of jewelry, but what's next? The mage's ring of protection? The cleric's healing scrolls? The druid's magical throwing daggers? What they do on their own is one thing, but picking pockets of a party members is another matter entirely.

Inquisitor Tremayne
07-04-2009, 12:52 PM
The only time we ever had any major confrontations is when a thief physically removed items from party members. That is the one thing we wouldn't tolorate as that is detrimental to the party. Sure, they may have only been going for a gem or piece of jewelry, but what's next? The mage's ring of protection? The cleric's healing scrolls? The druid's magical throwing daggers? What they do on their own is one thing, but picking pockets of a party members is another matter entirely.

It's these hypothetical questions that I have a problem with? Because these questions are there does that mean the rogue shouldn't pocket small things?

I think it is safe to say that the unspoken rule is that the rogue wouldn't steal directly from any other party member. And that the rogue will never steal any significant items.

With that rule in place is it still a big deal that the Rogue pockets a gem or two here and there?

Umiushi
07-04-2009, 03:26 PM
It's these hypothetical questions that I have a problem with? Because these questions are there does that mean the rogue shouldn't pocket small things?

I think it is safe to say that the unspoken rule is that the rogue wouldn't steal directly from any other party member. And that the rogue will never steal any significant items.

With that rule in place is it still a big deal that the Rogue pockets a gem or two here and there?
I still have some questions about what rules and conditions, if any, were agreed upon by the party in advance, as well as wondering about where the character knowledge starts and the player knowledge ends. If you're willing, could you shed some further light on this, Inquisitor Tremayne?

Specifically, I would like to know:
1. Did the characters discover this theft; do only the players know about it; or is everyone in the dark, but the game master is showing signs of revealing the situation to the players and possibly the characters?

2. Did the party agree that the rogue would serve as an advance scout, checking out rooms and areas ahead of the main body, or did the rogue just assume that role?

3. Did the party explicitly agree to any conditions for dividing the treasure in advance of the adventure?

4. Do the characters know about this aspect of the rogue's personality, and how do they tolerate it?

5. How would you describe the nature of the party? Are these close companions who've gone through thick and thin over the years, or strangers who have temporarily banded together to perform a set of tasks?

6. For that matter, what is the nature of the party from the players' perspective? Are you all long-time friends, or recently-met acquaintances with a mutual interest in gaming?

Although what I stated originally still stands, my actual response to the situation, as a player, and as a character, would vary quite a bit depending on the answers to the six questions above.

Furthermore, my in-game response would also vary depending on the nature of the character I'm playing, the balance I'm trying to strike between my character and myself as a player, and how I feel about the game in general. I have no absolute, one-size-fits-all response to this situation.

Inquisitor Tremayne
07-05-2009, 04:57 PM
I still have some questions about what rules and conditions, if any, were agreed upon by the party in advance, as well as wondering about where the character knowledge starts and the player knowledge ends. If you're willing, could you shed some further light on this, Inquisitor Tremayne?

Sure thing!


Specifically, I would like to know:
1. Did the characters discover this theft; do only the players know about it; or is everyone in the dark, but the game master is showing signs of revealing the situation to the players and possibly the characters?

Currently only the players know. However one of the characters might know. I think he and I disagree on that point but I will not bring it up. Plus this whole thing is kinda between him and me anyway. But, I digress.


2. Did the party agree that the rogue would serve as an advance scout, checking out rooms and areas ahead of the main body, or did the rogue just assume that role?

It was never agreed upon explicitly but since my character is the most skillful in these areas it was just kind of assumed.


3. Did the party explicitly agree to any conditions for dividing the treasure in advance of the adventure?

No, not explicitly. We all are very communal with our wealth and we pitch in whenever and where ever we can to make sure that everyone has everything they need/want/can use.

However, we are now moving toward laying down some specific rules.


4. Do the characters know about this aspect of the rogue's personality, and how do they tolerate it?

I would say the characters for the most part do not know this about my character, the rogue. My rogue only pilfers small items that are probably not worth more than 200 gp, so I think the players are inclined to simply let it go (except for one of them, hence this thread). If she were stealing directly from party members or stealing valuable items usable by other party members I could see taking issue with it and I would stop doing it.


5. How would you describe the nature of the party? Are these close companions who've gone through thick and thin over the years, or strangers who have temporarily banded together to perform a set of tasks?

Well, my character and another have a background together and the rest of us have been adventuring together for I think only about a month of game time but it has been about a year of real time. We are a very mixed group of individuals and most of us are playing characters outside what we normally play. I often do not play the scoundrel type of character.


6. For that matter, what is the nature of the party from the players' perspective? Are you all long-time friends, or recently-met acquaintances with a mutual interest in gaming?

See above.


Although what I stated originally still stands, my actual response to the situation, as a player, and as a character, would vary quite a bit depending on the answers to the six questions above.

Furthermore, my in-game response would also vary depending on the nature of the character I'm playing, the balance I'm trying to strike between my character and myself as a player, and how I feel about the game in general. I have no absolute, one-size-fits-all response to this situation.

Cool. I don't really either. I generally don't have a problem with rogues pilfering things here and there because in the grand scheme of things they are more than likely at some point going to share/help the party. Even if they sell the stuff they steal conceivably they are going to buy better items and gear that is going to help them help the party in the long run. And often times in our groups if someone really wants something and is short on gp we all will pitch in to get it for them.

However, if the rogue is going around and stealing everything they can and hoarding everything and not sharing then I would take issue.

But that isn't the case in this situation.

Skunkape
07-06-2009, 07:17 AM
I feel it's stealing from the party, but I've played both sides of that coin, so how my character will react to it will depend on my character. If my character is a roguish type, then I'm apt to either want a cut or just try to beat said rogue to do to him before he does to me. If I'm a non-roguish type, then I'm apt to punish him if I catch him.

We're playing an evil campaign where I'm playing a drow warlock, but my character really isn't interested in monetary gain, I'm more interested in power. One of the players is playing a rogue and has pocketed items while the rest of us were in the same room, but he beat our perception rolls with his acrobatics roll, so we didn't see him.

But even though my character is an evil character, it's not really in his nature to seek revenge for the rogue stealing from the party. My character is more apt to use any knowledge of theft to get leverage over the rogue to help me than see revenge.

But I wouldn't get bent out of shape as a player about it, it's all part of the game.:biggrin:

Baldwin Stonewood
07-06-2009, 09:27 AM
I don't have a problem with a rogue using his/her talents to palm a few extra items per se. A problem could develop if the rogue steals from party members or if the rogue continuously takes a little extra (that could get old). I have warned players - I'm the DM in the game Skunkape mentioned above - that actions have consequences should they get caught. If the rogue gets caught, and can not talk his way out for the situation, and other party members seek out justice, then so be it.

Oldgamer
07-06-2009, 10:45 AM
I don't have a problem with a rogue using his/her talents to palm a few extra items per se. A problem could develop if the rogue steals from party members or if the rogue continuously takes a little extra (that could get old). I have warned players - I'm the DM in the game Skunkape mentioned above - that actions have consequences should they get caught. If the rogue gets caught, and can not talk his way out for the situation, and other party members seek out justice, then so be it.


Damn, you too are just too far for me to drive to play :(

yukonhorror
07-06-2009, 11:01 AM
skipped ahead, so if I repeat, I apologize.

In short it is stealing, but at that level it is ok. We had a rogue who would pocket super powerful items. For example, he sold our talisman of pure law, which is a minor artifact. In first ed, you could sell artifacts. All of a sudden, all of these priests of our church were being swallowed by the earth. This hurt the party.

Skimming off the top is ok if you don't get caught, but taking the most expensive and powerful items for yourself, not cool.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
07-06-2009, 11:09 AM
In our case, he would steal items that were thief-specific, and a few shiny expensive trinkets as well. Of course, since we ran unusual parties, the thief knew if caught, he could get himself killed, depending on what he stole. Always a risk, so he chose when to steal wisely, and when to steal it. Heck, i even had an evil wizard that saw an opportunity to steal something from party treasure---he took it. Even though the life and health of the party is of extreme importance to any adventurer, personal life and health always came #1.

As far as stealing expensive magic items that are usable only to other classes, never had a thief do that. Evil never equated to stupid or suicidal in my games. What would benefit the thief to increase his or her odds of death? You cant spend your ill-gotten gains in the grave.

If a thief was ever fool enough to try to steal magic items that were class-specific from other players or from the party treasure, they knew that being caught would mean certain death by the party, justice through extreme prejudice, if you will. Those are the checks and balances of thieving and risk.

cigamnogard
07-06-2009, 08:25 PM
In my current adventures I am playing an artificer and another player is playing a rogue. Naturally the rogue has already pilfred some gold and silver without the rest of the characters knowing about it. Fair enough, however the artificer has used twice now all the party gold (before it was divied up) to create scrolls.
-Wait for it-
-Wait-
Then he gave out the scrolls to the party that could use them. For eample the cleric recieved 5 or 6 heal light wounds scrolls now, the eleven warblade/wizard has several shield of faith and enlarge persons, and the rogue...well nothing yet (the player missed the last game).

Umiushi
07-06-2009, 08:46 PM
Thank you for answering my further questions. It looks like you have some wiggle room, but as we both agree, a lot depends on the player and the character in question.

The overall sense I have is that this is something that will be settled through the norms of the group you're playing in, and it's going to be decided based on the personal dynamics of the players, rather than the characters. Perhaps it will be a watershed event for your group.

Rather than concentrating on the philosophy behind pocketing baubles, I would recommend examining the attitude of the player in question. Is it an emotional issue, an ethical issue, a role-playing issue, is the player just out to stick a sword in your character, perhaps? Maybe his boss got caught skimming off of the company's 401(K) accounts, and he's not in a good mood about it, as an example of an out-of-context issue that might be driving this situation.

Duellist
07-07-2009, 03:54 PM
The more I think about it, the more it seems a little off to me. It is akin to the mage using charm person to make the others give him a double-share or the fighter pointing out that he can probably take them in a straight-up fight. It is not so bad, however, as the (LG) cleric who once decided not to heal anyone but himself unless they paid him...

All of those actions may be in-character and the character may be able to justify it as 'I am the one up front getting punched all the time' or 'any two-bit thug can swing a sword, but I bring arcane mastery and that comes at a price' and yet it makes you feel a little bit cheated.

On the other hand, it can be amusing if the DM just happens to roll high on a guard's spot-check when the thief picks a party member's pocket even though the party don't see it. You can have the thief in irons and maybe cut off his hands before the party even have a chance to find a lawyer for him...

cigamnogard
07-07-2009, 05:47 PM
You can have the thief in irons and maybe cut off his hands before the party even have a chance to find a lawyer for him...

But would they... ;)

Farcaster
07-07-2009, 06:21 PM
I would disagree with the assessment that it is simply within the nature of the class to steal from everyone including the people they supposedly call friends or at the very least trust with their life. If this is not true of the rogue character, then there needs to be the understanding between the DM, rogue and players that this sort of adversarial play in the game is okay. If there is some disagreement on this point in your group, then maybe the player should reconsider his vision for the rogue and change it to something that will generate less conflict.

But, if a certain amout of theft is okay with the group, then I would recommend keeping it above board and open to the players. In the typical group, there may be mistrust between the characters, but mistrust between the players themselves is only going to cause conflict. So, in your case, you might want to "steal," from the party with a wink and a nudge and make it clear out-of-character that when push comes to shove, the loot will be fairly distributed. If that isn't sufficient to prevent out-of-character conflict, then you may want to change up your character's philosophy a little bit... You know, the whole honor among thieves thing?

cigamnogard
07-07-2009, 06:31 PM
So, if there is stealing and the player gets caught how should the party handle it:

Remove character from group ie exile?
Remove character from group ie execution?
Fine the character ie - it's okay we haven't missed the gold
Fine the character ie - charge him/her a large gp amount above what has been stolen.

maybe....

Inquisitor Tremayne
07-07-2009, 07:15 PM
I would disagree with the assessment that it is simply within the nature of the class to steal from everyone including the people they supposedly call friends or at the very least trust with their life. If this is not true of the rogue character, then there needs to be the understanding between the DM, rogue and players that this sort of adversarial play in the game is okay. If there is some disagreement on this point in your group, then maybe the player should reconsider his vision for the rogue and change it to something that will generate less conflict.

But, if a certain about of theft is okay with the group, then I would recommend keeping it above board and open to the players. In the typical group, there may be mistrust between the characters, but mistrust between the players themselves is only going to cause conflict. So, in your case, you might want to "steal," from the party with a wink and a nudge and make it clear out-of-character that when push comes to shove, the loot will be fairly distributed. If that isn't sufficient to prevent out-of-character conflict, then you may want to change up your character's philosophy a little bit... You know, the whole honor among thieves thing?

Right, and this is what my character has been doing. I should also point out this is the second formation of our party, the first formation died from a TPK. BUT one of the players in our group played a rogue in that group and he was doing the same thing. Stealing small things and yet helping out the party when it was really needed.

So, I really dont think it is a big deal. Even if the rogue goes and sells the stuff and uses the money to better his gear then that still helps the party by the rogue being better equipped. If he doesn't share at all then there is a problem.


So, if there is stealing and the player gets caught how should the party handle it:

Remove character from group ie exile?
Remove character from group ie execution?
Fine the character ie - it's okay we haven't missed the gold
Fine the character ie - charge him/her a large gp amount above what has been stolen.

maybe....

The party should handle it however each individual character would feel about it. Some might feel betrayed, some might want blood, some might be ok with it. It should be whatever the motivation of the characters involved in feel.

I really, really do not have a problem with it primarily for the reason I mentioned above. Ultimately the Rogue is going to be helping the party in one way or another.

HOWEVER, if the rogue is actively trying to steal everything, refuses to share any of his wealth when there is sufficient need in the party, then I would take issue with it.

In fact, I would take issue with any character that refuses to share their characters wealth with other party members when there is a great need. Like if the fighter really needs a magical weapon, and there isn't enough in the party fund, I think the party should pitch in some of their personal wealth to help out.

That is typically how our group plays anyway, we all help each other out.

cigamnogard
07-07-2009, 07:22 PM
So, in other words there really is not an issue at all then....

Baldwin Stonewood
07-07-2009, 07:38 PM
Damn, you too are just too far for me to drive to play :(

Perhaps we can do a one day game sometime.

Inquisitor Tremayne
07-07-2009, 07:43 PM
So, in other words there really is not an issue at all then....

I don't know.

Is it a problem that the rogue steals small things and has no problem sharing with the rest of the group? Because the fact remains, the rogue is stealing.

One of our players took issue with it.

His concern was that my character was not going to share.

cigamnogard
07-07-2009, 08:12 PM
Then that charcter as the character needs to deal with it.

If the character is a paladin he might pull a Judge Dread
If the character is a wizard the goes by the name of something or other the gray he may enlist the thief or his nephew in an epic quest
If the charcter is a chaotic neutral he may kill the thief/rogue and he may not...

Inquisitor Tremayne
07-07-2009, 08:27 PM
Then that charcter as the character needs to deal with it.

If the character is a paladin he might pull a Judge Dread
If the character is a wizard the goes by the name of something or other the gray he may enlist the thief or his nephew in an epic quest
If the charcter is a chaotic neutral he may kill the thief/rogue and he may not...


The character is true neutral. So he shouldn't really care.

Farcaster
07-07-2009, 09:38 PM
The character is true neutral. So he shouldn't really care.

From a moral perspective anyway. I think in-character, most adventurers are probably going to logically take issue with a fellow party member ripping them off. So, if you are going to play a rogue who does this (and even if you have agreement with the group) if you are discovered in-character, expect to take heat for it or possible suffer even more severe consequences.

Valdar
07-07-2009, 09:54 PM
Personally, I'm not for it, but then again, I'm normally not that tolerant of behavior passed off as RP that the rest of the party has to metagame in order to ignore so that the game is playable.

From a simulation standpoint, sure, the rogue/thief can argue that if he beats the perception checks of the party, he can get away with this, but what sort of game experience will that lead to? To me, that just seems like having someone in the group that won't chip in enough cash for the pizza- not really the sort of thing I'd want to recreate in-game, and penalizing the rest of the party their extra cash because they don't want to ditch/kill their Rogue just seems like punishing them for acting in the interests of keeping the game intact.

Lucian-Sunaka
07-08-2009, 01:41 AM
I'm just the opposite Valdar. To me, its an in character event. If the rogue is doing so, their doing it in character, and it needs to be dealt with in character. If the Rogue beats their spot checks, and their sense motive checks later when asking about the smallish treasures, etc, then the rogue survives for the day.

However, eventually his luck will run out, the party will get suspicious and decide to investigate further, etc etc etc. My point being, why is it an issue for a player to play their character? I've been on both sides of the fence, been the thieving character (rogue, bard, what have you), and been stolen from (and in worse ways than skimming off the top, I've had my paladin pick-pocketed by a party member) and there's never been a problem in our games.

When the issue is discovered in character, it's dealt with. Until such time, it has no impact because its a character action.

(Then again, this from the DM who enjoys and occasionally encourages players to play off-alignment to the group, and supports their efforts to undermine them in character. Once again, I've never had a problem with it in my groups.)

nijineko
07-08-2009, 07:58 AM
i have to disagree with the assessment that a lawful good character could not engage in this behavior. i can envision scenarios where it would be perfectly legit. a lot would depend on the nature of the agreements going on between everyone. also the nature and ownership of the items being taken. not to mention the nature and specifics of the culture(s) that a given character comes from. and whether there is an overarching and specific definition of what is good and evil that applies anywhere in the universe independent of culture.

unless a specific agreement with that character prohibited it, then i don't really see a problem with it. especially if the character is known from before-hand to be of different morals and ethics from any other given character or characters. besides, without a lot more details of the cosmology of that campaign, it is impossible to decide what is moral or ethical as applies to the in-game situation.

Baldwin Stonewood
07-08-2009, 09:12 AM
The character is true neutral. So he shouldn't really care.

I don't know all the other factors in your game but it sounds like the character has some NE tendencies. I cut and pasted this for comparison from the SRD:

Neutral, “Undecided”: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after
all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.

Neutral Evil, “Malefactor”: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has. Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies. Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

templeorder
07-08-2009, 09:48 AM
Technically, its stealing. I would say it depends on the party if its harmful. I once had a LE fighter kills because of it, and the killed the priest of the party who tried to stop him with a hold person. Most of the time, after a party reaches a certain level and play style, this sort of thing happens and no one thinks twice as long as its not really harming the party's chance of survival or overbalancing loot takes. In most of my camapign, this character was responsible for information gathering, and always needed money for bribes, so that was the perfect supplemental income for that. But, if you have a party thats strictly lawful or neutral, then the view may be that taking the extra loot, no matter how small, destroys the dynamic of equality, balance, and fairness. But then again, it all depends on how loot is used in that party - divided enenly and everyone does their own thing, or does everyone pitch in the get each other the next item to step up their abilities? Most of the time its not black and white...

tesral
07-08-2009, 10:04 AM
:deadhorse:


enow

Baldwin Stonewood
07-08-2009, 10:19 AM
:deadhorse:


enow


Come on, where is the fun if we all can't kick the dead horse for another two or three pages. :) Stomp stomp stomp

Valdar
07-08-2009, 11:16 AM
I'm just the opposite Valdar. To me, its an in character event. If the rogue is doing so, their doing it in character, and it needs to be dealt with in character. If the Rogue beats their spot checks, and their sense motive checks later when asking about the smallish treasures, etc, then the rogue survives for the day.

However, eventually his luck will run out, the party will get suspicious and decide to investigate further, etc etc etc. My point being, why is it an issue for a player to play their character? I've been on both sides of the fence, been the thieving character (rogue, bard, what have you), and been stolen from (and in worse ways than skimming off the top, I've had my paladin pick-pocketed by a party member) and there's never been a problem in our games.


Technically, you can't use social skills on PCs. I don't have the rules handy, but I believe there's a rule in there about players not being required to play gullible twits if they don't want to. If your Rogue is RPing a petty thief, then why can't my Dwarf Fighter have a paranoia fueled by greed, and call you out anyway, despite you being a smooth operator? Besides, it's PVP, and D&D isn't designed to support it (it's built for party cooperation, though 3e kind of fell down on that point by making characters customizable to the point that they didn't need the rest of the party to do their thing...) As mentioned before, if the Rogue can get away with bluffing the party, then can the Fighter mug the party, or the Wizard or Cleric mind-control them? It's all in character!

It's an issue for a player to play their character if they're doing it to the detriment of everyone else's fun. The Fighter should not have to dump points in Wisdom to keep the Rogue from ripping him off, and be a less effective Fighter as a result. That sort of adversarial play is a detriment to the game, and should get you uninvited from the game if it becomes too much of an issue.

Lucian-Sunaka
07-08-2009, 12:03 PM
Technically, you can't use social skills on PCs. I don't have the rules handy, but I believe there's a rule in there about players not being required to play gullible twits if they don't want to. If your Rogue is RPing a petty thief, then why can't my Dwarf Fighter have a paranoia fueled by greed, and call you out anyway, despite you being a smooth operator? Besides, it's PVP, and D&D isn't designed to support it (it's built for party cooperation, though 3e kind of fell down on that point by making characters customizable to the point that they didn't need the rest of the party to do their thing...) As mentioned before, if the Rogue can get away with bluffing the party, then can the Fighter mug the party, or the Wizard or Cleric mind-control them? It's all in character!

It's an issue for a player to play their character if they're doing it to the detriment of everyone else's fun. The Fighter should not have to dump points in Wisdom to keep the Rogue from ripping him off, and be a less effective Fighter as a result. That sort of adversarial play is a detriment to the game, and should get you uninvited from the game if it becomes too much of an issue.


Very different play-styles Valdar. I remember reading that rule regarding social skills against the party, and its one of the rules in 3rd edition I immediately houseruled away. Care to know why?

Why is it right, that the fighter has to sense motive against the politician lying to him, but he somehow mystically knows that the con-artist he's adventuring with is full of it?

Maybe 'adversarial play' is a detriment to many games, I've yet to be involved in one where it was a problem. (I saw one last night in the chat, and it was hillarious, both the DM and I were laughing our butts off at their bumbling, we called them the two stooges lol, so in it's own way, even that game was a good one.)

In most of my campaigns though, if somebody wants to be 'adversarial' then they have every right to do so. Does the fighter want to mug the party? Good luck, 3 vs 1 is terrible odds. Does the rogue want to steal from the party? He'll get caught eventually. Does the wizard try to manipulate the party via spells? Saving throws were designed to introduce randomness in the success or failure of such abilities.

To me and my groups, having that competetive edge, that chance to see who can outwit who adds so much depth and mystery to a campaign. Of course it doesn't happen all the time, maybe at most 20% of our characters are like that, but the ones that are tend to make the most memorable stories. I don't remember many campaigns from over a year ago (even one's ran by some of my favorite DM's with a real talent for the job) when the party was all nicey nice with eachother completely, and nobody had any issues with anybody else.

To me, and most of the people who've played with me, having an odd man our, or the party being split 50/50, or any possible combination tends to create the most gripping stories, adventures that last a lifetime in our minds.

Enjoy your adventures where your whole party are goodie two-shoes trying to save the princess Valdar, the game is customizable for everyone and that seems to be the more common way to play.

For myself, I'll take a party with competition and conflict, where the characters aren't mystically cooperative, but they have to deal with their issues and sometimes things come to blows, and on occasion, even lives are taken. It seems I'm in a vast minority on that regard, but it's how I play the game, and as long as my players and I get a rush out of the experience, and lasting memories of fun times with friends, I'd say that's all that matters.
--- Merged from Double Post ---
Oh, and one final note that my post answered but not directly. In my games, this sort of interaction is NOT to the detriment of players fun (and I maintain very open lines of communication with my players for if/when the game becomes more or less fun) but rather to the improvement of said fun.

Maybe it's in the way the campaign is handled, in mine characters are expected to do as they wish, their alignment will change if its outside my interpretation of said alignment and done too much, and if their alignment changes too many times in a certain span of time they risk going insane, but other than that, characters do as they wish. And have so far had a blast doing it, and receiving it.

Farcaster
07-08-2009, 12:24 PM
For myself, I'll take a party with competition and conflict, where the characters aren't mystically cooperative, but they have to deal with their issues and sometimes things come to blows, and on occasion, even lives are taken. It seems I'm in a vast minority on that regard, but it's how I play the game, and as long as my players and I get a rush out of the experience, and lasting memories of fun times with friends, I'd say that's all that matters.

That's perfectly fine as long as your group doesn't take it personally when another character steals from the group, murders another party member, or simply dominates them via magic. But most people I have ever played with want to have a group of characters that in general works well together to accomplish something other than irritating each other. If someone is getting upset at the table because of this sort of in-character behavior, then maybe in the interest of everyone having fun, it is a good idea to tone back that aspect of your character.

Valdar
07-08-2009, 12:27 PM
Why is it right, that the fighter has to sense motive against the politician lying to him, but he somehow mystically knows that the con-artist he's adventuring with is full of it?


He doesn't have to sense motive in any case. In the rules as written, PCs don't have their roleplaying choices handed to them by dice, whether or not it's from a PC. Your houserule limits the RP choices of the party in favor of a PVP game, which I can't see the point of.

The OP said that another player was having a problem with the behavior, so your experience of it all being good fun all around doesn't apply to that situation. Personally, I agree with that player- you're not going to call the Rogue on his stealing because it's a detriment to the game to have to go through that, and that becomes metagaming. Metagaming is fine if it takes things in the direction of a game you want to play (i.e. you don't want the PCs to suddenly realize how dangerous their profession is, and go get jobs in town), but if it's to tolerate one player's antisocial behavior? I don't see it being a benefit.
--- Merged from Double Post ---

Enjoy your adventures where your whole party are goodie two-shoes trying to save the princess Valdar,

Funny thing- the last time a princess made an appearance in my game, the party cut her heart out to fulfill a prophecy. Just because someone doesn't want to put up with annoying players doesn't mean that the game lacks conflict.

Lucian-Sunaka
07-08-2009, 01:14 PM
In regards to your second post Valdar and the quoted piece of mine, sorry if I came off insulting, I didn't mean to. That was just a stereo-typical situation I threw out there as an example. I know cooperative parties can have conflict, I just enjoy the tension and suspense that happens when some of that conflict is in the party.

And I guess my house rule does limit the PC's options in a way, but I find it makes the game more fun and interesting, because it actually takes away some metagaming. "He's lying to me, he's got to be the bad guy, attack!!!" instead of "So your the president? Nice to meet you sir."

In my games, bluffs, diplomacy, etc are all part of a web of intrigue, if the characters don't roll right, then they are playing a different game. One where they are pawns until eventually they solve the puzzle.

Chrisg
07-08-2009, 01:51 PM
If none of the characters are aware of what is going on in game then there should be no issue. In the groups I have been in, character motivation and role playing your character to it's personality was paramount. If we had only been together a short time as a party with no real firm bond, then we could be very hostile to each other and we have left the rouge for dead before, but if the party had been together through thick and thin for years the response would be different. Like has been said a thousand times, the characters action has consequences and the character has to weigh the consequences for themselves.

As players we all know what was going on, but since none of our characters knew then we were not allowed to do anything about it and if we mentioned something in character that we knew as a player but not as a character we lost xp for not playing in character. In our groups it was really anything goes and you really had to get to know your party in order to trust them.

Valdar
07-08-2009, 01:52 PM
In regards to your second post Valdar and the quoted piece of mine, sorry if I came off insulting, I didn't mean to.

No worries- it was just reminiscent of hardcore PVPers referring to PVE servers as "carebear"- it's not that PVE players are wimps, it's that they want to play the game without suffering from griefers.

Can PVP be fun without some players feeling that it's griefing? Sure, but it goes into my "unlikely" folder, along with monks that aren't Kung Fu inspired, Evil and CN PCs, and reformed Drow that genuinely want to explore the roleplaying opportunities of being an outcast from an evil race. There are strong arguments about how all of these can lead to good story, but in my experience, these arguments are a front for players that actually want to do otherwise, and I've had too much experience with that to stick my hand in the fire again, so to speak.
--- Merged from Double Post ---

In the groups I have been in, character motivation and role playing your character to it's personality was paramount.

If you're saying that RP and simulation trumps fun and teamwork, then I'd say that D&D isn't the best choice for such a game. WW is more in line with that sort of play.

Stabbity
07-08-2009, 02:30 PM
As the thief (not rouge:biggrin:) that baldwin and skunk refered to...

is it stealing from the party?

I see it more of Im playing the character the way he is. My thief in that game is more of a N/N/E. He's true neutral but leans towards neutral evil. He is a thief so he steals. He would prefer not killing anyone but if it needs to happen so be it. He puns with a group of pirates so to me people in the party complaining about him stealing would be on the same of calling the police because a drug dealer sold you the wrong drugs.

The flip side if the group were a good aligned group I would most likely play him to N/N/g and still try to work a profit for my self but not at the parties expence.

Either way he's a thief he's going to steal.

cigamnogard
07-08-2009, 04:42 PM
Either way he's a thief he's going to steal.

And that's it in a nutshell. The class in 3.0/3.5 is Rogue not Thief. There is a reason for that. A rogue may be a thief, a bard may be a thief, a wizard may be a thief , and etc... If he's a thief the party won't be a party with their weakest link very much longer.

Inquisitor Tremayne
07-08-2009, 06:08 PM
So pocketing/stealing a small bag of say 25 gp or a diamond worth about 100 gp is detrimental to the party, in the long run?

cigamnogard
07-08-2009, 06:10 PM
Could be - let's change the theft to a pearl worth let's say 50gp.

Farcaster
07-08-2009, 06:19 PM
So pocketing/stealing a small bag of say 25 gp or a diamond worth about 100 gp is detrimental to the party, in the long run?

If it creates out-of-character strife at the gaming table, then it really doesn't matter if it truly affects game balance or not.

But, let me pose this to you. IRL, if someone was stealing even a small amount from me it would be a problem. Or even if say a group of friends and I were in a small business venture together and one of my friends was skimming money from the business, this would probably end our friendship depending on how long we knew each other and their reasons. I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect that if your thief is found out, the party is completely within their rights to oust the character.

cigamnogard
07-08-2009, 08:21 PM
If it creates out-of-character strife at the gaming table, then it really doesn't matter if it truly affects game balance or not.

But, let me pose this to you. IRL, if someone was stealing even a small amount from me it would be a problem. Or even if say a group of friends and I were in a small business venture together and one of my friends was skimming money from the business, this would probably end our friendship depending on how long we knew each other and their reasons. I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect that if your thief is found out, the party is completely within their rights to oust the character.

Exactly, the thief may be roleplaying but then so is everyone else :)

Chrisg
07-09-2009, 12:07 AM
If you're saying that RP and simulation trumps fun and teamwork, then I'd say that D&D isn't the best choice for such a game. WW is more in line with that sort of play.

All I said was in my group where I learned how to play D&D. In our case it actually added to the fun of our group even though it may have hampered our goals as a group. My point simply was, that if everyone plays their character 'in character' then any issues that arise will be handled. The character that is upset with the stealing rogue will respond as he should and the conflict will be brought to the surface just as it would in any group in a normal situation. In my opinion, RP and Fun go hand in hand, but then again I wouldn't play a character that wasn't in the same vein of thought as my group. You definitely have a point though, if the group isn't having fun because of it, it probably should be addressed then and there.

emblasochist
07-09-2009, 09:35 AM
So, from the sounds of it, the character is a minor kleptomaniac. The intention may be harmless and is as the adage goes "old habits die hard." If the PC is upset about it, sit down with him and the DM and ask them how they view it. After all, you don't want the guy to think you are a jerk for playing the character the way you think is reasonable. If you are told by the DM not to get caught and have to start making theivery checks to avoid being caught, maybe that is appropriate, and the PC that knows about the habit should keep quiet about it till your character fails a theivery roll (because otherwise its metagaming and that to me is cheating). And if you are caught, maybe the DM should incorporate your going through a recovery process and possible relapse, or something similar.

As far as I am concerned, it is harmless stealing, but my characters would be displeased because its just dishonorable. My characters are silent benefactors toward humanitarian efforts like feeding the poor orphan children that lost their parents to war or plague. I play monks and rangers and the like that aren't attached to material things, so money is hardly an issue to my characters. If money DID become an issue, I'd make the case that the money I need to borrow will only benefit the party and that I will repay them.

But it seems like the stealing and it IS stealing, is not like you are stealing from the party because you give them money when they need it, but simply indulging in your character's super-ego with the act of the theft. Just make sure that you make a point to use the money you're swiping to buy things the party needs or wants and not something that will only benefit your charater's ego. That way, the character will be the sly trickster in the party that does things that are underhanded for the party's benefit rather than just being a successful theif. Of course you can ignore my suggestions, but I get the sense that you are going for the trickster with a heart of gold rather than the theif that will rob you blind if you let him.

Oldgamer
07-09-2009, 10:32 AM
So, from the sounds of it, the character is a minor kleptomaniac.


And then the Kender walked in :biggrin: Except insert 'major' for 'minor'.

Stabbity
07-09-2009, 10:50 AM
And that's it in a nutshell. The class in 3.0/3.5 is Rogue not Thief. There is a reason for that. A rogue may be a thief, a bard may be a thief, a wizard may be a thief , and etc... If he's a thief the party won't be a party with their weakest link very much longer.


Well the class might be rouge, but my character is a thief/conman. his profession (if you can say he has one) is lock smith. Quite frankly unless he's almost guarnteed not to get hit he wont enter into the combat. One of our fighters grapples alot so most of the time my thoef follows him into combat and steals his kill. :laugh:

Oldgamer
07-09-2009, 10:52 AM
Well the class might be rouge, but my character is a thief/conman. his profession (if you can say he has one) is lock smith. Quite frankly unless he's almost guarnteed not to get hit he wont enter into the combat. One of our fighters grapples alot so most of the time my thoef follows him into combat and steals his kill. :laugh:

Are you purposely misspelling 'rogue'? Not wanting to offend, some people do it on purpose (rouge is a variant of the color red) and some people don't know they're doing it.

Stabbity
07-09-2009, 11:15 AM
Are you purposely misspelling 'rogue'? Not wanting to offend, some people do it on purpose (rouge is a variant of the color red) and some people don't know they're doing it.


no I just really suck at spelling.:o he's not that either though

Oldgamer
07-09-2009, 11:59 AM
no I just really suck at spelling.:o he's not that either though


That's cool, my wife can't spell worth a darn either, every few minutes while both of us are in our 'office', she asks me how to spell something :)

Stabbity
07-09-2009, 12:33 PM
That's cool, my wife can't spell worth a darn either, every few minutes while both of us are in our 'office', she asks me how to spell something :)

I'm the exact opposite. My wife went to school to be an english teacher, and her best friend has a degree in english lit

emblasochist
07-09-2009, 12:38 PM
And then the Kender walked in :biggrin: Except insert 'major' for 'minor'.

Ok. If you prefer the term "major kleptomaniac" instead, fine. The point, however, stands that the character isn't inherently a jerk, it is a personality quirk, which even have a spot on the 4th edition character sheets and 3rd and 3.5 as well if I remember correctly.

Valdar
07-09-2009, 01:13 PM
All I said was in my group where I learned how to play D&D. In our case it actually added to the fun of our group even though it may have hampered our goals as a group. My point simply was, that if everyone plays their character 'in character' then any issues that arise will be handled. The character that is upset with the stealing rogue will respond as he should and the conflict will be brought to the surface just as it would in any group in a normal situation. In my opinion, RP and Fun go hand in hand, but then again I wouldn't play a character that wasn't in the same vein of thought as my group. You definitely have a point though, if the group isn't having fun because of it, it probably should be addressed then and there.

I'm just leery of anyone passing off annoying behavior as "RP" like it's everyone's sacred right to be an ass at the table. I've had two characters in my current game that RPed really well, and really annoyingly. One was a street urchin who was always acting like the attention-starved child he grew up to be- interrupting conversations with irrelevant observations, jokes, little songs, whatever it took to get attention. The other was a bombastic, racist Dwarf who kept going on about how much better Dwarvish things were (doing Mike Myers' shtick from Saturday Night Live about the Scottish shop). Both really good at staying in super-annoying character. Neither were going to get kicked out of the party- most people I know would have quit the game and found another one instead of having to be the bad guy, so I would have been left with nothing but annoying players. So out they went with no in-game conflict whatsoever.

In short, I have a hard time believing that a player's annoying behavior is done solely for the sake of the art.

WhiskeyFur
07-09-2009, 01:16 PM
From what it sounds like, everything is fine for your group. They seem to have a good grasp of what's IC and what's OOC and can act appropriately.

I've seen and been in some groups that couldn't get the difference in between IC and OOC, and that has caused problems when a player started 'pre-distributing' the wealth like you described in the original post.

Other times, the players were all cool about it, even though the characters themselves might have been all set to burn the little runt. Running a chase scene through town where they were chasing one of their own... I really didn't have a whole lot to do except watch, ask for a few rolls and laugh at some of their antics.

Finally I slipped the NPC they were suppose to meet into the scene when the rogue tried to hide in the royal carriage, while it was occupied. Whoops.

Bottom line.. it all depends on the players in question. If they're fine with it... what problem?

If they are not, then the DM needs to find some kind of middle ground.

Lucian-Sunaka
07-09-2009, 01:18 PM
One thing your forgetting though Valdar. The DM chooses what characters he allows into his game. If he sees a backstory and personality write up that would prove annoying if properly roleplayed, its entirely within his right to work with the player to tweak that personality before it sees play.

Valdar
07-09-2009, 02:36 PM
One thing your forgetting though Valdar. The DM chooses what characters he allows into his game. If he sees a backstory and personality write up that would prove annoying if properly roleplayed, its entirely within his right to work with the player to tweak that personality before it sees play.

You know, I usually ask for a background and personality writeup, but I only get them from half the players, tops. Even if I did, I somehow don't think I'd be able to discern from a personality writeup if someone's going to be a problem. Resume/Interview vs. actually working with the person and all.

Werekoala
07-09-2009, 03:33 PM
Happens all the time, or until the party gets wise to the situation. He or she is a rogue, after all. That's their job. We've been doing this since the early days, back when dnd was less PC and we called our rogues thieves. Heck, if your alignment allowed it and you were a member of the party...of any class...and had an opportunity, you went for it. I'm actually surprised this is even a question.

What he said. And I still call them thieves half the time anyway, and that's after playing 3.0 for 8 years.

cigamnogard
07-09-2009, 06:37 PM
What he said. And I still call them thieves half the time anyway, and that's after playing 3.0 for 8 years.

Okay let's try something different. Does anyone remember Remmington Steel? Remmington was a conman, thief, and then some. But did he steal from Laura and the company?

Chrisg
07-09-2009, 11:55 PM
I'm just leery of anyone passing off annoying behavior as "RP" like it's everyone's sacred right to be an ass at the table. I've had two characters in my current game that RPed really well, and really annoyingly. One was a street urchin who was always acting like the attention-starved child he grew up to be- interrupting conversations with irrelevant observations, jokes, little songs, whatever it took to get attention. The other was a bombastic, racist Dwarf who kept going on about how much better Dwarvish things were (doing Mike Myers' shtick from Saturday Night Live about the Scottish shop). Both really good at staying in super-annoying character. Neither were going to get kicked out of the party- most people I know would have quit the game and found another one instead of having to be the bad guy, so I would have been left with nothing but annoying players. So out they went with no in-game conflict whatsoever.

In short, I have a hard time believing that a player's annoying behavior is done solely for the sake of the art.

Point taken, I have been in a group with a player like that.

darklord
07-10-2009, 05:20 AM
In our game last night our Rogue looted the chest and slipped 600g into her pocket without anyone noticing. That's a lot of money at level 6... I was pretty peeved as nothing like that had happened before...

Unfortunately the GM seems ok to let it slide, It really annoyed me though, for me roleplaying is all about teamwork not ripping off the party... :rant:

Daniel.

tesral
07-10-2009, 08:00 AM
In our game last night our Rogue looted the chest and slipped 600g into her pocket without anyone noticing. That's a lot of money at level 6... I was pretty peeved as nothing like that had happened before...

Unfortunately the GM seems ok to let it slide, It really annoyed me though, for me roleplaying is all about teamwork not ripping off the party...

And the GM was to do what without serious metagaming?

The role of the GM is not to be the moral arbiter with their naughty / nice lists and punishing any behavior that is "anti-party" whether seen or not in character.

darklord
07-10-2009, 08:29 AM
Your right, it is tricky for the GM.

The game is designed for everyone to take a fair share, in LFR the GM would just say no you can't take all the loot and that would the end of the story.

In roleplaying if you have fun, you're a winner, this left me feeling like a ripped off loser, not the goal at all...

Daniel.

Duellist
07-10-2009, 09:28 AM
600gp? I would have to say that (OOC) that sucks a little. I might mention to the rogue's player that I was not entirely happy with that, because it is the kind of thing that promotes intra-party strife and discord.

Just remember; everybody slips up eventually. Most players like that will keep doing it until they fumble a sleight of hand and the party watch a heavy and conspicuous sack of gold fall out of the thief's belt. How will they spend it? If they suddenly turn up with new kit that the rest of the party cannot have afforded, that will sow suspicion and then all it takes is for the fighter to sit on them while the wizard checks their pack.

If one of my players had done that, I might have called them on it as a DM; if they are portrayed as a slimy piece of work who the rest of the party don't trust, then the players should not have left him along with the chest, but too many players will portray their character as honourable until they suddenly pull a stunt like this which is entirely out of keeping.

One possible mitigating factor; they were there and the draw was probably too strong. I would punish the character as a DM deus ex machina, though. This may serve as a good roleplaying hook, since they might get tempted to be even bolder and probably increasingly suspicious. If the player agrees, you might see equal parts guilt and greed inspiring them to greater acts of theft and riskier targets until they are destroyed by it; either caught and imprisoned / executed or exiled from the party.

Werekoala
07-10-2009, 10:28 AM
Okay let's try something different. Does anyone remember Remmington Steel? Remmington was a conman, thief, and then some. But did he steal from Laura and the company?

The question that needs to be clarified is; are we talking about stealing from other player's pouches, or just pocketing something from a chest BEFORE telling everyone what you "found"?

My thieves have kept a choice item or two from a chest and turned the rest over to the party before. Technically, before it goes in the pot, its not "stealing" from them - to my (character's) way of thinking. Call it hazard pay for being the guy disarming the trap. :)

But I will rarely take items from characters once they lay claim to them. Not saying never, but hardly ever that I can remember.

emblasochist
07-10-2009, 10:56 AM
At the end of the game, or during a break, if the party feels that its not right, they should be allowed to voice that concern and maybe sit down with the player and express that they would prefer if the character wouldn't do it anymore, or seek some kind of way for the DM to add a mechanic where the player must make successful thievery check against the party or suffer some possible punitive action... That way if the majority of the party in character or the players playing them dislike the theft, there is some method of the making it at least somewhat fair for the players that feel they are getting stiffed by the rogue. The problem would be then having the DM coming up with a non-metagaming way of making the check necessary, and also allows the rogue character to be a sly theif if the player so chooses. Otherwise, the players have to feel cheated and possibly want to quit playing, or possibly kick the theif out of their party/game, and I think that those options are really and should continue to be, last resorts.

cigamnogard
07-10-2009, 01:58 PM
In our game last night our Rogue looted the chest and slipped 600g into her pocket without anyone noticing. That's a lot of money at level 6... I was pretty peeved as nothing like that had happened before...

Unfortunately the GM seems ok to let it slide, It really annoyed me though, for me roleplaying is all about teamwork not ripping off the party... :rant:

Daniel.
A simple listen check should detect that amount of clinking coin.
--- Merged from Double Post ---

The question that needs to be clarified is; are we talking about stealing from other player's pouches, or just pocketing something from a chest BEFORE telling everyone what you "found"?

My thieves have kept a choice item or two from a chest and turned the rest over to the party before. Technically, before it goes in the pot, its not "stealing" from them - to my (character's) way of thinking. Call it hazard pay for being the guy disarming the trap. :)



Then what about all the monsters and creatures that the fighters defeated prior to getting to the treasure? What's the hazard pay for them?

Werekoala
07-10-2009, 02:02 PM
Then what about all the monsters and creatures that the fighters defeated prior to getting to the treasure? What's the hazard pay for them?

Its typically called "more HP and better armor/weapons", and its built into the class.

Lighten up, Francis. :rolleyes:

emblasochist
07-10-2009, 02:11 PM
Aside from the fact that making a listening check for the money would be a metagaming thing, that is what I was saying...

cigamnogard
07-10-2009, 02:14 PM
It was meant to be tongue and cheek :)

However, you raise a valid point it's built into the class:
HP = strong for fighter classes 10 or 12HP vs 6 for rogues
SP = strong for rogue class 8 skill points/level + INT vs weak 2-4 skill points for fighters

Inquisitor Tremayne
07-10-2009, 07:27 PM
If it creates out-of-character strife at the gaming table, then it really doesn't matter if it truly affects game balance or not.

But, let me pose this to you. IRL, if someone was stealing even a small amount from me it would be a problem. Or even if say a group of friends and I were in a small business venture together and one of my friends was skimming money from the business, this would probably end our friendship depending on how long we knew each other and their reasons. I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect that if your thief is found out, the party is completely within their rights to oust the character.

But you cant compare a fantasy adventuring group to a real world business partnering.

This is the reason why I think it should be dealt with in-character. How would your character react to the situation.

Personally I dont really see the problem and most of my characters wouldn't either. Cause in the long run what matters is if the rogue ever contributes to the party or not.

Like I said before in the long run the rogue is going to eventually spend the money to help the party. (At least in my experience) They are either going to buy better gear for themselves which helps out the party or they will pitch in when someone else needs better gear or resurrection or whatever. So pocketing small amounts of gold here and there I don't see it as a problem.

Duellist
07-11-2009, 04:24 AM
Like I said before in the long run the rogue is going to eventually spend the money to help the party. (At least in my experience) They are either going to buy better gear for themselves which helps out the party or they will pitch in when someone else needs better gear or resurrection or whatever. So pocketing small amounts of gold here and there I don't see it as a problem.
Twinking themselves helps the party? If the rogue has better gear than the rest of the party, they can do their own job better, but the gold that paid for their +2 armour could have bought +1 armour for four party members. Worse than this, they can end up the only person left alive and that does breed resentment.

Werekoala
07-11-2009, 10:49 AM
See, the thing about thieves - flashy ones don't tend to last.

"Hey guys, check out my NEW +3 studded leather? Swank!"

Suspicious looks.

"Um, yeah, my - er, grandma, died, and left it to me. Well, it wasn't hers, it was her dad's..."

Swords inch out of sheaths.

"Look, a squirrel!" (runs)


So, in the meantime, if a thief wants to pocket things (I typically would only take gems or something else concealable or explainable that I could use anyway, like nice daggers or maybe a particularly nice bit of art, and again, this wasn't an every-session event anyway) I say let 'im. Its, like, what they DO. Remember ROLE playing? As in, playing a character, someone with a history and personality, not a stat block? And again, if the party wants to just blunder through those DC25 fireball traps on sheer brute force, let 'em. My rogue is perfectly happy hanging at the back of the party using his sling.

Valdar
07-12-2009, 10:25 AM
Remember ROLE playing? As in, playing a character, someone with a history and personality, not a stat block?

There it is again- excusing antisocial behavior as RP. ALL problem players do this at some point to some degree- what makes this any different?

Asking for a listen check to detect the extra coin isn't metagaming- in fact, the DM should ask for such a check in the first place, especially if it's 600 GP. It's also not metagaming if someone wants to bail on the game because they don't want to PVP.

Also, dealing with out-of-game problems in-game is a newbie DM mistake. You eventually learn that the rules can't solve problems like these, because ultimately a problem player's motivation to be disruptive is stronger than his motivation to succeed at the game. When the thief gets caught and killed, that player's next character is going to do the same damn thing again.

Farcaster
07-12-2009, 12:13 PM
But you cant compare a fantasy adventuring group to a real world business partnering.

This is the reason why I think it should be dealt with in-character. How would your character react to the situation.

I disagree, because I think it goes to demonstrate a very real facet of human nature. Inherently, we do not like to be cheated. The problem in most cases of in party theft or conflict is that people feel like they need to meta game in order to keep the group together. I have seen it time and again. And the problem is that the offender (such as the rogue) usually--unfairly--leaves the responsibility of making it "work," up to the rest of the group. So, my position is that if you want to have your character do this, you should be prepared for the logical conclusion which would probably lead to a confrontation and if the behavior didn't change, the party would probably part ways with the character.

As far as what your character "claims," in character that he helps out the party more than he steals -- how are the other characters supposed to trust that after they catch your hands in the cookie jar, so to speak?

Werekoala
07-12-2009, 12:55 PM
There it is again- excusing antisocial behavior as RP. ALL problem players do this at some point to some degree- what makes this any different?

Asking for a listen check to detect the extra coin isn't metagaming- in fact, the DM should ask for such a check in the first place, especially if it's 600 GP. It's also not metagaming if someone wants to bail on the game because they don't want to PVP.

Also, dealing with out-of-game problems in-game is a newbie DM mistake. You eventually learn that the rules can't solve problems like these, because ultimately a problem player's motivation to be disruptive is stronger than his motivation to succeed at the game. When the thief gets caught and killed, that player's next character is going to do the same damn thing again.

Sounds to me like they need to find more mature players then. I've been playing D&D off and on since 1979 and I can only remember one time that a person IN REAL LIFE got bent out of shape over something that a character did in-game. And that person doesn't game with us anymore.

HOWEVER; there have been plenty of times that a character did something and the OTHER CHARACTERS took them to task for it. You know, like would happen in a "real world" setting if things like that happened? You know, like if the ROLE PLAYING game is simulating a "real world" where you have traps and magic and whatnot. Yes, that happens. But somehow, we're able to keep the horror of being bilked out of a 200gp gem on the other side of the screen, as it were. No thief that *I* know of attempts to keep a bauble without full knowledge of the consequences should he be caught.

If your players can't handle stuff like this, then don't do it. Its not a problem at my table. By all means, keep handing out the treasure packets in a fair and equitable manner.

Duellist
07-12-2009, 05:41 PM
Also, dealing with out-of-game problems in-game is a newbie DM mistake. You eventually learn that the rules can't solve problems like these, because ultimately a problem player's motivation to be disruptive is stronger than his motivation to succeed at the game. When the thief gets caught and killed, that player's next character is going to do the same damn thing again.
I heartily endorse this statement. (or, to put it another way, "QFT!")

I once had an issue with one of these characters. In her case, she actually went out of her way to sell out the party to the main villains for a magical item. They left her alone in a dungeon with enough incriminating evidence to have her killed.
The next character had a fetish for 'gelding' defeated foes, so ended up bringing down all sorts of trouble on the party because they were technically rebels and that sort of behaviour can be used to discredit dissidents. She got shot off her horse in combat and the rest of the party decided tat it was too risky to go back for her.
By now, the players were getting fed up and the characters were getting paranoid. After the first signs of a personality disorder (she would not let them hurt goblins, who were apparently (and surprising to me as the DM) peaceful and misunderstood), we had what I believe is called an 'intervention' and the stupidity soon stopped...

emblasochist
07-12-2009, 10:20 PM
While it is true that goblins are a playable race in 4th edition, it's hard to argue that goblins on a whole are peaceful and misunderstood when they are chaotic entities... If it were me, I'd pull out my DM's blunderbuss from the sky and shoot the character with a pelting of Natural 20s till the character could not be returned to life.

cigamnogard
07-13-2009, 03:21 PM
While it is true that goblins are a playable race in 4th edition, it's hard to argue that goblins on a whole are peaceful and misunderstood when they are chaotic entities... If it were me, I'd pull out my DM's blunderbuss from the sky and shoot the character with a pelting of Natural 20s till the character could not be returned to life.
They are also playable in 3.e as well.

emblasochist
07-13-2009, 04:41 PM
I don't play 3.5 so I wouldn't likely know that. Thanks for the info.

cigamnogard
07-13-2009, 04:54 PM
Actually the reason I dislike 4.0 is that the playable races has gone done dramatically from 3.0/3.5

korhal23
07-13-2009, 05:41 PM
Actually, Cig, I'll give you that, if you're saying what I think you're saying. I have always been one for the standard fantasy races (in D&D anyway)... elves, humans, dwarves, etc. The likes of tieflings and the stranger races always bothered me.... those races should be immensely rare, yet they seem all too common in the adventuring parties. Like I've said elsewhere, if the city you're in is 80% human, 15% elf, and 5% dwarf, but the tiefling, the warforged, the "good" drow, the genasi, and the daeva get together and talk of adventuring, the townsfolk are likely to think the outsiders are conspiring... an element oft overlooked in most games.

I don't mind their inclusion, because I like player options, but I do expect reasonable and convincing backstories for every detail on your character sheet.... including your race.

cigamnogard
07-13-2009, 05:47 PM
Exactly, and who would be more likely to go adventuring - the people who do not fit in to society or those that do? Then, who would be more successful at adventuring? ;)

korhal23
07-13-2009, 06:05 PM
I really can't tell which side you're on.

I think that, sure the outside races are likely to want to adventure, but they'd have to overcome enormous trust hurdles. I also think that most parties are going to reflect the population of the area they originate from.

emblasochist
07-13-2009, 06:22 PM
What's your take on Revenants, korhal, where the numbers of such are counted in the single digits in a world? My problem with saying that you have to have built trust with the other players is this; how can you ever build trust with a person that you KNOW to be a theif or an assassin in the first place? Aren't you likely to always be keeping an eye on that guy just out of self-preservation? Yet players play those characters all the time. If you require your players' party to make sense in terms of race roles, you had better make them also be sure to do the same for class or else you aren't consistent and you will face resentment from your players. Now personally, I have no qualms with a player playing any race or class when I'm a player because I like having options. I try to make sure that my players can use anything they want to use as long as they either don't care mechanically and storywise how to make it work, or they do the legwork. That said, if the party wants to make a party of gnomes, or better yet, a party of revenants, they better have been from the same town, or have had a long history of traveling far before they met the rest of the party members...

And if you are wondering Revenants are the dead that the Raven Queen has specifically singled out to be given new life. You could understand why there would be very few of them, I'm sure.

cigamnogard
07-13-2009, 07:02 PM
I really can't tell which side you're on.


Good it's working :)



I also think that most parties are going to reflect the population of the area they originate from.

To a degree numbers matter; then quality. So, yes, there may be a lot of adventurers out running around that are the regular populus but the survivors are the ones that matter. Those are the inviduals - those are the interesting ones. Those are the ones I like to play.

Inquisitor Tremayne
07-13-2009, 07:35 PM
I think part of the distinction and a crucial view on what exactly is "stealing from the party"? To me, entering a room, searching it and not informing everyone of everything in the room and pocketing a small something or other is not stealing from the party. It is stealing from whoever's room you are in.

I agree that it can easily get out of control if say the PCs then fight over who gets into the room first and searches and who has the highest sleight of hand check?

I have no problem dealing with this if/when the other PCs find out and confront the thieving character, that is part of roleplaying.

In the mean time I allow it.

Another point I would like to make is to other game settings/systems, this doesn't happen in Star Wars, even though it happens fairly regularly in most SW games I have played in and run. Granted there is less emphasis on "equipment makes the character" but it is never brought up because the PCs are usually more concerned with the story.

Let me reiterate though, extreme stealing, I think is wrong. Stealing from other party members, going out of your way to steal major items, NEVER sharing with the rest of the party (which usually equates to a general tendency to not contribute to the group for anything), all of this is wrong and is behavior that should be discussed/curbed.

korhal23
07-13-2009, 07:51 PM
You better have a damn good story if you want to play a Revenant in my game... and I think you'll find many people are choosing those races not because they have a story to tell, but because they want to min/max. Not all, but some. Min/maxing is NOT a problem to me, so long as it is roleplayed properly.

It's not a huge problem for me. Basically, the player just needs a story that fits the world. Whether the players trust him/her based on race, class, or anything else is an in character thing. A convenient way to get around any sort of issue like that is to eschew the usual "You all meet in a tavern" and make the PCs an established guild of some sort. This can also countermand the rogue's impulse to steal.

I'm not saying the outside races are bad at all, they've just lost some of what used to make them special when they're now so commonplace. When the players of my games play more of the outside races, I tend to up their populations in cities so the players don't seem so out of place.


Good it's working
No, that just makes you confusing to talk to, and therefore not worth my time. Your "cleverness" gets lost in text, and if you can't decide what point you're making, I don't care.


So, yes, there may be a lot of adventurers out running around that are the regular populus but the survivors are the ones that matter. Those are the inviduals - those are the interesting ones. Those are the ones I like to play.
Individuals can also be targets. Just because you are different does not mean you are useful.

cigamnogard
07-14-2009, 04:52 PM
You better have a damn good story if you want to play a Revenant in my game...

I thought she did.


A convenient way to get around any sort of issue like that is to eschew the usual "You all meet in a tavern" and make the PCs an established guild of some sort. This can also countermand the rogue's impulse to steal.

Why? A guild is faceless entity while friends shedding blood beside you and for you do not matter...okay? Nice.


I'm not saying the outside races are bad at all, they've just lost some of what used to make them special when they're now so commonplace. When the players of my games play more of the outside races, I tend to up their populations in cities so the players don't seem so out of place.

Commonplace? Sounds like players of your games are bored with the regular races as well.


No, that just makes you confusing to talk to, and therefore not worth my time. Your "cleverness" gets lost in text, and if you can't decide what point you're making, I don't care.

Fine, but why are you replying to my post? Somehow, I think you understand just fine.


Individuals can also be targets. Just because you are different does not mean you are useful.
Those that stand outside societies norms are yes, individuals, and to players/adventurers they make the most interesting stories.

korhal23
07-14-2009, 07:15 PM
Perhaps I should clarify. In the worlds I design, racial tension is usually a Big Deal, a common theme among many of the worlds I've created. This tends to taint my views of the less common races... in my worlds they are rarely if ever accepted, and if so, usually only grudgingly because they are useful for some purpose.
Your point about guilds is... Well to be frank, I have no idea what you mean by that, or what you're referring to.
I don't know what your "commonplace" remark means either. They aren't commonplace races, nor do my players choose them as such. The thing that bothers me is that the PHBs treat all the races as if they are equally prevelant, which is fine I suppose, but gives me no real desire to play the default D&D setting.
I'm replying to you because you're the one who started this conversation. In retrospect, it seems that you should invest in a friend to double check your posts to ensure they're understandable to anyone that isn't you... funnily enough I originally thought I was agreeing with you.
Those that stand out from society's norms can be great heroes. But more often than not, great heroes do not DEFY societal norms, but rather, EXEMPLIFY them. I'd also like to raise you that any race can be interesting and tell a great story (including humans!)... you seem to believe that's not the case. I hope your whole next group wants to be human :) Players make interesting stories by default because even the worst PC is far beyond the realms of even the greatest commoner. To insist that your racial selection has any bearing on your ability to tell a compelling story is, well, wrong.

emblasochist
07-14-2009, 08:47 PM
I thought she did.

I'm a male... But that aside, I did write like a 3 page backstory for my revenant.


Perhaps I should clarify. In the worlds I design, racial tension is usually a Big Deal, a common theme among many of the worlds I've created. This tends to taint my views of the less common races... in my worlds they are rarely if ever accepted, and if so, usually only grudgingly because they are useful for some purpose.
The thing that bothers me is that the PHBs treat all the races as if they are equally prevelant, which is fine I suppose, but gives me no real desire to play the default D&D setting.
Those that stand out from society's norms can be great heroes. But more often than not, great heroes do not DEFY societal norms, but rather, EXEMPLIFY them. I'd also like to raise you that any race can be interesting and tell a great story (including humans!)... you seem to believe that's not the case. I hope your whole next group wants to be human :) Players make interesting stories by default because even the worst PC is far beyond the realms of even the greatest commoner. To insist that your racial selection has any bearing on your ability to tell a compelling story is, well, wrong.

You are right about the fact that race should have no bearing upon whether your character is a hero or not. But the problem is this; most of the world's humans are NOT. They're villains sometimes, they're farmers, vendors, craftsmen, and occasionally, they are hunters or some other profession that makes them more apt to have grandiose stories. But the PCs are supposed to be above and beyond that. While its true that of all races, you find a SMALL percentage of adventurers with respect to all lifestyles, but for humans, its the least percentage because there are so damn many humans. And while that doesn't say that humans shouldn't be a playable race, it just suggests that you've got to make a good story for any race.

Sure, you have to put more work into making it believable that your dragonborn was raised in a gnome village, but I always was the type of player that viewed the story elements as a higher importance than the min/maxing, even though I choose a class before I choose a race; once I have a class and a race, I spend a good two to three hours coming up with a compelling backstory that even R. A. Salvatore might include in a novel... However, for the Revenant monk I made, I had the race in my mind before I had the class, again because I had an idea for the character's story before I really spent a lot of time with stats.

I think I understand where you're coming from and while I agree that story should come before stats, that's an opinion. Some people like the combat just a whole lot more than the story. And ultimately, the difference between you and I, I think is that we have a different approach to get the same thing. While you (seemingly) require your players to give you a well-thought out back-story to be approved I guess, I just tell my players that they can do whatever they want and if they don't give me a back-story, I can do whatever I want with that character pretty much. Like, if a player doesn't tell me that his character is a male, I can make the character pregnant if it suits my story. I also tell them that if they do not have a back-story, I have the right to mold the character's future as I like. Same goes for magic items. They don't give me a wish-list so to speak, they get whatever I feel like giving them. So, the rogue gets a +1 Visious Rapier? Shame he didn't get Rapier proficiency that last level... And I play with the concept that if you aren't proficient with a weapon, you cannot use it in combat, or in general, unless you spend time outside of combat on a practice field with the weapon. And THEN you can gain proficiency after you spent that time...

korhal23
07-14-2009, 09:29 PM
I do look over someone's story, though I don't necessarily approve it... I just check it to make sure it fits into the world, and that the story does line up with their sheet. If it's missing something I'll tell them, but I don't outright deny a player anything unless what they're asking for is clearly out of line.
Sure, say 1% of humans are adventurers, but half of the Daeva are. There's probably still more human adventurers than Daeva. Humans, as a race, have the most potential, imo, because they can be from most anywhere, and as a result of their racial bonuses are the most versatile race, no matter their class of choice.
Of course, yeah, it's just an opinion, and so everyone gets to make up their own mind. And don't get me wrong, I like a good almost-storyless delve too from time to time.... and I also like campaigns that are dungeon crawls. Combat is also a significant chunk of my games too. But Story and Combat need not be separated, and most times, imo, should not be separated.

As far as the order of things in character creation, I really like to go by the book. Make the ability scores, and choose a race. Now you have your final ability scores, representing innate talent. Now choose your class based on the one your innate talents lead you to, then from there, the feats and skills you've spent your training period working on. Then make a backstory to justify it all and tie it together.

I really took note of this approach from playing Aces and Eights. Sure, you might say "I wanna be a lawman!" but the character you roll up could be any number of things that make that a suicidal career path... you make the character, then slot him into a job he'd be good at, not the other way around.

emblasochist
07-14-2009, 09:58 PM
What I was trying to say was that I make a point to make the story of my character well before I am done filling in my character sheet. I view the story more important than the stats my character has. But yes, I do make combat and story intertwine. Rarely is there an instance that there is combat without SOME kind of story element in my games.

As for the point about the character rolling process, I use the point-buy system rather than the rolling system, so I am pretty well in control of how my stats reflect the job I want to play. And that's the thing; I build characters based upon their job first because while the races are cool, I have made something like 15 characters for 4th edition, and I have yet to use more than like 4 races. They are interesting, but I've always enjoyed MMOs and strategy RPGs where the job or class of a character made a huge impact on that character's abilities and I never really got away from that.

And once I have a class, I have a start for my whole back-story. I then usually pick my race for the ability scores that serve the class well, but rarely do I pick the race whose ability scores give me a perfect match to the class, nor do I take humans simply because I feel like I have too many options to choose from in terms of back story and I like having a starting point, whereas with Human, I feel like I don't have one.

cigamnogard
07-15-2009, 04:29 PM
I'm a male... But that aside, I did write like a 3 page backstory for my revenant.



Whoops! Sorry about that!
--- Merged from Double Post ---

Your point about guilds is... Well to be frank, I have no idea what you mean by that, or what you're referring to.


What is a guild? It is a union of a sort - okay, it is where you pay monies into it and take a share of profits like a co-operative - hmmmm, still not quite right. A guild is - a guild. Here this may assist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild
--- Merged from Double Post ---

I don't know what your "commonplace" remark means either.
That's your word bud - you used it - I questioned it.
--- Merged from Double Post ---

I'm replying to you because you're the one who started this conversation. In retrospect, it seems that you should invest in a friend to double check your posts to ensure they're understandable to anyone that isn't you... funnily enough I originally thought I was agreeing with you.
Probably, as I was on the fence playing devil's advocate. In retrospect I suggest you might get a friend as well - in regards to my above comment about "commonplace".
--- Merged from Double Post ---


Those that stand out from society's norms can be great heroes. But more often than not, great heroes do not DEFY societal norms, but rather, EXEMPLIFY them.

Hereos? When I have mentioned hereos? I said adventurers! People who go off into the frontiers or on adventurers may be hereos to you. But, I was discusing rogues and thieves - who very rarely are hereos - Han Solo and Remmington Steele as noted exceptions. Who, most importantly to this topic never stole from their companions/friends.
--- Merged from Double Post ---

I'd also like to raise you that any race can be interesting and tell a great story (including humans!).
I agree any race may tell a great story but I want to tell a different story each and every time. I want to play different characters not the same cookie cut person each and every time.


Players make interesting stories by default because even the worst PC is far beyond the realms of even the greatest commoner.
A commoner is a peasant and some of the greatest peasants have gone on to be as you say to become "the greatest heroes". Personally, a peasant sounds more interesting to play than the paladin who looks down on the lowly serfs. Now, that you mention it commoners/serfs/peasants are very close to a slave class = they must have uninteresting lives...No, they still compete in my books with any pc - even the best pc.
Do not imagine you know my beliefs.
--- Merged from Double Post ---

I'd also like to raise you that any race can be interesting and tell a great story (including humans!)... you seem to believe that's not the case.
__________________________________________________ _________