at what point is being a thief being neutral and at what point do you become evil.
|
Hmmm, you could always consider why your stealing something. Theft as a form of adventure certainly isn't inherently evil or all the adventurers would be in quite a lot of trouble alignment wise. The thrill of the challenge to pluck some precious treasure from someplace that's dangerous and well guarded is quite the foundation of most games. Proving your worth as a thief is all part of the fun.
Stealing from your friends would be rather decidedly evil, if for no reason other then to punish disunity between the players. You'd be surprised at how easily a few skimmed gold coins will upset some players, so no reason to encourage that. Jeremiziah is about right I'd say beyond that.
Extortion and kidnapping probably runs a bit into the more negative side of the alignment swimming pool. Murder too obviously, though not the traditional adventuring style murder we're used to but the more sneak in and slit throats or slip poison into drinks murder.
|
Stealing for the thrill also calls into question your choice of targets.
If you're stealing from someone that can afford the loss, or better yet someone who genuinely has it coming, you do stand further from the evil line than someone stealing from every poor peasant he passes on the street just to see if he can.
Stealing a ruby phoenix statue from Pasha Henaan is quite a stunt. Stealing the pants right out from under Armless Farouk is just being a dick.
10gp is 10gp. However, if you steal 10gp from a rich merchant who keeps that sort of cash on hand as pocket change, that's not an evil act. Unlawful, yes, but certainly not evil.
However, if you get wind that a struggling laborer who lives with his wife and six children has 10gp stashed away in a hidden place--his life savings in order to buy passage on a ship for his family to a place where they'll have a better life--and swoop in and steal the money, despite the harm you know you're doing, that's a step closer to the evil line.
At least, that's how I view it...
so a safe guideline might be don't steal from a peasant.
Also keep in mind that a Rogue is not the same thing as a Thief. A Rogue has a skill set that can be used as a trouble shooter for everything from social situations to traps/locks to walls and chasms.
I have played many rogues over the years and very few thieves. I cannot even remember the last time I took sleight of hand on a rogue but I always max my disable device.
Now if you play a rogue that IS a thief and they steel for personal gain without any concern for the impact on the people he targets or the laws of the town... then that is a Thief with a capitol "T" and is probably not good at all.
The "Party Friendly Rogue" is very common in good aligned parties and helps to avoid to much intraparty fighting. But a good thief is fun every now and then too so you can get your hands dirty.
Or at least steal where it is causing the least amount of harm to the victim.
If your character was starving and there was an extra loaf of bread lying on a table in a nearby hovel, I wouldn't consider stealing it to be an evil act.
The way I view it:
Stealing an item for yourself is an evil act.
Stealing an item for others is a neutral act.
Returning a stolen item (aka the "Stealing back money from a thief" fallacy) is a good act.
Stealing to feed yourself is an evil act.
Stealing to feed others is a neutral act.
I don't see how stealing from a rich man is any different than stealing from a poor man. If a man has six fingers, is it okay to cut off his thumb since he has five more fingers? If a man has ten children and another man has one child, is it worse to kill the one child than one of the ten children?
You also have to consider who you are stealing from and why you are stealing. Here are some examples:
Stealing the floor plans of the vampire's stronghold to make it easier for you and your party to track him down and destroy him is certainly not evil. Some might even consider it a good act.
Stealing a baby to give to an evil cult so they can sacrifice it is definitely an evil act. Stealing a baby to give to a cult so they can sacrifice it in return for the life of your friend or family member is still an evil act.
Stealing a painting and then returning it to its owners after you have proved you can steal it is a neutral act and also quite chaotic (unless you have been paid to test the security, in which case it might be a lawful act). ;-)
Context and meaning are very important in this sort of debate. So is the impact of your theft on others.
I don't see how stealing from a rich man is any different than stealing from a poor man. If a man has six fingers, is it okay to cut off his thumb since he has five more fingers? If a man has ten children and another man has one child, is it worse to kill the one child than one of the ten children?
Its matter of degree of harm suffered by the victim of the theft. If you steal small (for PC) amount of money from a rich, and he is not seriously harmed by the loss it should be a minor evil act (not enough to cause alignement shift, still it is a bit evil). Volunatrily stealing the same amount of money from destitute peasant family may well be a death sentence to one or more of their members and seriously evil act.
The way I view it:
Stealing an item for yourself is an evil act.
Stealing an item for others is a neutral act.
Returning a stolen item (aka the "Stealing back money from a thief" fallacy) is a good act.
Stealing to feed yourself is an evil act.
Stealing to feed others is a neutral act.I don't see how stealing from a rich man is any different than stealing from a poor man.
Just as a counterpoint:
Stealing an item for yourself = evil
Stealing an item for others = evil
Stealing an item from another thief = neutral
Stealing an item 'back' from another thief to return to rightful owner = good
Stealing from an enemy you're at war with = neutral
Stealing to feed yourself or others = evil
Stealing to feed yourself or others who are starving = neutral
As for stealing from rich/poor, it's merely MORE evil to steal from someone who can less afford it. Robbing Scrooge McDuck is still an evil act, even though he's got a vault full of gold that he can swim laps in it.
That said, theft is pretty small potatoes on the Evil-o-Meter, at least by today's standards (a few hundred years ago, it was one of the worst things, b/c unlike murder, theft is never a 'crime of passion'). There should be no problem with career thieves being CN or N. I can't see a career CG thief (Robin Hood and his merry men were actually raising a ransom for King Richard, which was Robin's feudal duty, IIRC).
As for stealing from rich/poor, it's merely MORE evil to steal from someone who can less afford it. Robbing Scrooge McDuck is still an evil act, even though he's got a vault full of gold that he can swim laps in it.
That depends. While you may think it is evil IRL, remember that many people who are seen as heroes in fantasy or myth have stealing as one of their main characteristics. The most obvious one here is Robin Hood, who takes from the rich and give to the poor. In his case, it's generally seen as a good act.
Just apply the in-game alignment guidelines as best you can: if it's for altruistic reasons and doesn't harm innocents, it swings toward good. If you know it actively harms someone and don't care, and are doing it purely for self-gain (not because you need it, but because you want it), it swings toward evil.
If it's not altruistic, but not meant to harm (for example, swiping a single loaf of bread to feed your family--that denies the baker a small amount of income, but there's a tradeoff in there) it's neutral.
That depends. While you may think it is evil IRL, remember that many people who are seen as heroes in fantasy or myth have stealing as one of their main characteristics. The most obvious one here is Robin Hood, who takes from the rich and give to the poor. In his case, it's generally seen as a good act.
Yeah, they're seen as heroes by the people getting the stolen money. I'd argue that in Robin Hood's case it's a situation of stealing from thieves, because the Sheriff of Nottingham et.al. were basically usurpers - Prince John was collecting taxes ostensibly to ransom King Richard, but had no intention of ransoming him. Similarly, the merchants/wealthy priests were in cahoots with the Prince.
So stealing from thieves to 'give back' to the poor was seen as a 'good act' (as outlined in my earlier post).
As an aside, Robin Hood et.al. didn't really steal, they took at knife/bowpoint - that's banditry, not theft.
As for the 'many people' in 'fantasy and myth' seen as heroic thieves, I'm drawing a blank on that one <work, brain, work!>...got some examples?
EDIT: Bilbo Baggins doesn't count. They were out to kill Smaug all along (who basically took all the gold by force from the dwarves), and Bilbo FOUND the one ring on the ground, he didn't steal it. He didn't return it either, but he was kind of afraid for his life at the time. Gollum was going to strangle/eat him, after all.
That depends. While you may think it is evil IRL, remember that many people who are seen as heroes in fantasy or myth have stealing as one of their main characteristics. The most obvious one here is Robin Hood, who takes from the rich and give to the poor. In his case, it's generally seen as a good act.Yeah, they're seen as heroes by the people getting the stolen money. I'd argue that in Robin Hood's case it's a situation of stealing from thieves, because the Sheriff of Nottingham et.al. were basically usurpers - Prince John was collecting taxes ostensibly to ransom King Richard, but had no intention of ransoming him. Similarly, the merchants/wealthy priests were in cahoots with the Prince.
So stealing from thieves to 'give back' to the poor was seen as a 'good act' (as outlined in my earlier post).
As an aside, Robin Hood et.al. didn't really steal, they took at knife/bowpoint - that's banditry, not theft.
As for the 'many people' in 'fantasy and myth' seen as heroic thieves, I'm drawing a blank on that one <work, brain, work!>...got some examples?
EDIT: Bilbo Baggins doesn't count. They were out to kill Smaug all along (who basically took all the gold by force from the dwarves), and Bilbo FOUND the one ring on the ground, he didn't steal it. He didn't return it either, but he was kind of afraid for his life at the time. Gollum was going to strangle/eat him, after all.
Actually Bilbo did steal the Arkenstone from the dwarves (well, actually he found it first and didn't report it) and then sneaked out of the mountain to give it to Gandalf as a bargaining tool. Bilbo also snuck around the Wood Elves stronghold and stole lots of food and drink while he was there - and in a sense stole the dwarves away from the elves. He actually was a pretty good thief - but really only after he got the ring.
As for the 'many people' in 'fantasy and myth' seen as heroic thieves, I'm drawing a blank on that one <work, brain, work!>...got some examples?EDIT: Bilbo Baggins doesn't count. They were out to kill Smaug all along (who basically took all the gold by force from the dwarves), and Bilbo FOUND the one ring on the ground, he didn't steal it. He didn't return it either, but he was kind of afraid for his life at the time. Gollum was going to strangle/eat him, after all.
What is a thief and what is not can be open to interpretation - while I agree that Prince John did evil stuff, it's never clearly said that he broke the law (though it certainly was against the "spirit of the law", if one believes in such). And robbery and banditry very much features stealing - while English isn't my native language, according to wiki "theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent".
Bilbo found the one ring in the home of Gollum, and when confronted with it he said he didn't have it. Do that to anyone else and it would be theft. Another case would be conan, as well as james bond, and one of the main characters in Wheel of Time (don't remember the name, too many years since reading it). I may have overreached when I say many, but there are at least several characters which make stealing one of their prime methods. I am not overreaching when I say that many, many heroes have at least once "illegaly taken another person's property without that person's freely-given consent". Sometimes from other thieves, sometimes from generally just bad people, and sometimes from generally good people.
Actually Bilbo did steal the Arkenstone from the dwarves (well, actually he found it first and didn't report it) and then sneaked out of the mountain to give it to Gandalf as a bargaining tool.
Yes, and his grabbing it was an act of unmitigated avarice, and his not reporting it when he found out how much the dwarves valued it was also a betrayal. Neither was a good act.
Bilbo also snuck around the Wood Elves stronghold and stole lots of food and drink while he was there - and in a sense stole the dwarves away from the elves. He actually was a pretty good thief - but really only after he got the ring.
I noted stealing from an enemy as a neutral act; the wood elves were holding his friends/allies captive - they were a hostile force. Bilbo's 'heroic acts' involve mostly rescuing the dwarves from whatever stupidity they've gotten themselves into.
I noted stealing from an enemy as a neutral act; the wood elves were holding his friends/allies captive - they were a hostile force. Bilbo's 'heroic acts' involve mostly rescuing the dwarves from whatever stupidity they've gotten themselves into.
You said stealing from an enemy you're in war with. That's a pretty big difference there, as anyone could easily claim anyone they steal from is per definition an enemy. "At war with" denotes a formal... agreement of sorts... that you're going to be mean to each other, and that this is well-known and accepted by not only involved parts but by the outside world too.
If I steal from Coca Cola company, is that neutral because I consider them the enemy?
Of course, if you just meant that stealing from friends and not enemies is evil, I agree with you. Stealing from friends is evil in most situations.
Bilbo found the one ring in the home of Gollum, and when confronted with it he said he didn't have it. Do that to anyone else and it would be theft.
IIRC Gollum never mentions/describes 'his precious' to Bilbo, but goes to get it AFTER the riddle competition (so he can kill Bilbo), discovers it's missing, makes a lot of noise and Bilbo runs for it. At which point Gollum figures out that Bilbo must have the One Ring. Also, you could argue that the One Ring 'chose' to go with Bilbo (it abandoned Gollum earlier), so no theft occurred.
Another case would be conan,
Conan, the pirate? Conan, the mercenary? Conan, the raider? Conan was popular because he was a great leader and successful at what he did (killing things), not for his acts of theft. He certainly was a thief for a time, but he stole to benefit nobody but Conan. He only really became popular when working for Aquilonia, and that was because he was a successful mercenary captain, doing a good job of defending the borders against Picts. That's where he made the connections necessary to eventually become king.
as well as james bond,
James Bond, the sanctioned murderer? Who regarded this guy as a 'good guy'? His only redeeming quality was that he killed people WORSE than himself. And he's never seen as a public hero in the books/movies - outside of the spy scene nobody really knows he exists.
I am not overreaching when I say that many, many heroes have at least once "illegaly taken another person's property without that person's freely-given consent". Sometimes from other thieves, sometimes from generally just bad people, and sometimes from generally good people.
That's why I don't blanket-statement 'stealing=evil', but VERY seldom is 'stealing=good'. Any 'career' thief shouldn't pretend that they're a good/Good person, however - any more than a 'career' murderer should.
You said stealing from an enemy you're in war with. That's a pretty big difference there, as anyone could easily claim anyone they steal from is per definition an enemy. "At war with" denotes a formal... agreement of sorts... that you're going to be mean to each other, and that this is well-known and accepted by not only involved parts but by the outside world too.
In this situation, the Elves had pretty much declared war by capturing the dwarves. IOW, 'they started it', not Bilbo & Company. The dwarves were just lost in the woods, and natural dwarf-elf prejudice took over from there.
If I steal from Coca Cola company, is that neutral because I consider them the enemy?
Straw Man argument. Your considering the Coca-Cola company 'your enemy' is itself an evil act (hatred) because you have NO justification to hate them. Unless you're a Pepsi man. Then you're just plain evil anyways. ;-)
Of course, if you just meant that stealing from friends and not enemies is evil, I agree with you. Stealing from friends is evil in most situations.
I mean that stealing is 'usually' evil. In most circumstances where it's not 'evil', it's not 'good' either - simply necessary or another facet of a bigger conflict. For a theft to be a 'good' act it should probably necessary, justified and for the greater good.
I do not mean 'stealing is bad unless you don't like the target'.
You have good points, generally, though I think most paladins are more or less "career murderers", at least when working in unclaimed territory or where they have no legal jurisdiction (like entering that dragon's den).
If I steal from Coca Cola company, is that neutral because I consider them the enemy?Straw Man argument. Your considering the Coca-Cola company 'your enemy' is itself an evil act (hatred) because you have NO justification to hate them. Unless you're a Pepsi man. Then you're just plain evil anyways. ;-)
How is hatred evil or even an act? And how is considering someone your enemy equal to hating them? Hatred is a feeling, and you can feel that to people or things that aren't your enemies, and you can lack the feeling for those that you are enemies with.
And of course I have justification, otherwise I wouldn't do it. It may be that you don't agree with me on the justification, but it's justified to me or I wouldn't do it. That's human nature. I could give you a few good reasons why I might consider coca cola company to be an enemy, but that's derailing the thread TOO far and would be better suited in one of the politics threads.
I mean that stealing is 'usually' evil. In most circumstances where it's not 'evil', it's not 'good' either
Killing an evil being in D&D is often considered a good deed, at least when it's "irredeemable" evils such as chromatic dragons and fiends. While you may not agree that it should, it is often considered as such and I even remember seeing it stated in some WOTC 3.x product (might have been exalted cheese or vile dorkness).
How would stealing from them be even non-good? Because much of the stealing that a player character will commit will be from evil beings.
It also depends on how regularly you steal and how much you steal. Stealing a small item from a rich merchant's stall once every three weeks is hardly going to turn you evil. I think the slide to evil through the act of stealing something requires something more than the removal of a bunch of peoples physical possessions. Otherwise, all adventurers would become evil eventually, since they are constantly slaughtering living sentient creatures for profit at some level (looting their corpses or lairs)
You have good points, generally, though I think most paladins are more or less "career murderers", at least when working in unclaimed territory or where they have no legal jurisdiction (like entering that dragon's den).
Yeah, I agree with you there, though often those paladins DO have legal jurisdiction - church law, anyways.
HOWEVER, most of the time adventurers are killing evil beings that have done very evil things - and are killing them to STOP them from doing more evil things. Or punish them for all the bad stuff they've done.
That's where the 'good' part comes in. It is good to actively oppose evil. Killing them is probably the 'least' good option available (redemption is the 'best' good option in almost every case), but it is also the most reasonably achievable one. You can't convert a dragon very easily, and you can't convert a demon at all (barring some high level magic from Book of Exalted Deeds), so all you can do is kill them.
This is why the game usually portrays evil humanoids as EVIL humanoids. They do evil things, serve evil gods and are basically made of puppy-drowning impulses. Reform or redeem them? Next to impossible. Stop them from raiding by killing them? Possible, and saves innocent lives.
Strangely, killing things is easier to rationalize as good in D&D than stealing. Stealing seldom stops evil things from doing evil (though it could, if the GM set it up right), whereas killing things stops just about everything from doing evil.
the reason i ask is that i want to play a master thief style character, one who wants to be the greatest thief in the world, his goals are simply to retrieve valuable items from from near imposable locations and super vigilant people.
the harder it is to steal or the more valuable or unique the item the better. he would never steal from a peasant, but is fully willing to steal from a noble just for practice or to punish them for flaunting their wealth over the poor.
|
|
Hellic, why would a rouge/thief steal from a pesant/poor person? There
is no profit in it for the rouge. Reguardless theft in a Pathfinder type society is not in itself a evil act any more than a caster fireballing a group of baddies is. trying to place rougish thivery in an alignment based system is a unnessary complixity that des not need to be in the game.
When the infamous bank roober Wille Sutton was captured by the FBI they
asked him why he robbed banks. Sutton said "That's where the money is."
Were Wille Sutons bank rooberies an Evil act. No It was not evil just very unlawful. Sutton never hurt or killed any patorns or staff in the banks he robbed unliker John Dillinger or Ma Barkers gang. Now if you want a real world evil bad guy look at Richard Rameriz aka the Night Stalker or the recently captured serial killer in LA. Both crazed remorseless killers that would fall into the evil rouge/assain archtype.
|
When the infamous bank roober Wille Sutton was captured by the FBI they
asked him why he robbed banks. Sutton said "That's where the money is."Were Wille Sutons bank rooberies an Evil act. No It was not evil just very unlawful. Sutton never hurt or killed any patorns or staff in the banks he robbed unliker John Dillinger or Ma Barkers gang. Now if you want a real world evil bad guy look at Richard Rameriz aka the Night Stalker or the recently captured serial killer in LA. Both crazed remorseless killers that would fall into the evil rouge/assain archtype.
Anytime you steal someone loses. He might not be E, but his actions there are selfish and evil. You can commit evil acts without being evil.
Anytime you steal someone loses. He might not be E, but his actions there are selfish and evil. You can commit evil acts without being evil.
When the infamous bank roober Wille Sutton was captured by the FBI they
asked him why he robbed banks. Sutton said "That's where the money is."Were Wille Sutons bank rooberies an Evil act. No It was not evil just very unlawful. Sutton never hurt or killed any patorns or staff in the banks he robbed unliker John Dillinger or Ma Barkers gang. Now if you want a real world evil bad guy look at Richard Rameriz aka the Night Stalker or the recently captured serial killer in LA. Both crazed remorseless killers that would fall into the evil rouge/assain archtype.
so Chaotic Neutral would be fine for this character?
so Chaotic Neutral would be fine for this character?
Depends on your group, but from the description you gave it sounds like it could fit almost every alignment but lawful neutral and lawful good (and during special circumstances, even them). Chaotic neutral would probably be fine as long as you do nice things apart from the stealing, and if you actively seek out those that use their wealth in unfair ways it could even be good (in my gaming group at least, though most of us don't see stealing as inherently evil IRL either).
I would just go with true Nuetral on. Chaos indicates a certain amount of rebellion in the act of theft. In a Robin Hood campaign, you could even justify a Lawful Nuetral, in that he is taking from an illegitimate government that has usurped the rightful throne, which would make that government illegal.
Dont go with Chaotic evil though...lets face it, in RPG's most "evil"characters are "diet coke evil...just one calorie of evil".
They provide dark humored entertainment along the lines of the evil halfling in Order of the Stick.
A real life chaotic evil thief will cut the throat of a girl for kicks after stealing her necklace.
Hellic, why would a rouge/thief steal from a pesant/poor person? There
is no profit in it for the rouge. Reguardless theft in a Pathfinder type society is not in itself a evil act any more than a caster fireballing a group of baddies is. trying to place rougish thivery in an alignment based system is a unnessary complixity that des not need to be in the game.When the infamous bank roober Wille Sutton was captured by the FBI they
asked him why he robbed banks. Sutton said "That's where the money is."Were Wille Sutons bank rooberies an Evil act. No It was not evil just very unlawful. Sutton never hurt or killed any patorns or staff in the banks he robbed unliker John Dillinger or Ma Barkers gang. Now if you want a real world evil bad guy look at Richard Rameriz aka the Night Stalker or the recently captured serial killer in LA. Both crazed remorseless killers that would fall into the evil rouge/assain archtype.
I looked up Mr Sutton's wikipedia page. It seems he was robbing banks just for the thrill of it, but was smart enough to avoid hurting people (really, harming/killing people is the LAST thing a smart criminal wants to do, but smart crooks go into high finance). That said, he was still taking things that didn't belong to him. Not just that, he was threatening people with deadly harm - they didn't know his guns were unloaded or that he had no intention of physically harming anyone.
Maybe he wasn't very evil, but what he was doing was still wrong - and not in the 'unlawful' sense, in the 'bad' sense. There are plenty of ways to be 'unlawful' that aren't 'bad'. Is using narcotics evil? No (though I don't endorse it), but it is illegal in most places. Driving without insurance? Illegal in Canada, but not evil.
Again, I think stealing is generally evil, but not VERY evil. It's not going to make you a monster or an irredeemable bad guy, but it will leave a stain. Hard to imagine a truly 'good' character that consistently goes around staining himself in this manner.
I would consider stealing itself to be neutral on good to evil scale and more towards chaotic then lawful.
.
- If you steal but try to avoid causing major harm and help others when you can? CG
- If you steal because you want stuff? NE
- If you steal because you were hired to do so? LN or LE
- If you steal to protect the people? (stealing money so drug lord X cant hire more mercenaries, so that 'those' irresponsible people no longer have the vital blueprint on making X dangerous magic item, etc) NG
- If you steal because you have no sense of long term ownership (which means you don't care if stuff is stolen from you)? CN
- If you steal because you work for someone in power and you are making things better? LG
- If you steal because you believe everything belongs to you and others are just 'holding on to it until you get there'? CE
- Etc
The motivation and how you affect people is usually the determining factor. Though each case would have to be judged individually. There is no blanket rules.
Often you should consider:
Motivation
Effect on person(s) stolen from
Methods used
Follow through
If they say they are pulling a Robin Hood are they really giving the money to the poor after? Or is it just a small percentage?
Stealing for your own gain is generally an evil act, taking a coin purse from a rich person generally less so than taking the last few dimes someone needs to buy food and pay the rent.
Being hired to steal or stealing for others, uncaring of the consequences is still evil.
Just being an idiot with no concept of ownership is a low wisdom character and likely neutral or chaotic neutral.
Keeping an item taken from a thief, instead of going through the trouble to return it to it's rightful owner is just mildly selfish / evil and chaotic.
I think stealing is a minor evil in itself, but the ammount of emotional detachment from your deeds is what matters most.
Occasionally stealing a few gold pieces from people that seem to be able to get around without it doesn't make you evil in itself, though the character is unlikely to be good aligned.
so a safe guideline might be don't steal from a peasant.
Or your fellow PCs. Dear god, I've seen campaigns and friendships end over that kind of stuff. Many people have absolutely no tolerance for inter party thieving. One player killed the PC Rogue who had stolen loot from the rest of the party (hidden it away) when he IC found out about it... his justification? "He was obviously evil and needed to die".
I think this heralds back to 1st and 2nd ed where this sort of thing was more commonplace, personally. In many games it was literally "every man for himself"... looking back I don't even know how games like that could have possibly have been any fun.
i think there is a big difference between being Evil and being Bad, sure stealing is bad and stealing from people who can handle the loss isnt as bad but i would not say it is an evil act
i think there is a big difference between being Evil and being Bad, sure stealing is bad and stealing from people who can handle the loss isnt as bad but i would not say it is an evil act
Evil certainly implies malice - intent to cause suffering. Most thieves probably aren't trying to inflict suffering on others, just selfishly taking to improve their own lives. Unfortunately, D&D lacks proper granularity for this - we don't have Neutral Naughty or Chaotic Bad. :-)
Though maybe we should...Lawful Nice anyone? Free Spirited Evil?
There's two things to consider: target and intention, though target might be connected to intention in many situations. Oh, and maybe quantity.
There are three things to consider: target, intention and quantity. Oh, and... no, only those ;-)
Intention is maybe the most important, though if your deeds don't match your intentions, they will weigh in, too (if you brutally torture someone to make him confess something he didn't do and then execute him, you're probably evil, even if you only mean well for him).
So if your intention is the old "Steal from the rich and give to the poor", it's probably good (and very likely chaotic). There might be the "moral theft" where you want to teach someone a valuable lesson by taking something (maybe because you think she limits herself by relying too much upon it, or whatever), but mostly good-aligned thefts are probably along the lines of Robin Hood.
Neutral intentions are more numerous: Stealing for your own survival is neither good nor evil (at least not by itself - quantity and target will play a role certainly), as is stealing for the thrill or maybe because it's what you know best. Then there's fame, or rather infamy. Being the guy who stole the crown jewels - while the king wore them - will make you a legend!
Evil intentions are, again, rare. You basically have to steal to actively and intentionally spread misery.
Target and quantity are closely related. You could combine them to "relative quantity".
If you only steal from those who already have "too much", it would be on the nice side of neutral (I wouldn't turn any neutral character good over this, but it might move an evil character closer to neutral for his considerations).
Otherwise stealing from those who can easily afford it (and in quantities they can easily afford) is probably just neutral (and a passive neutral that would never turn a good character neutral).
If you steal in quantities that the target will feel (i.e. they won't get into serious trouble over this, but they will have to cut back), it would be "actively neutral", moving good characters towards neutrality, but probably not beyond.
Robbing someone blind is almost certainly evil (though if the person is really evil himself, I might keep you neutral instead of turning you evil).
To really consider situations, you'll have to consider the big picture, of course:
Robin Hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor would probably get "good points" if the sums were negligible for the target.
The more you steal, the less good it becomes: If you get bigger sums, it will probably make an evil character neutral, but not affect an already good or neutral character.
When you start to seriously hurt the rich financially(including those rich that aren't particularly cruel), you might actually turn towards neutrality if you're good.
And if you try to make them starve as a lesson, you might avoid an eventual slide into evil only in very special circumstances (even "teaching a lesson" will only go so far, as even if they deserve death, a quick and relatively painless one is more merciful and won't suggest that you take morbid pleasure in seeing them suffer).
As another example, the thief who takes to spread suffering will slide towards evil most of the time, but if he steals pennies from Croesus, it will only drive him towards "Chaotic Stupid" - even evil has its pride and won't let just anybody in!
DO you steal to enrich your life or to define it?
stolen movie quote.
If your stealing form an orphanage or some poor kid, your probably leaning towards evil. If you only steal what you need to survive and have never really considered the consequences, then perhaps more neutral. If your the robin hood type then your the good guy.
If you steal the the cure light potion from the bleeding fighter is that evil?
If you steal the the cure light potion from the bleeding fighter is that evil?
It's hilarious, that's what it is.
Also, pouring it onto the floor right in front of him and making him lick it up is even better.
Whether it's good or evil doesn't get into it much, though - depends mostly on whether the guy himself is good or evil. If he's evil, it's really not much different from hitting the evil priest who tries to heal him, or making him bleed in the first place.