In a game that i am currently running, there is a CN rouge/shadow dancer who fancies herself as a prostitute. She coaxes male NPCs (with plenty of successful diplomacy checks) into the crime, and then proceeds to rob them of their valuables before sneaking out the following day.
Is this evil? and what should be done if so?
What does she do with the money?
Does she target indisciminitally?
|
You are the GM. You are the Gods and the Alignment System. You decide.
Alternately, the CRB states : "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."
Does she hurt others ? Actually yes, both by convincing them to commit a crime (which one ?) and by betraying their trust later.
I would say that this behaviour, by itself, is more evil than neutral.
However, the circumstances also matter.
If they are bad people, if she uses the money for good purposes, then the overall result can be good.
If they can live without the money and she does not really hurt them, then maybe neutral.
If she steals money they would need to feed their family and uses it for her selfish gain, likely evil.
I would call it neutral, if she doesn't explicitly look for poor men with a very limited paycheck.
If it's a Robin Hood kinda deal, taking from the rich and giving to the poor/me, I would call the first good and the second neutral.
Your makeup (rouge) is definitely neutral.
Sounds like neutral behaviour to me for the rogue in question.
Well if it is too sexy or dusky, conservatives/lawfuls may deem it evil.
You might want to ask for a few bluff checks to accompany those diplomacy checks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My reading on this would be ...
Prostitution in PF is fairly neutral in aspect - with CN Calistria as the patron deity of lust. Breaking a law isn't evil - but it is chaotic.
So I would be happy that the prostitution bit is CN.
As for stealing from her clients / marks / johns - again, that is clearly not lawful. But it isn't evil. In fact, I pretty much expect a rogue to steal from NPCs. To me, it is almost part of their job description.
In my game - that would be seen as CN behaviour and suitable for a rogue. Personally, I would be give them extra XP for good role playing.
She coaxes male NPCs into the crime. . .
Are you sure prostitution is illegal where you are? Historiclly speaking, unless you're in a very stodgy society, it's probably just fine with the local authorities.
The only "bad" think you're doing is robbing people. Which seems perfectly natural for a chaotic neutral rogue. The thing you'll have to be most careful of is vengeful patrons coming back to get their belongings and revenge. Anyone who's out "fishing" for clients is going to have a hard time avoiding all of her previous victims.
I think the rogue the neutral, though their acts are evil. I don't think that its a single act (or series of acts) that makes a character evil. If this were true then a basically every character would be evil as lethally harming someone/thing is an evil act. If a Paladin doesn't break code for defending himself against a bear, then I would say your rogue isn't evil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Robbery is absolutely an evil act. "I think I deserve your stuff more than you do, so I'm going to take it" is advancing your self-interest over others, to their direct detriment. If you later do something nice with the stuff you took, you can claim that second act is good, and hope that the good outweighs the evil (or at least comes to a neutral wash), but that doesn't change the fact that the endeavor started with an evil act.
A big portion of the Robin Hood mythos is also that he was specifically robbing, not just *rich* people, but people who had become rich by exploiting the poor through an oppressive power structure.. and then he gave the wealth he liberated back to those previously abused poor folks. Just robbing people who you think have more than enough to comfortably miss a few coins is rationalization to justify greed.
Another consideration is need - is it an evil act to steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving child, etc etc? Yes, it is a small evil - the baker definitely had something taken from him that he worked for, that *his* livelihood depends on selling. However, just about anyone would agree that it is a much greater good to feed the starving child (unless the child was a real jerk).
Basically, what it comes down to is - how you acquire your wealth is one act, how you apply it is another. Whether you find yourself more on the good or evil side of the scale all depends on if the ends justify the needs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who knew paladin threads had such high ranks in stealth?
Prostitution = evil or not is a setting specific thing; as GM you can answer that question yourself. Stealing is definitely not a nice thing but, as others have pointed out, can be used for good. As GM you can also answer that one yourself by evaluating the player's actions surrounding the theft.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now this is starting to bring up some interesting alignment elements.
Back in the old days - we played shades of alignment. For a CN character you could have Chaotic Neutral, Chaotic Neutral with Good Tendencies and Chaotic Neutral with Evil Tendencies - which could be recorded at CN, CN(G) and CN(E).
Which starts to let you develop a scale for evil-ness and makes you think where different behaviours rank on that list and when people start moving from one category to the next.
It also helps you think about lawful-ness and chaos. Stealing per se is not evil. Ownership only exists because a Law says it does. Without a legal system there is no real understanding on ownership, except for possession. A big dog who takes a bone from a smaller dog is not being evil. A human who takes a Gold Piece from another human is not being evil. They are, however, being unlawful. Theft as an act is chaotic.
Now lets look at stealing that loaf of bread.
If you are starving and you steal the loaf of bread to feed yourself and stave off hunger. It is no different to the big dog taking the small dog's bone.
If you steal the bread from a rich baker to give to a starving child - that could be seen as a good act.
However, if you steal the bread from a starving child it is an evil act.
If you steal the bread from the starving child and then make the child watch you feed it to your pet ducks - then that is a more evil act.
Stealing a rich man's ill-gained valuables and distributing them to the poor - is a good act. Not lawful but CG.
Breaking into a house, tying a man and his wife up, beating them when they object and then stealing their valuables is an evil act. Although even that needs to be put into context. See the note below.
Enticing a man with sweet talk and sexual favours and then stealing some of his valuables. That isn't particularly nice - but it isn't particularly evil either.
-
Note: An adventuring party breaking into an evil monsters lair, killing or defeating all of the monster's guards, killing the BBEG and taking all of the treasure they find for themselves. Is that evil? If not, what is the difference between that and the violent robbery of the man and wife described earlier?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Poor choices with cosmetics isn't quite evil. Not having ranks in Profession (Cosmetologist), however...
Is prositution against the law in those communities?
In a game that i am currently running, there is a CN rouge/shadow dancer who fancies herself as a prostitute. She coaxes male NPCs (with plenty of successful diplomacy checks) into the crime, and then proceeds to rob them of their valuables before sneaking out the following day.
Is this evil?
As the god(s) of the world in question, only you can answer that. Basically 1) is prostitution Evil, and 2) is theft Evil?
I do not mean legal. Human laws have nothing to do with it. I mean cosmically, objectively Evil. And the gods (you) determine that. In my worlds, willing prostitution may be self-destructive, but is definitely not Evil, nor would theft be, though theft is certainly chaotic. But you(r gods) may feel differently.
and what should be done if so?
If you decide that one or both of these practices are Evil, then a gradual alignment shift to CE is warranted. Hidden from the player of course, until she's hit by an alignment effect she didn't realize she was vulnerable to. >:D
Other than that, nothing. Rogues/shadowdancers have no alignment requirements, so there are no penalties for slipping into evil, other than, as I already mentioned, potentially becoming vulnerable to spells/effects that target Evil.
Now this is starting to bring up some interesting alignment elements.
Back in the old days - we played shades of alignment. For a CN character you could have Chaotic Neutral, Chaotic Neutral with Good Tendencies and Chaotic Neutral with Evil Tendencies - which could be recorded at CN, CN(G) and CN(E).
Which starts to let you develop a scale for evil-ness and makes you think where different behaviours rank on that list and when people start moving from one category to the next.
It also helps you think about lawful-ness and chaos. Stealing per se is not evil. Ownership only exists because a Law says it does. Without a legal system there is no real understanding on ownership, except for possession. A big dog who takes a bone from a smaller dog is not being evil. A human who takes a Gold Piece from another human is not being evil. They are, however, being unlawful. Theft as an act is chaotic.
Now lets look at stealing that loaf of bread.
If you are starving and you steal the loaf of bread to feed yourself and stave off hunger. It is no different to the big dog taking the small dog's bone.
If you steal the bread from a rich baker to give to a starving child - that could be seen as a good act.
However, if you steal the bread from a starving child it is an evil act.
If you steal the bread from the starving child and then make the child watch you feed it to your pet ducks - then that is a more evil act.
Stealing a rich man's ill-gained valuables and distributing them to the poor - is a good act. Not lawful but CG.
Breaking into a house, tying a man and his wife up, beating them when they object and then stealing their valuables is an evil act. Although even that needs to be put into context. See the note below.
Enticing a man with sweet talk and sexual favours and then stealing some of his valuables. That isn't particularly nice - but it isn't particularly evil either.
-
Note: An adventuring party breaking into an evil monsters lair, killing or...
I too run alignment with shades, a bit old-school I suppose. Such that there are many types of even chaotic evil. A remorseless noble that believes in the right of might isn't the same as a torturing sadist or a glory and death obsessed orc raider.
Theft for non-life-saving personal gain is evil.
Coercing others into committing said theft for your personal gain is evil as well.
Neutral rogues, seen them? They are involved in small petty crimes, but they are not involved enough in evil to go evil.
Out-witting guards, cutting purses, sleight of hand, it has detrimental effects on others, but this isn't chaotic evil or lawful evil by itself, a bit of minor law breaking does not burn the soul of a D&D pc or npc and make them an evil monster. It may be leaning slightly towards neutral evil, but minor crimes aren't enough to change one's alignment in my view. I did a lot of shoplifting years ago, it didn't make me into some apogee of evil, I just liked getting certain things on a five-finger discount.
Stealth paladin thread indeed. Rogue/Paladin? Roladin.
But note: this is not a source of income in PF. What would be a source of income is a Profession check. And, in any case, simply explain to the player the concept behind WBL. That income gained in this manner (or for that matter Basketweaving) will not increase their funds, that if they earn more they will find less. In any case, you’re not playing Cubicles and Paychecks, so get out there and adventure.
The exact same thing should be told to rogues who want to pick pockets, rob shopkeepers and what not. Or even bard who want to sit in the tavern all nite making Perform checks. This is fine for a single day in town, but gets old fast.
|
Theft for non-life-saving personal gain is evil.
Coercing others into committing said theft for your personal gain is evil as well.Neutral rogues, seen them? They are involved in small petty crimes, but they are not involved enough in evil to go evil.
Out-witting guards, cutting purses, sleight of hand, it has detrimental effects on others, but this isn't chaotic evil or lawful evil by itself, a bit of minor law breaking does not burn the soul of a D&D pc or npc and make them an evil monster. It may be leaning slightly towards neutral evil, but minor crimes aren't enough to change one's alignment in my view. I did a lot of shoplifting years ago, it didn't make me into some apogee of evil, I just liked getting certain things on a five-finger discount.
Stealth paladin thread indeed. Rogue/Paladin? Roladin.
It is not the theft that makes you evil, it is the evil mindset of "I come first" that makes you steal. Killing in self defense is not evil, killing because you simply can is. Stealing the key to whack the evil king but sparing the guard is not evil, stealing the guards pay so he cannot afford to eat might be
Thanks for all the advise!
To be a little more specific, the Rogue actively seeks out wealthy NPCs, uses diplomacy to convince them to bring her home with them, and proceeds to rob them...using the money she finds to buy herself a shiny new crossbow.
As far as the laws go, i don't think they are relevant because I'm wondering about the morality of the PC, not their lawful/chaotic nature.
I like the idea of adding bluff checks to the diplomacy to make the task more difficult for her. Also, "Lord Pendragon" had a good idea about gradually changing her alignment until she starts being affected by spells/effects that harm evil.
I always mess that up when spelling Rogue/Rouge! Thanks :P
Back on the topic....
If one routinely commits evil for their own benefit what are they but evil?
I agree with this ^^^
But, if i were to convert the PC's alignment now, i wouldn't know where to go with it other than NE. Because when i think CE, i picture mindless slaughter just for fun.So i find this PC is stuck between CN and NE somehow.
Maybe even LE would make sense? because lawful could represent following a personal code, not the laws of the world itself.
when i think CE, i picture mindless slaughter just for fun.
Of course you can define it any way you like, it's your game, but while mindless slaughter is certainly CE, there are many more flavors of CE than just that. CE is Evil without any rules. Breaking the rules for your own benefit certainly strikes me as chaotic evil.
Also, you may want to consider the degree of evil theft constitutes in your world. Is it big evil, like murder? Or is it more of a little evil? If so, it'll take longer for a full alignment shift.
Once you do change it though, you should definitely create a situation where the PC learns what's happened. That'll be the fun part. :D
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be a little more specific, the Rogue actively seeks out wealthy NPCs, uses diplomacy to convince them to bring her home with them, and proceeds to rob them...using the money she finds to buy herself a shiny new crossbow.
IMO, this is only a little on the evil side, and that is because she apparently does not care that she might be stealing all the fortune her targets have, leaving them destitute and unable to feed their family. Not caring that you might hurt someone is not Neutral in my book. It is Evil.
IMO, Chaotic = not caring about the law, Evil = not caring that you hurt people. Thus CE is okay (not Antipaladin CE, but CE still).
If the PC cares to NOT leave her prey destitute, then Chaotic Neutral.
Concerning the sneaky alignment change, I am all against it, as it is the best way to get a full-on Player-GM WAR.
Because the player may feel that what his PC is doing is NOT evil. As seen in this thread, MANY people are of this opinion.
It then becomes a conflict between the player's view of morality and that of the GM : a very bad thing that can only hurt the fun of the game for all involved.
I advise that the GM shares his view of this behaviour and the risk of alignment change with the player beforehand.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In many places in the PF world,prostitution is legal, sometimes even sacred, so she's not luring her client to crime unless it is illegal in your locale. Robbing the client is shady, selfish, chaotic, and could be deemed a minor evil in that she is using his trust to make him vulnerable. It would be more evil if the robbery were to leave an "innocent" client destitute, and she was aware of this. Otherwise, it seems to fit fairly well in the realm of CN.
Evil would be ruinous blackmail on top.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If my GM told me that my rogue's AL was in danger of changing to CE because s/he stole enough money for a masterwork/low-powered magic crossbow from a nobleman s/he duped, I would be pretty pissed.
If I was stealing enough to significantly affect a good/neutral person's lifestyle, health, or safety, that is completely different.
The player obviously doesn't see their character as evil. If your views are different, a little chat is certainly the first step, but I'd hold off on threatening alignment changes for now.
Stealing x amount from someone that won't even notice the lack in their life circumstances is pretty close to being a victimless crime. Yes, it's definitely illegal, unethical and wrong, but not necessarily "evil". Evil is a big word with a big meaning. Breaking laws is chaotic. Causing pain and suffering is evil.
Like I said, if you steal a significant amount from a good/neutral person, I could see how that could be considered evil, because it would cause genuine suffering (not just righteous indignation coming from a sense of greedy self-entitlement). An insignificant amount, or from an evil person - that doesn't ping my evil-o-meter.
Edit: To qualify, if the rogue stole the begemmed signet ring of the nobleman's dead, beloved pappy, knowing that it would break the nobleman's heart, then I'd consider that evil, even though the worth of the ring may be completely insignificant to the nobleman. So I guess for me, when it comes to the question of "Is this evil?", it's all about pain and suffering.
Having said all that, it's your world and you're the GM, so it's really up to you. But I'd try to be as un-heavy handed as I could be, because the rogue's player probably has a slightly different moral compass than you, and mightn't see it coming.
Bandits are Chaotic Neutral. SO no I wouldn't consider this evil.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s/npc-0/bandit-human-warrior-2
Although viking bandits are evil from what I recall, npc book.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say it depends on the bandit in question.
Are we talking about rapacious raiders? Are we talking about people driven to desperation in order to survive? Are we talking about Merry Mans? Are we talking mercenaries off a job? Are we talking about bandits that target everyone? Are we talking about bandits that are selective about their targets? What targets do they select? What do they actually do to those targets. Do they lift some valuables and actually partially win over their victims with charm? Do they take everything they've got? Do they victimize their quarry beyond mere theft? Does their theft truly harm their victims? Are they aware of any trickle-down consequences their theft may have on innocents?
Lot of possibilities wrapped up in just "bandit".
Reasonable friendly bandits!
Usually the golden rule with these types of questions for me is, "If you have to ask..."
|
|
Saying "i only rob people that can afford it" or at least i think they can is no better than "i randomly stab people that i think can survive it"I tend to believe that stealing from people (without violence) is better (ie, less evil) than actually injuring them
Frankly it would hurt me less to get hit with a stick than to be robbed of the money that lets me pay rent.
Nicely put.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two thoughts:
1) A lot also depends on what else the rogue does with her life. Presumably, she also adventures (since I have a hard time seeing a campaign based entirely around her prostitution/theft habits) and her actions in that capacity also effect her alignment. If this theft binge is just a sidelight and she spends the rest of her time slaying dangerous monsters, rescuing innocent civilians and generally saving the world (like a lot of PCs) the entire picture is very different, than if during the rest of her time she clubs baby seals for their fur and runs confidence games on senior citizens.
2) I tend to think of the alignments as a full 2-dimensional map/chart, rather than just a label. I would characterize her actions as chaotic evil, since she robs people for her own benefit, but relatively close to neutral on the good-evil axis, since she seems to be trying to avoid hurting her victims (although what will happen when one wakes up and catches her in the act?) and generally only victimizes those she thinks can afford it.
Also a few thoughts to consider if you think they would be fun additions to the game, or if you want to discoursge the activity, based on the premise that prostitution is an inherently dangerous profession, only made more so by her decision to rob her johns.
-- What happens when she runs into a john who wants to rough her up a bit? Maybe one with a few levels of fighter.
-- What happens when she has a john who wants to take it to a whole different level of kink and bring out the whips and chains (hope she's been keeping her Escape Artist up to snuff)? What if that guy drugs her wine?
-- What if one of her wealthy victims hires thugs to find her and exact revenge?
-- What if the local pimp takes offense to her being an "independent" and decides she needs to join his stable, and sends the muscle?
-- What if one of her johns becomes obsessed with her and becomes a dangerous stalker?
-- What if a jealous spouse (say a sorceress) catches them in the act and wants revenge?
-- What if one of her johns is a respected public figure and they are spotted, causing a scandal?
-- What if one of her johns, unknown to her, is actually another rogue planning to rob her?
-- What if she gets busted by the cops?
-- What if she catches venereal diseases, lots of them - condoms don't exist (though thankfully cure disease does), no need to say more?
All of these ideas could provide either some interesting gameplay or a way to discourage the activity. Use it only if it is fun or useful. I would almost certainly do so, as I'm big on letting my players do whatever they want, but ensuring that there are consequences for their actions.
Frankly it would hurt me less to get hit with a stick than to be robbed of the money that lets me pay rent.Saying "i only rob people that can afford it" or at least i think they can is no better than "i randomly stab people that i think can survive it"I tend to believe that stealing from people (without violence) is better (ie, less evil) than actually injuring them
I'd hardly say stealing a few coins from a nobleman is "robbing him of his rent money".
I'd hardly say stealing a few coins from a nobleman is "robbing him of his rent money".Frankly it would hurt me less to get hit with a stick than to be robbed of the money that lets me pay rent.Saying "i only rob people that can afford it" or at least i think they can is no better than "i randomly stab people that i think can survive it"I tend to believe that stealing from people (without violence) is better (ie, less evil) than actually injuring them
+1