I wouldn't generally consider theft an evil act, but could be in some particular situations ex. conciously stealing someone's food or drug for it to die without it.
Speaking strictly in D&D terms, I’d say it’s very dependent on the circumstances. Stealing the lich-king’s phylactery so you can stop its plans for world domination, probably not gonna be evil. Stealing food from the orphanage because you’re feeling a bit peckish, probably gonna be evil.
The question you are asking is a question of morality, and it is one that no human will easily and confidently be able to answer and explain. There are situations where thievery may be justifiable and there are situations where it is flat-out evil. Thievery is a type of action, and each situation it is used in is different. Thievery is a slippery slope and the line between good and evil can easily be blurred. Good intentions can be used to justify terrible crimes. Intent is not an indicator of good or evil; villains rarely commit crimes because they think their intent is bad.
Whether thievery is good or bad depends on the moment, and quite frankly, it is hard for a human to decide whether an act of thievery is good or bad. Arguments can always be made that thievery is immoral, even in terrible situations, and no human is going to be unbiased and clearly and accurately able to decide whether their or their character's act of thievery was good or bad.
In short, thievery cannot be given a "typical alignment," it is an action that can be used to do wonderful or evil things. No human can properly determine the morality of their actions; while thievery can be good, bad, or neutral, it is incredibly hard to determine where the line between them lies in each situation. Though I love the alignment system, thievery is not always under one specific alignment, and it is basically impossible for the DM to put an individual action of something so complicated under the labels of "neutral," "evil," or "good."
To echo what Xalthu and BoringBard said, it depends on a lot of thing, and it isn't possible to draw a strict line on that would apply to all circumstances. Intent, the target of the theft, the purpose of the theft, the outcome, etc all play a part.
We don't usually consider Robin Hood evil. He 'stole from the rich to give to the poor.' The corrupt rulership in the land was committing evil theft by depriving its citizens of basic needs. Robin and his merry men were committing good theft to get it back.
I doubt many would think Jean Valjean was evil for stealing bread to feed his sister and her children. He served years or hard labor for it because the system itself was the evil thing. The people revolted because of its tyranny. Victor Hugo was inspired to write the story because he witnessed a poor man being arrested for that very act, of stealing a loaf of bread to survive.
In DnD, characters might face similar corrupt governments. They might steal to feed the orphans. They might face existential threats like a lich and steal to stop them. If the character is stealing FROM the orphans just for the heck of it, yeah that's pretty evil. If they are robbing merchants because they want a free magic sword, maybe that's evil. If the merchant is a lousy person, and the sword is the only thing that will stop the villain from destroying the town, and the merchant won't let them use it, then you've got a moral dilemma to think about.
Good, neutral, and evil in DnD are literal measurements of the will of the outer planes. The gods define them, and organize themselves and their realms according to those definitions. A Lawful Good god might consider any theft to be evil. A Chaotic Good god might INSIST that their followers break the law to help those in need. Both gods are good. Mortals aren't bound by their interpretation of good. They just have to do their best to figure it out.
So really, it all depends on the situation, and what you are trying to do with the answer in the game.
Argument: Stealing in and of itself is a neutral act. Intent determines evil or good.
Make sense?
Depends somewhat on how you define theft. Typical definitions of theft include that you are taking from its rightful owner and doing so in an unlawful way, and is thus by definition wrong. However, taking something by stealth is not necessarily either of those things.
Argument: Stealing in and of itself is a neutral act. Intent determines evil or good.
Make sense?
Depends somewhat on how you define theft. Typical definitions of theft include that you are taking from its rightful owner and doing so in an unlawful way, and is thus by definition wrong. However, taking something by stealth is not necessarily either of those things.
It's also important to note that doing something 'unlawful' is not inherently bad or evil. There are evil laws, which breaking could be considered a good act. And there are laws that have no concrete morality attached, that are simply designed for ease of function. Even determining who 'rightfully' owns something is up for moral debate.
This is why DnD alignment has a law axis and a moral axis. Lawful Evil creatures do evil through rigid laws. Chaotic Good creatures do good without consideration of laws. Really this comes down to what you are trying to accomplish in the game.
Almost nothing in DnD 5e depends on a character's alignment, unlike older editions. So it might help if we understand the situation. Why do you want to know if stealing is evil? Is there a specific situation? Do you have an item that only works for a 'Good' character and you think they might have done something evil? Because we can only address good and evil and laws in a cosmic sense as it applies to the DnD outer planes. And even then, without more information, the answer is 'it depends.'
Morality of theft depends on context. Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your kids? Good. Stealing a sacred relic from a community that needs it to cure a disease outbreak? Evil. Steal something small it's owner won't miss? Neutral. Or at least debatable.
As with all things, it's less about the WHAT, and more about the WHY. There are some acts that are undeniably evil, such as shedding innocent blood. But a soldier, provided that they have no desire to kill, and abides by the laws of war, bears no blame for engaging in combat.
Argument: Stealing in and of itself is a neutral act. Intent determines evil or good.
Make sense?
Rebuttal: The road to hell was paved with good intentions.
Definitions of evil, good, right and wrong are all perspective based societal norms. They differ based on an individual, or group of individuals, point of view and their perspective on what provided the least harm, and the most benefit for the largest amount of people. In some cultures, whomever had the greatest need for the resource at that time is welcome to have the resource. It ultimately depends on the culture of the people impacted. If they are a giving, sharing culture it might not be seen as stealing at all, simply because the resources are a communal possession ("ours"). If they are a more materialistic culture, they will have personal ownership to claim over things and resources ("mine", "yours"). Morality and legality are determined by the "ruling" ideology of the culture in question, which may go so far as to enact legislation to attempt to legalize, or criminalize morality, both positive and negative.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
in D&D theft is considered a Chaotic act. The thief is acting against the law of that particular place. This has no universal bearing on morality. Stealing an artifact from a beholder may be extremely good and beneficial for the surrounding region. Stealing from a nearby widow will be seen as very evil. But theft as a construct is simply chaotic.
However, while theft may, in terms of the faerun, be neither good nor evil but simply chaotic, most people in the actual world of faerun do not view it this way. Theft is against the law and so put into the same category as other criminals, generally considered evil. So as a dm you have to differentiate between the universal morality and the commonly held morality of a world you are operating within. A rogue may be chaotic good and a constant thief, but the townsfolk may hate them for it.
I consider D&D morality in my world to be based on the concept of "Others".
“Others” are used in the definition of Good, Neutral, and Evil alignments. It is important, therefore, that “Others” be defined accurately.
“Others” refers to creatures in the world to which the character holds no emotional ties. A party member is not an “Other”, nor is a companion NPC, or a NPC wth which the character has interacted with enough to form an opinion of. “Others” instead refers to creatures and humanoids which will be affected by the characters actions, but which the character does not know - for example, if a villain is holding a commoner hostage, the commoner is an “Other”. The Villain is not, as they will be interacting with the character extensively.
Good
A Good character will always hold the effect of their actions upon Others as an important aspect of their decision making. If their actions would cause Others harm, then they will likely reconsider their options rather than risk harming an Other. The welfare of Others forms a strong argument in their decision making, moreso perhaps than their own needs.
Neutral
A Neutral character will factor the needs of Others into their decision making, but this does not hold a greater weight than their own needs, or the needs of their comrades. They can be easily swayed by improvements of a deal, such as being offered rewards - the rewards lessening the needs of them and their comrades, and putting the Others first.
Evil
An Evil character does not consider the needs of Others in their decision making. They will consider the needs of their comrades and friends, and are not dedicated to harming the welfare of Others, but they do not consider the welfare of Others to be their problem nor their concern. When an Evil character meets and interacts with a creature or humanoid, they will form some form of bond or opinion of it, and it will cease to be an Other - and can therefore be considered in their decision making. An example of this might be an Evil character deciding that themselves and their party should work together to protect themselves, without considering the needs of Others who also might benefit from protecting. Alternatively, an Evil character may go out of their way to save a shopkeeper which they like, because the shopkeeper is no longer an Other.
It is important to note that there is no aspect of an Evil character which will not consider the needs of their comrades, unless the character is also Selfish - which is a flaw, not an alignment. As such, Evil characters can be used in games with Good characters, without them feeling the need to betray, kill, or steal from their comrades.
So with this as my context, the act of theft will be Evil if it is done without consideration to the owner. For example, if the character decided to steal a painting from an art gallery because it's a Lich's phylactery, then whether this is Evil depends on how they decide to steal it - if they say "we go in, we steal it, and it's not our problem who gets hurt" then they're evil. If they say "we go in and steal it, because we haven't got enough money to buy it, but we leave what money we have as compensation for the owner" then they are good. If they decide which of those two options they prefer and can be swayed either way, then they are neutral.
The thing about theft is that it's really just a subset of taking, and exactly what subset it is depends on definitions.
If you sneak into a bandit lair, locate their hoard of stolen goods, put it in a bag of holding, carry it out, and return it to its original owners... was that theft? The bandits would say yes. The original owners would say no.
How you choose to answer that question has implications on whether theft is evil.
A lot of the answers here are... interesting. But they tend more towards the eternal questions that have plagued humans for all of history, and we aren't going to answer those here. We probably shouldn't even really attempt it.
The only thing we can really advise on is how 'Evil' applies to the cosmology of a DnD world. The opinions of the people living in those worlds will be as varied as they are in our own real world. The opinions of the gods and the universe are the only things we can really define. And even those aren't in agreement with each other. In DnD, Good and Evil are locations on a cosmic wheel. That's about it.
Since the original poster hasn't replied with any more information on why their question matters for their game, I think we might just let this one go.
So, theft is a classic example used to explore moral reasoning it's kind of like a trolley problem in that there a various permutations.
Is it ok to steal bread?
It it ok to steal bread that's already stolen?
Is it ok to steal bread to feed some one starving to death?
Is it ok to steal bread when the baker is also starving?
What is the baker is deliberately denying people bread for bad reasons?
Realistically ownership is nothing but a set of rules/law we create to determine who should get something so its an example of a larger question of the ethics of economics and law.
Whether it's evil in the dnd sense is a very different thing. In my mind, DnD alignment is tied more to allegiance to cosmic forces. So something is evil if it serves devils and demons regardless of the outcomes/ motivations and it's good if it serves angels regardless of the outcome. That lets you use any alignment as hero's or villains as the cosmic order conflict with personal morality.
Further to the above, you have the somewhat unsettling aspect that Economics can help to assess whether stealing is Evil or not.
Is it acceptable to steal bread so that your family can eat? Most would argue yes. In fact, they would argue that by risking jail time (or your hand, depending on the location & era) you are being heroic by taking that risk to feed your family.
Now substitute bread for Caviar, with a side of Champagne and Truffles. Suddenly, the question seems uncomfortable. Is it ok to steal really expensive food to feed your family? Why does this seem worse? Greedier? Stealing bread was ok, but stealing a pair of prime-cut steaks with all the trimmings doesn't. Stealing a bag of rice instead of starving is apparently ok, but stealing a goose to roast is, in most people's minds, different.
It's about value - it's ok to steal cheap stuff if the alternative is starving, but it's not ok to shun the cheap stuff and steal the expensive stuff. Somehow, we all know this, it makes sense. But the idea that ethics are linked to the economy is, somehow, unsettling.
As far as legality and economics are concerned, making something legal doesn't make it Good or Right. Making it legal to do something so that a select few can make money from it, woefully fails to clear the bar. Setting the bar at a minimum value to hit the threshold of "you did bad" doesn't necessarily work. There are plenty of examples of things that are/have been bought, sold and owned that, from many perspectives, are far from Good and Right. The value of a thing is set by the available supply of the thing relative to it's demand. In the example of caviar, it's just roe. Specific roe, from a specific species, but roe nonetheless, and relatively common around the world. The supply of that particular species drives the value of it up.
Laws are, in a perfect world, supposed to support the most benefit to the largest amount of people that said law applies to. If the largest amount of people believe that taking something that doesn't belong to you is theft (bad, wrong) their laws would reflect that. If, on the other hand (and I know this concept is alien to many), the culture of the area didn't see ownership and materialism as paramount to their day-to-day, suddenly theft isn't a thing anymore.
What makes a thing "bad" is that it runs counter to the overall ethical/moral beliefs of the culture that it impacts. "Good" things run true to the overall ethical/moral beliefs of those impacted. It is the perspecitive of those impacted that derives this sense of Good/Bad. It's not about the observer's perspective, unless the observer is included in those impacted by the act.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Intent determines whether it is a Good (feed the peasants by stealing from the nobles) or Evil (stealing from the peasants to put into the noble's treasure horde) or indeed Neutral (um, it was just lying around, does anybody really own it?)
Some of the native tribes of the Americas thought that theft for survival was honorable. But it had to be your absolute last resort. Many times a tribe with extra would notice a starving tribe and give them a chance to steal some food just so they could keep their honor. Before that the rich tribe would also try to trade their food for anything the other tribe had. Often at hugely disproportional rates. The rich tribe sometimes would even offer 'slavery' for a few of the poor tribes people until the next harvest. They were not truly slaves but it allowed a few of the needy to be fed and housed while keeping honor.
Then again some just said too bad and let them starve. Or just wiped the weaker ones out. Native tribes had ALL the evils just like Europe. Do not anyone tell you different.
The morality of theft is purely situational.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Would you consider theft an evil or neutral act?
Argument: Stealing in and of itself is a neutral act. Intent determines evil or good.
Make sense?
I wouldn't generally consider theft an evil act, but could be in some particular situations ex. conciously stealing someone's food or drug for it to die without it.
Speaking strictly in D&D terms, I’d say it’s very dependent on the circumstances.
Stealing the lich-king’s phylactery so you can stop its plans for world domination, probably not gonna be evil.
Stealing food from the orphanage because you’re feeling a bit peckish, probably gonna be evil.
The question you are asking is a question of morality, and it is one that no human will easily and confidently be able to answer and explain. There are situations where thievery may be justifiable and there are situations where it is flat-out evil. Thievery is a type of action, and each situation it is used in is different. Thievery is a slippery slope and the line between good and evil can easily be blurred. Good intentions can be used to justify terrible crimes. Intent is not an indicator of good or evil; villains rarely commit crimes because they think their intent is bad.
Whether thievery is good or bad depends on the moment, and quite frankly, it is hard for a human to decide whether an act of thievery is good or bad. Arguments can always be made that thievery is immoral, even in terrible situations, and no human is going to be unbiased and clearly and accurately able to decide whether their or their character's act of thievery was good or bad.
In short, thievery cannot be given a "typical alignment," it is an action that can be used to do wonderful or evil things. No human can properly determine the morality of their actions; while thievery can be good, bad, or neutral, it is incredibly hard to determine where the line between them lies in each situation. Though I love the alignment system, thievery is not always under one specific alignment, and it is basically impossible for the DM to put an individual action of something so complicated under the labels of "neutral," "evil," or "good."
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.To echo what Xalthu and BoringBard said, it depends on a lot of thing, and it isn't possible to draw a strict line on that would apply to all circumstances. Intent, the target of the theft, the purpose of the theft, the outcome, etc all play a part.
We don't usually consider Robin Hood evil. He 'stole from the rich to give to the poor.' The corrupt rulership in the land was committing evil theft by depriving its citizens of basic needs. Robin and his merry men were committing good theft to get it back.
I doubt many would think Jean Valjean was evil for stealing bread to feed his sister and her children. He served years or hard labor for it because the system itself was the evil thing. The people revolted because of its tyranny. Victor Hugo was inspired to write the story because he witnessed a poor man being arrested for that very act, of stealing a loaf of bread to survive.
In DnD, characters might face similar corrupt governments. They might steal to feed the orphans. They might face existential threats like a lich and steal to stop them. If the character is stealing FROM the orphans just for the heck of it, yeah that's pretty evil. If they are robbing merchants because they want a free magic sword, maybe that's evil. If the merchant is a lousy person, and the sword is the only thing that will stop the villain from destroying the town, and the merchant won't let them use it, then you've got a moral dilemma to think about.
Good, neutral, and evil in DnD are literal measurements of the will of the outer planes. The gods define them, and organize themselves and their realms according to those definitions. A Lawful Good god might consider any theft to be evil. A Chaotic Good god might INSIST that their followers break the law to help those in need. Both gods are good. Mortals aren't bound by their interpretation of good. They just have to do their best to figure it out.
So really, it all depends on the situation, and what you are trying to do with the answer in the game.
Depends somewhat on how you define theft. Typical definitions of theft include that you are taking from its rightful owner and doing so in an unlawful way, and is thus by definition wrong. However, taking something by stealth is not necessarily either of those things.
It's also important to note that doing something 'unlawful' is not inherently bad or evil. There are evil laws, which breaking could be considered a good act. And there are laws that have no concrete morality attached, that are simply designed for ease of function. Even determining who 'rightfully' owns something is up for moral debate.
This is why DnD alignment has a law axis and a moral axis. Lawful Evil creatures do evil through rigid laws. Chaotic Good creatures do good without consideration of laws. Really this comes down to what you are trying to accomplish in the game.
Almost nothing in DnD 5e depends on a character's alignment, unlike older editions. So it might help if we understand the situation. Why do you want to know if stealing is evil? Is there a specific situation? Do you have an item that only works for a 'Good' character and you think they might have done something evil? Because we can only address good and evil and laws in a cosmic sense as it applies to the DnD outer planes. And even then, without more information, the answer is 'it depends.'
Morality of theft depends on context. Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your kids? Good. Stealing a sacred relic from a community that needs it to cure a disease outbreak? Evil. Steal something small it's owner won't miss? Neutral. Or at least debatable.
As with all things, it's less about the WHAT, and more about the WHY. There are some acts that are undeniably evil, such as shedding innocent blood. But a soldier, provided that they have no desire to kill, and abides by the laws of war, bears no blame for engaging in combat.
Rebuttal: The road to hell was paved with good intentions.
Definitions of evil, good, right and wrong are all perspective based societal norms. They differ based on an individual, or group of individuals, point of view and their perspective on what provided the least harm, and the most benefit for the largest amount of people. In some cultures, whomever had the greatest need for the resource at that time is welcome to have the resource. It ultimately depends on the culture of the people impacted. If they are a giving, sharing culture it might not be seen as stealing at all, simply because the resources are a communal possession ("ours"). If they are a more materialistic culture, they will have personal ownership to claim over things and resources ("mine", "yours"). Morality and legality are determined by the "ruling" ideology of the culture in question, which may go so far as to enact legislation to attempt to legalize, or criminalize morality, both positive and negative.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
in D&D theft is considered a Chaotic act. The thief is acting against the law of that particular place. This has no universal bearing on morality. Stealing an artifact from a beholder may be extremely good and beneficial for the surrounding region. Stealing from a nearby widow will be seen as very evil. But theft as a construct is simply chaotic.
However, while theft may, in terms of the faerun, be neither good nor evil but simply chaotic, most people in the actual world of faerun do not view it this way. Theft is against the law and so put into the same category as other criminals, generally considered evil. So as a dm you have to differentiate between the universal morality and the commonly held morality of a world you are operating within. A rogue may be chaotic good and a constant thief, but the townsfolk may hate them for it.
Strangely Changed- 99 new curses for 5e https://www.dmsguild.com/product/415251/Strangely-Changed?affiliate_id=2763792
I consider D&D morality in my world to be based on the concept of "Others".
“Others” are used in the definition of Good, Neutral, and Evil alignments. It is important, therefore, that “Others” be defined accurately.
“Others” refers to creatures in the world to which the character holds no emotional ties. A party member is not an “Other”, nor is a companion NPC, or a NPC wth which the character has interacted with enough to form an opinion of. “Others” instead refers to creatures and humanoids which will be affected by the characters actions, but which the character does not know - for example, if a villain is holding a commoner hostage, the commoner is an “Other”. The Villain is not, as they will be interacting with the character extensively.
Good
A Good character will always hold the effect of their actions upon Others as an important aspect of their decision making. If their actions would cause Others harm, then they will likely reconsider their options rather than risk harming an Other. The welfare of Others forms a strong argument in their decision making, moreso perhaps than their own needs.
Neutral
A Neutral character will factor the needs of Others into their decision making, but this does not hold a greater weight than their own needs, or the needs of their comrades. They can be easily swayed by improvements of a deal, such as being offered rewards - the rewards lessening the needs of them and their comrades, and putting the Others first.
Evil
An Evil character does not consider the needs of Others in their decision making. They will consider the needs of their comrades and friends, and are not dedicated to harming the welfare of Others, but they do not consider the welfare of Others to be their problem nor their concern. When an Evil character meets and interacts with a creature or humanoid, they will form some form of bond or opinion of it, and it will cease to be an Other - and can therefore be considered in their decision making. An example of this might be an Evil character deciding that themselves and their party should work together to protect themselves, without considering the needs of Others who also might benefit from protecting. Alternatively, an Evil character may go out of their way to save a shopkeeper which they like, because the shopkeeper is no longer an Other.
It is important to note that there is no aspect of an Evil character which will not consider the needs of their comrades, unless the character is also Selfish - which is a flaw, not an alignment. As such, Evil characters can be used in games with Good characters, without them feeling the need to betray, kill, or steal from their comrades.
So with this as my context, the act of theft will be Evil if it is done without consideration to the owner. For example, if the character decided to steal a painting from an art gallery because it's a Lich's phylactery, then whether this is Evil depends on how they decide to steal it - if they say "we go in, we steal it, and it's not our problem who gets hurt" then they're evil. If they say "we go in and steal it, because we haven't got enough money to buy it, but we leave what money we have as compensation for the owner" then they are good. If they decide which of those two options they prefer and can be swayed either way, then they are neutral.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
As a Christian I would say theft is wrong.
The thing about theft is that it's really just a subset of taking, and exactly what subset it is depends on definitions.
If you sneak into a bandit lair, locate their hoard of stolen goods, put it in a bag of holding, carry it out, and return it to its original owners... was that theft? The bandits would say yes. The original owners would say no.
How you choose to answer that question has implications on whether theft is evil.
A lot of the answers here are... interesting. But they tend more towards the eternal questions that have plagued humans for all of history, and we aren't going to answer those here. We probably shouldn't even really attempt it.
The only thing we can really advise on is how 'Evil' applies to the cosmology of a DnD world. The opinions of the people living in those worlds will be as varied as they are in our own real world. The opinions of the gods and the universe are the only things we can really define. And even those aren't in agreement with each other. In DnD, Good and Evil are locations on a cosmic wheel. That's about it.
Since the original poster hasn't replied with any more information on why their question matters for their game, I think we might just let this one go.
So, theft is a classic example used to explore moral reasoning it's kind of like a trolley problem in that there a various permutations.
Realistically ownership is nothing but a set of rules/law we create to determine who should get something so its an example of a larger question of the ethics of economics and law.
Whether it's evil in the dnd sense is a very different thing. In my mind, DnD alignment is tied more to allegiance to cosmic forces. So something is evil if it serves devils and demons regardless of the outcomes/ motivations and it's good if it serves angels regardless of the outcome. That lets you use any alignment as hero's or villains as the cosmic order conflict with personal morality.
Further to the above, you have the somewhat unsettling aspect that Economics can help to assess whether stealing is Evil or not.
Is it acceptable to steal bread so that your family can eat? Most would argue yes. In fact, they would argue that by risking jail time (or your hand, depending on the location & era) you are being heroic by taking that risk to feed your family.
Now substitute bread for Caviar, with a side of Champagne and Truffles. Suddenly, the question seems uncomfortable. Is it ok to steal really expensive food to feed your family? Why does this seem worse? Greedier? Stealing bread was ok, but stealing a pair of prime-cut steaks with all the trimmings doesn't. Stealing a bag of rice instead of starving is apparently ok, but stealing a goose to roast is, in most people's minds, different.
It's about value - it's ok to steal cheap stuff if the alternative is starving, but it's not ok to shun the cheap stuff and steal the expensive stuff. Somehow, we all know this, it makes sense. But the idea that ethics are linked to the economy is, somehow, unsettling.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
As far as legality and economics are concerned, making something legal doesn't make it Good or Right. Making it legal to do something so that a select few can make money from it, woefully fails to clear the bar. Setting the bar at a minimum value to hit the threshold of "you did bad" doesn't necessarily work. There are plenty of examples of things that are/have been bought, sold and owned that, from many perspectives, are far from Good and Right. The value of a thing is set by the available supply of the thing relative to it's demand. In the example of caviar, it's just roe. Specific roe, from a specific species, but roe nonetheless, and relatively common around the world. The supply of that particular species drives the value of it up.
Laws are, in a perfect world, supposed to support the most benefit to the largest amount of people that said law applies to. If the largest amount of people believe that taking something that doesn't belong to you is theft (bad, wrong) their laws would reflect that. If, on the other hand (and I know this concept is alien to many), the culture of the area didn't see ownership and materialism as paramount to their day-to-day, suddenly theft isn't a thing anymore.
What makes a thing "bad" is that it runs counter to the overall ethical/moral beliefs of the culture that it impacts. "Good" things run true to the overall ethical/moral beliefs of those impacted. It is the perspecitive of those impacted that derives this sense of Good/Bad. It's not about the observer's perspective, unless the observer is included in those impacted by the act.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Theft is a chaotic act.
Intent determines whether it is a Good (feed the peasants by stealing from the nobles) or Evil (stealing from the peasants to put into the noble's treasure horde) or indeed Neutral (um, it was just lying around, does anybody really own it?)
Some of the native tribes of the Americas thought that theft for survival was honorable. But it had to be your absolute last resort.
Many times a tribe with extra would notice a starving tribe and give them a chance to steal some food just so they could keep their honor.
Before that the rich tribe would also try to trade their food for anything the other tribe had. Often at hugely disproportional rates.
The rich tribe sometimes would even offer 'slavery' for a few of the poor tribes people until the next harvest. They were not truly slaves but it allowed a few of the needy to be fed and housed while keeping honor.
Then again some just said too bad and let them starve. Or just wiped the weaker ones out.
Native tribes had ALL the evils just like Europe. Do not anyone tell you different.
The morality of theft is purely situational.