A+ On The Midterm

[Patriot]

So we're given no hint/clue as to our score, just if we passed or failed. Also we're not directly told the correct answer to most of these questions. So I guess we need to collectively try to figure it out.

Here are my answers
1. Rouge (Got a corrupt tax collector caught)

2. Thief (Stealing from townfolk) it could be "can't tell" since the end result is what matters.
'
3. True (Hiding in plain sight is the way of godot) Usure, but the way of godot is about not being
seen so if you're not seen while in plain sight this would be true.

4. True (Most rouges are arrogant and nobel) Teacher confirms this one

5. False (Moving slow is the way of the coackroach) No, paying attention and making quick decisions is.

6. Leave it alone because it's obviously trapped. (Are you a wise guy when it comes to chests) Confirmed by Teacher.

7. All of the above (How does one find a hidden door) All options are about paying attention/

8. All of the above (What does the way of the spider advise you to bring) All of the above. If it is both about the defensive and offensive means of the way of the spider.

9. A rouge tries not to harm (What is the main difference between rouges and theives) This I believe is wrong because earlier you're told that the difference between a rouge and a theif is a rouge doesn't get caught. However when the test is being reviewed it is "infered" that the correct answer was the "moral" answer. Also a rouge tries not to harm isn't true because the difference between a rouge and a thief is who you harm and for what reason.

10. Unmask the hypocrisy and criminal actions of a corrupt politician. (What would a rouge do) This is the only possible correct answer.

Stealing from the "rich" to give to the "poor" is not objectively good. That would be an unjust thing to do if someone earned his wealth honestly. It would be like saying it would be ok to steal from these developers or even your average worker to give to someone who is homeless or in a third world country. The act of theft is inherently wrong, but in the morality of this game at least two negatives equal a positive. So you can steal from someone corrupt and give that money to the poor because they acted unjustly to begin with. Also as is the case with the first question you can steal from an innocent to bring a criminal to justice. (So long as their items are returned)

Tricking a wealthy man to pay his employees more money is also wrong. Unless the employees are forced into labor and have no means out of it the fact that the employer (who almost always will have more money than employees, that's how they are able to employ) Tricking him into paying his employees more money could cause him to go out of business or cause him to cut the number of employees he has or the benefits he offers. So again unless something criminal is going on this would be wrong/unjust

Set a ghost to rest by fulfilling its last request. This we can't say for sure if it is wrong or right. If its last request is to murder a cheating wife that would not be ok. So we lack the information necessary to pass judgement on this request. Leaving only one possible correct answer.

[Mysti_Fogg]

3) Way of Godot I went with False. The way of Godot is not to be there in the first place. Remember, the man wasn't actually there. And in "Waiting for Godot" he never actually shows up. Though I could certainly be wrong on what the answer is meant to be.

10 All of the above.

Umasking hypocrisy you've already explained.

Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is Robin Hood who is a hero, not a villain. It's also taking from someone who has more than enough to give to those who are dying in order that they might survive and rise.

Tricking a wealthy man into paying his employees more is also roguish. He is wealthy. He has more than he needs even to be comfortable. He can afford it (think Ebeneezer Scrooge and Bob Cratchett). The trick doesn't work if he can't afford it. It is possible to pay your employees a good wage. For whatever negatives you want to use to describe Henry Ford, he paid his employees a significant wage at the time because he wanted every family to have a car (and an airplane) and saw them as his customers. He ended up insanely wealthy because of this philosophy of paying people well, and considered it a sign of good management. Costco is another company that pays a living wage in the modern day. HOWEVER, almost no one else uses this management philosophy. See the Waltons of Wal-Mart for some really egregious gouging of employees, or Papa John's who didn't want to provide healthcare even though it would mean raising the price of pizza a quarter or cutting his own take away by a few thousand dollars, or the general wage losses beteween the 1950s and today. You can also compare to other countries that have different wage laws so that the top CEOs can't make more than 60 X the ammount of the lowest wage worker.

Again, the trick doesn't work if the man isn't rich enough to afford it, thus he wouldn't be wealthy if it drives him to poverty or out of business.

As for the ghosts, you meet the ghosts of the two boys who request a murder, but you can still set them to rest by giving them what they really want : their locket. So it is the roguish thing to do to set them to rest, it just requires seeing the actual need vs. what they may say. It's sort of like you have to be insistant with chianti and burgandy that they want rest more than they want revenge.

[Patriot]

Originally posted by Mysti_Fogg:

3) Way of Godot I went with False. The way of Godot is not to be there in the first place. Remember, the man wasn't actually there. And in "Waiting for Godot" he never actually shows up. Though I could certainly be wrong on what the answer is meant to be.

10 All of the above.

Umasking hypocrisy you've already explained.

Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is Robin Hood who is a hero, not a villain. It's also taking from someone who has more than enough to give to those who are dying in order that they might survive and rise.

Tricking a wealthy man into paying his employees more is also roguish. He is wealthy. He has more than he needs even to be comfortable. He can afford it (think Ebeneezer Scrooge and Bob Cratchett). The trick doesn't work if he can't afford it. It is possible to pay your employees a good wage. For whatever negatives you want to use to describe Henry Ford, he paid his employees a significant wage at the time because he wanted every family to have a car (and an airplane) and saw them as his customers. He ended up insanely wealthy because of this philosophy of paying people well, and considered it a sign of good management. Costco is another company that pays a living wage in the modern day. HOWEVER, almost no one else uses this management philosophy. See the Waltons of Wal-Mart for some really egregious gouging of employees, or Papa John's who didn't want to provide healthcare even though it would mean raising the price of pizza a quarter or cutting his own take away by a few thousand dollars, or the general wage losses beteween the 1950s and today. You can also compare to other countries that have different wage laws so that the top CEOs can't make more than 60 X the ammount of the lowest wage worker.

Again, the trick doesn't work if the man isn't rich enough to afford it, thus he wouldn't be wealthy if it drives him to poverty or out of business.

As for the ghosts, you meet the ghosts of the two boys who request a murder, but you can still set them to rest by giving them what they really want : their locket. So it is the roguish thing to do to set them to rest, it just requires seeing the actual need vs. what they may say. It's sort of like you have to be insistant with chianti and burgandy that they want rest more than they want revenge.

Robin Hood is often poorly summarized as stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. However that isn't the story of Robin Hood. He stole from the corrupt governing official the Sheriff of Nottingham who was taxing people unjustly into poverty. In essence he returned what was stolen back to the people. Which is one of the theme's of this game.

No one stole from Scrooge, had they done so that would have been immoral, what they did was convince him to be more generous for the good of his soul.Had he been stolen from he'd not have had a change of heart and through his generous nature made the world a better place. Having honest earned wealth regardless of how much you have it is still honest. I love that Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol story was actually mentioned in the game. ^_^

Fortunately you are able to trick those ghost, but persume you meet a ghost that doesn't want a locket, but proof of death (IE the target's head) This can go either way so it isn't clear if one can always do this in a just way.


As for The Way of Godot I'm inclined to agree with you, I believe it was said that the way of Godot is "Not being at the wrong place at the wrong time"

[Mysti_Fogg]

Originally posted by Wayne:

Originally posted by Mysti_Fogg:

3) Way of Godot I went with False. The way of Godot is not to be there in the first place. Remember, the man wasn't actually there. And in "Waiting for Godot" he never actually shows up. Though I could certainly be wrong on what the answer is meant to be.

10 All of the above.

Umasking hypocrisy you've already explained.

Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is Robin Hood who is a hero, not a villain. It's also taking from someone who has more than enough to give to those who are dying in order that they might survive and rise.

Tricking a wealthy man into paying his employees more is also roguish. He is wealthy. He has more than he needs even to be comfortable. He can afford it (think Ebeneezer Scrooge and Bob Cratchett). The trick doesn't work if he can't afford it. It is possible to pay your employees a good wage. For whatever negatives you want to use to describe Henry Ford, he paid his employees a significant wage at the time because he wanted every family to have a car (and an airplane) and saw them as his customers. He ended up insanely wealthy because of this philosophy of paying people well, and considered it a sign of good management. Costco is another company that pays a living wage in the modern day. HOWEVER, almost no one else uses this management philosophy. See the Waltons of Wal-Mart for some really egregious gouging of employees, or Papa John's who didn't want to provide healthcare even though it would mean raising the price of pizza a quarter or cutting his own take away by a few thousand dollars, or the general wage losses beteween the 1950s and today. You can also compare to other countries that have different wage laws so that the top CEOs can't make more than 60 X the ammount of the lowest wage worker.

Again, the trick doesn't work if the man isn't rich enough to afford it, thus he wouldn't be wealthy if it drives him to poverty or out of business.

As for the ghosts, you meet the ghosts of the two boys who request a murder, but you can still set them to rest by giving them what they really want : their locket. So it is the roguish thing to do to set them to rest, it just requires seeing the actual need vs. what they may say. It's sort of like you have to be insistant with chianti and burgandy that they want rest more than they want revenge.

Robin Hood is often poorly summarized as stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. However that isn't the story of Robin Hood. He stole from the corrupt governing official the Sheriff of Nottingham who was taxing people unjustly into poverty. In essence he returned what was stolen back to the people. Which is one of the theme's of this game.

No one stole from Scrooge, had they done so that would have been immoral, what they did was convince him to be more generous for the good of his soul.Had he been stolen from he'd not have had a change of heart and through his generous nature made the world a better place. Having honest earned wealth regardless of how much you have it is still honest. I love that Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol story was actually mentioned in the game. ^_^

Fortunately you are able to trick those ghost, but persume you meet a ghost that doesn't want a locket, but proof of death (IE the target's head) This can go either way so it isn't clear if one can always do this in a just way.


As for The Way of Godot I'm inclined to agree with you, I believe it was said that the way of Godot is "Not being at the wrong place at the wrong time"

Never said anyone stole from Scrooge, just used it as an example when it would be correct to trick a man into paying his workers more. Scrooge was wealthy. Cratchett had nothing. The way Scrooge treated Cratchett was legal, but not morally correct either from the view of kindness or from the view of making more money since by not paying a decent wage a company is actually leaving money on the table since turning their employees and the wider community into their customers or making them better customers is will actually lead to more profits. Soooo .... yeah. A rogue would try to correct that by, say, breaking into his house and gaslighting him into believing in ghosts.

And Rogues are not Paladins. They do the questionable things that Paladins won't for a goal they consider norble.

As for the ghosts, you could NOT lay people to rest who ask for something you're unwilling to give (like murder). But in general, laying ghosts to rest is a positive, not a negative. And again, you can find ways to do so.

As for Robin Hood, he stole from more than the Sheriff. His largest foe was Prince (later King) John who was in charge while his brother Richard was in the Crusades. Prince John was the legitimate authority leveling legeitimate taxes.

[vtots]

Right, rogues aren't paladins so they make a judgment call to determine whether the rich person should be sharing their wealth, or that the ghost should be laid to rest. IMO a paladin would say, as long as the wealthy person isn't harming anyone and they came into their wealth fairly and legally, I can't take action. They could speak with the wealthy person and try to convince them to donate some of their money for charity, but they couldn't force anything.

A rogue would say, that rich person isn't using even a quarter of their wealth, they're just hoarding it and everyone would be better off if I did a little wealth redistribution. If the rogue broke into the rich person's house and discovered that most of the money was being spent as an anonymous donor to an orphanage, they would just leave without stealing anything.

I think Ferdy and the ghost kids is an example of the ghost issue: we actually are asked to murder someone to lay a ghost to rest, but we can find a better way. Most of the time in these moral situations we should be able to find a better way than the options presented.

[Patriot]

Originally posted by Mysti_Fogg:

Never said anyone stole from Scrooge, just used it as an example when it would be correct to trick a man into paying his workers more. Scrooge was wealthy. Cratchett had nothing. The way Scrooge treated Cratchett was legal, but not morally correct either from the view of kindness or from the view of making more money since by not paying a decent wage a company is actually leaving money on the table since turning their employees and the wider community into their customers or making them better customers is will actually lead to more profits. Soooo .... yeah. A rogue would try to correct that by, say, breaking into his house and gaslighting him into believing in ghosts.

He wasn't tricked into paying people more though. He was shown his life and his present and his future allowing him to decide. Tricking implies deceit and there was no deceit involved. So lets go with a more clearly rougish example you hypnotise someone compelling them to pay people more because they've been profiting tremendously. The employer is a good man rather charitable, but still lives a good life in a nice gated community in luxury with pleanty of servants to take care of things. Well later on a depression hits or his company takes a significant lose of revenue for another unforseen event such as a new superior technology or fad. Now he has to decide to close his business and fire his servants. He would have been able to upgrade or change his business had his revenue not been cut by 50% paying his employees more an extra $1000/year an extra grand is nice and I'd take it from my boss in a heart beat (technically they owe me more, but I'll not get into my story) however if I had the foresight to know that by spending an extra million or half a million in wage increases wouid lead to losing my job that would be far more harmful to me and my family than the 1000 was a benefit. However, go a different route like with Robin Hood. Governments steal a signfiicant portion of my wages they'd be the bad guys in this scenario, not the wealthy boss doing well for himself and his family. Businesses never just sit on their money. They're constantly investing and upgrading (scrooge was a great morality story, but fictional so he's an exception) and growing so that they can make more money. This process leads to economic growth in the economy which also generates more opprotunities. Unless a theif has the eye of God he can't make the determination by simply looking at someone's bank account who is or is not appropriate to steal from.

Originally posted by Mysti_Fogg:

As for Robin Hood, he stole from more than the Sheriff. His largest foe was Prince (later King) John who was in charge while his brother Richard was in the Crusades. Prince John was the legitimate authority leveling legeitimate taxes.

Once again the prince/king was the government and they were acting in corrupt fashion taking people's money leading them to starvation and Robin Hood stole that money to give it back to them the people who earned/created it. Currency is a physical indicator of contribution to an economy. In essence it represents the contribution you've made to society (more specifically society's economy) in whatever way you've seen fit. The exception has always been with governments. While necessary they are inherently evil, especially when politicans are paid or can vote to spend the money of the citizenry on things not related to national defense (When speaking of a national government) or local issues (when relating to a local government) IE were a government offical to pass a bill to spend X amount of money on a construction project that would be run by a shell corporation that he owns or has invested in (likelyl with other politicans) collect the money and then desolve the company leaving an unfinished project or a finished crappy project. That's the kind of thing you'd want a rouge to fight against.

Taxation is inherently theft because you are forced to pay it. So the bigger the government the less power the people have over it so it requires more restrictions or it will become vastly corrupt gorging itself on the prosperity of the people (take venazula going from extremely prosperous to extremely impoverished almost overnight) There a Robin Hood whould intervene.

[transolar]

We love this discussion! Wayne, I think Mysti_Fogg's (and Shawn's) point wasn't that Scrooge was actually tricked in Dickens' story, but that it could have been done by a rogue. The "ghosts" could have been trickery to help Scrooge see the error of his ways.

Shawn's follow-up was, "If that doesn't work, I'd just rob him and give away the money." The real life problem with that is that frequently the successful robber thinks, "Oh, but how much more good can I do if I keep that money and use it to pay some expenses like a getaway horse and better safecracking tools." The line between Rogue and Thief is sometimes quite thin. It takes somewhat of a Paladin attitude to follow through on the original roguish plan.

[Mysti_Fogg]

Originally posted by Wayne:

Originally posted by Mysti_Fogg:

Never said anyone stole from Scrooge, just used it as an example when it would be correct to trick a man into paying his workers more.

He wasn't tricked into paying people more though.

Originally posted by transolar:

We love this discussion! Wayne, I think Mysti_Fogg's (and Shawn's) point wasn't that Scrooge was actually tricked in Dickens' story, but that it could have been done by a rogue. The "ghosts" could have been trickery to help Scrooge see the error of his ways.

Indeed, that is the point. :)

Originally posted by Wayne:

Originally posted by Mysti_Fogg:

As for Robin Hood, he stole from more than the Sheriff. His largest foe was Prince (later King) John who was in charge while his brother Richard was in the Crusades. Prince John was the legitimate authority leveling legeitimate taxes.

Once again the prince/king was the government and they were acting in corrupt fashion taking people's money leading them to starvation

It wasn't corruption. It was the legal method of handling things. The wealthy people (king & nobles) owned the majority of the land. The people were legally obligated to pay taxes (rents) on the land they used. The wealthy had all of the power to set the prices and the the poor had few options to seek a better life elsewhere. In return, the king and nobles also provided armed defenses of the land and sometimes store houses for surplus crops. And kept the roads in repair, all things the people as a whole needed and used. Oh, and the common greens. Can't forget those. Monarchy and oligarchy are governments in part caused by accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few people. Monarchs may be rulers, but they also deal in personal wealth because they own everything or nearly so. They are the rich.

As for the man who has no savings because he pays his workers well:

1) he wasn't really wealthy to begin with if he couldn't afford the increase in wages. We're using the term "wealthy" here, not comfortably well off. Someone who lives in a gated community? eh. Maybe they are. Maybe they're just comfortable. Wealthy people where I've lived tend to buy a large chunk of land and build their own gates.

2) The wealthy can still afford the economic set back. It goes with being wealthy. For example, Ted Turner during the Great Recession could have sold off some of his assets in time to transfer the massive losses to other people, but he chose not to because he could afford to take a beating in the market and other people couldn't (he did an interview on 60 minutes or something about it). He's wealthy.

3) If you're not a smart enough business person to put aside money for R&D and upgrades, or to get a loan from a bank if you need upgrades and would then be fine, then you're not a very good business person and the rogue's meddling is the least of your problems. Additionally, if you're paying your workers more, then you'll actually be making more money. Seriously, Ford referenced previously, ended up insanely wealthy in part because he paid well. So he paid his workers, and his workers bought from him. And they also spread that money into the community, and the community also bought from him. Essentially, putting the money out there actually causes it to flow back to you tenfold if you make a quality product. The economy is a waterwheel. Short-sighted people who want to be wealthier than they already are try to cut off the flow of the water and keep more for themselves., slowing the overall machinery and making things worse for everyone. They don't see that if they just let it go, the money would come back in even larger quantities because of its effect on the community as a whole. And the community itself would be a better place to live.

Also should be mentioned that hypnotism doesn' work long-term. I've known people who got hypnotised on purpose to quit smoking, and it can help, but it's not a long-term solution. A rogue "tricking" someone isn't overriding who and what they already are. They still need to balance the books at the end of the day and plan for the future. And while I don't know the precise rules for this fantasy universe, in most fantasy media, mind control doesn't last forever (nor would that be a rogue "trick." )

[Patriot]

Originally posted by Mysti_Fogg:

Originally posted by Wayne:

He wasn't tricked into paying people more though.

Originally posted by transolar:

We love this discussion! Wayne, I think Mysti_Fogg's (and Shawn's) point wasn't that Scrooge was actually tricked in Dickens' story, but that it could have been done by a rogue. The "ghosts" could have been trickery to help Scrooge see the error of his ways.

Indeed, that is the point. :)

Originally posted by Wayne:

Once again the prince/king was the government and they were acting in corrupt fashion taking people's money leading them to starvation

It wasn't corruption. It was the legal method of handling things. The wealthy people (king & nobles) owned the majority of the land. The people were legally obligated to pay taxes (rents) on the land they used. The wealthy had all of the power to set the prices and the the poor had few options to seek a better life elsewhere. In return, the king and nobles also provided armed defenses of the land and sometimes store houses for surplus crops. And kept the roads in repair, all things the people as a whole needed and used. Oh, and the common greens. Can't forget those. Monarchy and oligarchy are governments in part caused by accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few people. Monarchs may be rulers, but they also deal in personal wealth because they own everything or nearly so. They are the rich.

As for the man who has no savings because he pays his workers well:

1) he wasn't really wealthy to begin with if he couldn't afford the increase in wages. We're using the term "wealthy" here, not comfortably well off. Someone who lives in a gated community? eh. Maybe they are. Maybe they're just comfortable. Wealthy people where I've lived tend to buy a large chunk of land and build their own gates.

2) The wealthy can still afford the economic set back. It goes with being wealthy. For example, Ted Turner during the Great Recession could have sold off some of his assets in time to transfer the massive losses to other people, but he chose not to because he could afford to take a beating in the market and other people couldn't (he did an interview on 60 minutes or something about it). He's wealthy.

3) If you're not a smart enough business person to put aside money for R&D and upgrades, or to get a loan from a bank if you need upgrades and would then be fine, then you're not a very good business person and the rogue's meddling is the least of your problems. Additionally, if you're paying your workers more, then you'll actually be making more money. Seriously, Ford referenced previously, ended up insanely wealthy in part because he paid well. So he paid his workers, and his workers bought from him. And they also spread that money into the community, and the community also bought from him. Essentially, putting the money out there actually causes it to flow back to you tenfold if you make a quality product. The economy is a waterwheel. Short-sighted people who want to be wealthier than they already are try to cut off the flow of the water and keep more for themselves., slowing the overall machinery and making things worse for everyone. They don't see that if they just let it go, the money would come back in even larger quantities because of its effect on the community as a whole. And the community itself would be a better place to live.

Also should be mentioned that hypnotism doesn' work long-term. I've known people who got hypnotised on purpose to quit smoking, and it can help, but it's not a long-term solution. A rogue "tricking" someone isn't overriding who and what they already are. They still need to balance the books at the end of the day and plan for the future. And while I don't know the precise rules for this fantasy universe, in most fantasy media, mind control doesn't last forever (nor would that be a rogue "trick." )

I'll rebut you simply weather a government or an individual having wealth doesn't make you corrupt or evil it is how you use and/or acquire it that does. A government that causes its people to suffer via its taxes is corrupt even though they wield the power of law. This is even highlighted in this game, which I'm very happy to see. Some laws paladin break because they are corrupt/evil. Some laws seek to capture or kill Paladins. The virtue in paladins is shared by rouges. So even though you may think taxes are purely good or you like the services they may provide if they cause the people the government is meant to serve to suffer both living and future then they are wholely corrupt.

[Mysti_Fogg]

Originally posted by Wayne:

I'll rebut you simply weather a government or an individual having wealth doesn't make you corrupt or evil it is how you use and/or acquire it that does. A government that causes its people to suffer via its taxes is corrupt even though they wield the power of law. This is even highlighted in this game, which I'm very happy to see. Some laws paladin break because they are corrupt/evil. Some laws seek to capture or kill Paladins. The virtue in paladins is shared by rouges. So even though you may think taxes are purely good or you like the services they may provide if they cause the people the government is meant to serve to suffer both living and future then they are wholely corrupt.

In which case, a rogue would of course steal from the rich to give to the poor. That was what we were discussing, and was the point.

[Patriot]

Originally posted by Mysti_Fogg:

Originally posted by Wayne:

I'll rebut you simply weather a government or an individual having wealth doesn't make you corrupt or evil it is how you use and/or acquire it that does. A government that causes its people to suffer via its taxes is corrupt even though they wield the power of law. This is even highlighted in this game, which I'm very happy to see. Some laws paladin break because they are corrupt/evil. Some laws seek to capture or kill Paladins. The virtue in paladins is shared by rouges. So even though you may think taxes are purely good or you like the services they may provide if they cause the people the government is meant to serve to suffer both living and future then they are wholely corrupt.

In which case, a rogue would of course steal from the rich to give to the poor. That was what we were discussing, and was the point.

We were discussing if that as a general rule was moral. My point is it is not. That is inherently immoral. Stealing from a thief to return to owner is the moral of this rouge's tale.

If we were to take as a rule that people should only have what they need and no more then we are saying it is ok to steal everything you have leaving you only with the tools to get what you need. Which is frankly nothing but your own two hands. That's a terrible moral philosophy. There is always someone wealthier than you just as there is always someone poorer.

[Mysti_Fogg]

Originally posted by Wayne:

Originally posted by Mysti_Fogg:

In which case, a rogue would of course steal from the rich to give to the poor. That was what we were discussing, and was the point.

We were discussing if that as a general rule was moral. My point is it is not. That is inherently immoral. Stealing from a thief to return to owner is the moral of this rouge's tale.

If we were to take as a rule that people should only have what they need and no more then we are saying it is ok to steal everything you have leaving you only with the tools to get what you need. Which is frankly nothing but your own two hands. That's a terrible moral philosophy. There is always someone wealthier than you just as there is always someone poorer.

We were discussing what a rogue would find moral. A Rogue's ways of righting wrongs include theft and trickery, and general redistribution of goods, money, or information.

Also "wealthy" and "poor" are important terms here, thus why I keep bringing up examples. A wealthy person has more money than they need or even can personally enjoy.

There are certainly almost always people who have more money than me, just as there are people who have less. But their status relative to me or you doesn't make them wealthy or poor. Their status relative to the community is what labels them.

That may also be the other key that you're missing: The rogue works on behalf of others, the thief keeps everything for himself.

There is that bit where they talk about Rogues seeming arrogant. Part of that arrogance would seem to be that they appoint themselves the judges of right and wrong and choose to redistribute things despite the means by which wealth is acquired possibly being seen as legal.

The moral issue is that the wealthy have more than enough while the poor, being poor, would be starving and homeless on the streets, and remedying that situation is the morally correct thing to do. A paladin asks for donations. A rogue steals from the rich to give to the poor. It's the roguish thing to do.

[Patriot]

Originally posted by Mysti_Fogg:

We were discussing what a rogue would find moral. A Rogue's ways of righting wrongs include theft and trickery, and general redistribution of goods, money, or information.
...
The moral issue is that the wealthy have more than enough while the poor, being poor, would be starving and homeless on the streets, and remedying that situation is the morally correct thing to do. A paladin asks for donations. A rogue steals from the rich to give to the poor. It's the roguish thing to do.

As the dev said a rouges morality would be aligned more with a paladin. Rouges are arrogant, but that's because they're smart. Since this is a class teaching young Rouges in part what he's teaching is to not look simply at the here and now, but towards the future. What are the consequences of your actions who are you hurting. You will always be hurting someone. If you steal from a selfish, but "wealthy" man (which is always relative, you are wealthy having more than you could ever need in someone's eyes), and this man has committed no crime and hasn't stolen the wealth from anyone the a rouge (whom I'll emphasize has the morality of a paladin) would have no cause to steal from him to give to people whom are starving. A rouge would try to create circumstances which would allow him (asuming this one man is the only one whom you could get help from) to see the errors in hoarding. However in such a circumstance where there is mass human suffering there is always something corrupt or immoral at play.

The wealthy businessman is usually not the culprit. There are criminals, gangs, and theives even that may be causing a community to suffer. However, in most cases you'll find it's socialism. People trying to "steal" from the "rich" and give to the "poor" in the end creating the mass impoverished condidtions while trying to resolve some perceived income inequality. Such thieves are far from the moral principles of rouges. As it is said the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Good intentions can kill. One must be perceptive and look both to the past and to the future.