Stealing from players and hiding loot on mounts

[Gwain]

I don't know if it applies to the fairness of thieving or is in itself fair, but I wonder if it is correct to steal from players in the game, hide the items on a stabled mount or cart then initiate and rp for the item to be returned. It seems a bit one-sided as there is no way to retrieve the item without the voluntary involvement of the thief, you could kill them and it would not be among their possesions, you can capture them and it won't be anywhere near them. It is up to the thieving party to voluntarily return the item. This could work, but for the fact that stables are impossible to enter and therefore such items cannot be retrievable. I would like it if the ability to steal and then the choice to stable stolen goods on a mount would be marked as abuse, since it robs one party of being able to recover the item without direct consent. Not all those that steal are capable or mature enough to give proper fighting chances, I would rather they did not have the the option to steal then hide it on a mount in a stable.

I would also add that I don't agree with thieves logging off after a theft either to resume later, but I am lenient here, as it may be for conditions beyond their control.

So in closing, what I am asking for in this post is:

I would liketo suggest that the ability to steal and then the choice to stable stolen goods on a mount would be marked as abuse, since it robs one party of being able to recover the item without direct consent. Not all those that steal are capable or mature enough to give proper fighting chances, I would rather they did not have the the option to steal then hide it on a mount in a stable.

[Gwain]

Lets add storing stolen goods in luggage or dwelling storage and mailing it to yourself in my reccomendation of abuse.

[Selveem]

I agree with Gwain on this one.

I think it's highly OOC. In my opinion, it is an intentional abuse of the code in using it as it was not meant to be used. There are a number of reasons why we have stables and I would really not be happy if those benefits were negated by someone abusing it like that.

I'd also like to mention, as it's relevant to the situation, that rule six of the 'help rules' states all thefts need to be roleplayed. That doesn't mean steal and then roleplay the ransom, but actually the leadup, as well. Maybe it needs to be mentioned in "help steal" and "help OPP" as this one seems to be glossed over.

As it stands, theft RPs are currently rather one-sided anyhow without spot implemented. There are few spells that help against it (like glitterdust being the only one that actually works that I can think of actually coded). So, if a theft is not properly RPed, then you can expect some long-standing resentment. Not to mention, you're going to make a bad name for yourself as a player. As someone who has already gone that path once, let me say it's the least pleasant feeling I've ever experienced on FK.

[Orplar]

I feel the need to agree here. Thefts are possible and enjoyable with the proper role-play. Abuse of this nature (stated above) completely ruins it for me.

[Hrosskell]

I'm not saying it's not dubious, I think it borders on code abuse. It is, however, a logical tactic for a thief to employ.

A) No thief in his right mind holds on to an item after stealing it; especially less so in a world where wizards can track down the item, the thief, and then instantly appear at either location depending on how good they are.

B) Few thieves trust anyone outside of their network to hold an item for them for many reasons, including the wizard clause as above. You can't sell PCs items after the theft, and stealing to sell is just poor form.

C) Isn't actually another point, but combining A and B leaves you with very few options. You either hope that a third party willing to hold the item is on in the form of a PC, drop the item on the ground somewhere, or put it on your mount. All of these options fringe on "code abuse" or "improper roleplay." How does one roleplay thieving successfully knowing these factors? Why do it at all?

[Selveem]

Unless you don't mind getting off-topic, please ignore this post!

How does one roleplay thieving successfully knowing these factors? Why do it at all?

I think these questions will lead us away from the topic at hand, but I'll answer:

Q1: There are more than one ways to skin a mark. If you try hard enough, you don't even need to abuse hide like superinvis to achieve this goal, either. I talked to you on IM and you know what I'm talking about; doesn't need to go here.

Q2: There can be any number of reasons, but a 'hardened thief' (to me, meaning a typical kleptomaniac) _shouldn't_ be stealing from PCs. Keep it to NPCs like mine does. I feel that if you're stealing from a PC, it should be: as part of an Imm-run RP; to create RP that isn't one-sided; or the continuance of an RP that isn't one-sided.

[Brar]

A) No thief in his right mind holds on to an item after stealing it; especially less so in a world where wizards can track down the item, the thief, and then instantly appear at either location depending on how good they are.

First, there are coded ways to avoid detection from spells, try to detect my ranger at anyone and I wish you good luck

Second, if you stays IC, wizards scry the object, see it's on a horse, teleport to the horse, take it from the horse, end of the game.

Third: I'm not sure if it is coded or not, but the search command should have a chance to reveal hidden characters by making them do a recheck, if you search a room completly, there is no chance someone can hide in it seriously.

Brar

[Selveem]

Ugh, see.. Hrosskell with his derailing questions. Brar, care to contribute your thoughts on the original post?

Third: I'm not sure if it is coded or not, but the search command should have a chance to reveal hidden characters by making them do a recheck, if you search a room completly, there is no chance someone can hide in it seriously.

Two problems with this:

1: Spot check isn't in-game. Hide is now a lot easier to increase than it used to be, so it's pretty likely the rogue will make its hide check.

2: I don't think it should work in the overmap. Overmap is huge and even characters passing each other on the road may not see each other ICly, much less if one is attempting to avoid being seen by riding the side of a cart or the like.

[Brar]

Sorry, I was speaking inside a room yes, not in the wilderness.

And let's see to a longer term, spot IS in the game, just not available to train yet

Edit: Yeah I forgot to speak about the original post. I'm n complete agreement with Gwain on that one, thought it was already the case in fact.

[Bellayana]

I don't think thieves would keep it on their person, they would try and stash it away. As long as the thief is roleplaying to get the item back I do not see a problem. It is pretty easy to know where any character is in the game, so Brar you are one step ahead of me in knowing how to stay undetected from spells.

I am not sure what ways it is impossible to achieve detection from wizards, but I would be all in favor in a rule that says thieves have to keep the item they've stolen accessible at all times as long as there are rules to protect thief roleplayers as well.

Although it could be considered abuse to stash items on mounts, it also could be considered abuse when a player uses a hidden thief roleplaying the theft out OOC and then knows they are being stolen from even when their character wouldn't have any idea. So how do we know players aren't being fair about the RP as well?

[Gwain]

There are so many wonderful ways to hide yourself in the game from detection. I've used them on my rogue and to my credit they worked. There is disguise, there are headquarters and guilds and areas with blocking auras that can be found with in character knowhow. Using a system that is in theory, unbreakable or impenatrable is in my opinion worthy of the ability to be instantly and mercilessly tracked.

[Bellayana]

I am not understanding how this is possible, Selveem could you message me on IM and tell me? Or send me a PM I would really like advice.

[Brar]

I don't feel like there is much of a chance to keep the anonymity for the thief if he keeps the stolen item on him or her. If someone wants to scry for a object and see just a mare in a stable that could be anywhere in the kingdoms. It isn't that easy if we are looking at the real situation.

I will stat my opinion clearly, that is a big nonsense.
Scrying gives you enough information to use Teleport without error, if it doesn't do so in FK it is only because of code limitation.
Teleport normally transport you to a location, not a person. And teleport without error doesn't even requires you to have seen the destination, only a written or oral description is more than enough.

Locate object gives you the name of the mob in FK for the same reason, code limitation, while it should actually gives you the direction it is in, and casting it repeatidly makes you sure to pinpoint the object you are searching except of course if the object is protected from scrying.

So in fact, it is far more easier in DnD than in FK for a mage.

[Bellayana]

Well then that is understandable, I thought that in order to use teleport they had to know an exact name. I was under the impression that is why wizards never really gave their true name.

[Brar]

At the same time, I also agree to Bellyana that people sometimes needs to react accordingly to hidden character emotes. If the emote is "someone do.." and is not noise then you should ignore it, even if the thief is required to do the emote in case one of those present have actually succeed at his spot check and sees him.

What following is only my opinion and nothing more than that.
Now, RPing the stealing is not being hidden and making emote then fleeing... First, let the other time to react, you don't know if they notice you stealing or not. Of course, if they haven't got the echo that gives you away, they should just continue on like if nothing happened.

And do not confuse hide and disguise.
For example, being hidden in a street is not blending in the crowd, it is just that, being hidden, out of sight, non visible. Blending in the crowd would be disguise skill, not hide.

So try to steal someone walking in the middle of a street while being hidden behind a crate, under a cart, around a corner, ect ect. That's kinda hard.
The disguise would more do the trick in letting you approach the person without him really noticing you.

The same can be done in the market or in the wilds, to steal, you have to be in contact and thus approach yourself.

I don't know how it is coded, but I think everytime you make an emote, you should make a new hide check vs spot check from those near you because when you make an emote, you move and you're under the risk to be caught.

Next, the finding of how to protect yourself should clearly be done ICly, because it is up to your character to learn about it, not the player.
It takes some research, but it is feasible, in particular for a thief who can (should?) use any magical object in the game... (is use magic device working by the way?)

To enhance such roleplay, I really think disguise should be given more variant and options, enough option to look like an existing NPC and act like one, and be at risk to get attacked, but that's the risk of disguising as somebody else.

This way it will gives thieves real tools to actually roleplay a stealing, and now that sense motive is in, one can see through the disguise so it's even better.

But the real question is the following one, "If the thief gets caught without the item, is tortured, sequestrated, punished, ect, to give it back, can the stole one do anything but be at the whim and pleasure of the one who stole the item? If it is in a stable or luggage, then no, the stolen one is at the complete mercy of the good will and manners of the stealer, and it is this notion of one player being at the mercy of another that tickles me.

Brar

[Raona]

I've pondered this at some length even before this question was asked...what follows is my own personal opinion.

It makes perfect sense to me that a rogue would consider stashing something stolen, especially if they knew they would be pursued by magical means. They might bury it, or put it somewhere only they know about for safe keeping, or give it to someone else. However, that should leave the object vulnerable to direct magical tracking, bypassing the thief, unless smart precautions were taken...and then the owner could retrieve the item from the hole, or place, or person.

The realities of code do make this problematic. You can't bury something, lest it be eaten in the next copyover. You can't stash it in a mundane place, lest the same happen. Putting it on a mount, minion, or in a dwelling puts it completely out of reach of the owner, code-wise, without your help.

What it boils down to is that at present, OOC cooperation in a theft is essential. For example, if A steals something from B and puts it on their mount, then B determines the location of their item, they should be able to go get it if ICly realistic. On a stabled mount in their home City? B should have no trouble requesting access from the proprietor of the stable, or at least the authorities, even if they do not know the identity of A. They might even learn A's identity in the process. We don't have a good coded way of doing this, but A should attempt to make it possible by coded means. Pass OOC word to B through an intermediary (I volunteer for this if you don't have someone else spring to mind) saying "Hey, I'm the snark who took your stuff. If you want to attempt a retrieval without my IC involvement, but have something that makes IC sense that the code won't let you do, PM my intermediary back and if it makes sense I'll leave it for or magical post the item back to you."

Something like that. Alternately, we could have an arbiter assigned to deal with cases like this?

[Harroghty]

People could certainly do that, but I do not believe that they need to go through an intermediary if they do not prefer that.

Players, I believe, simply ought to be considerate of other players. If someone feels that they have been wronged then they are free to submit a formal complaint or, if the thief is foolish enough to stable the item upon their mount in a relatively lawful city, then the authorities (if they exist) may request access upon a case-by-case basis via the ASK channel.

[Brar]

I agree with Harroghty that simply using the ask channel and explaining the situation to the staff that pop up at this moment (in an IC way of course) can suffice most of the time.

The ask channel can of course be used for question, but I think he can also be used to signifiate ongoing interesting roleplay (or should we make another channel similar to prayer for that?)
Personnaly, I often use the prayer channel regarding faith matters and more often than not, there is a discreet staff member coming and rewarding peoples.

I don't think it would be different if people se the ask channel instead, our staff are willing gentle rp teddy bears after all

But what Harroghty says also ties to another thing, the lack of Realmslore given.
For example, when I see a tiefling is entering Shadowdale, it gives me the chills... It is one the most goodly city of all the Realms, home of Elminster, 3 chosens of Mystra, 1 chosen of Tymora, the Knights of Myth Drannor and HQ to one of the Harpers main branch... it is more filled with goodly dooers wandering everywhere than a temple of Tyr!
In the stealing, it is the same, how would a player know if where the item is stashed is a lawful city or not?

We sure can't expect every players to know that if you don't have anything in the game saying it, even if the character would have heard about it, especially adventurers who are travelling everywhere.

This lack of realmslore gives the odd situation where the average player (as in not an FR walking encyclopedia) just don't know if he can or can't do something, and in doubt do not dare do it or even ask about it (this is a normal human reaction).

Brar

[Gwain]

Players, I believe, simply ought to be considerate of other players. If someone feels that they have been wronged then they are free to submit a formal complaint or, if the thief is foolish enough to stable the item upon their mount in a relatively lawful city, then the authorities (if they exist) may request access upon a case-by-case basis via the ASK channel.

Seeing as we all participate in the mud at different intervals in the day and that it is only possible to gain access to a mount or luggage piece when the owner is logged in and not when they are loaded up (this may be dated info) could we also send in a complaint or application asking for much the same?

[Lathander]

I'm not sure if it can be coded, but here's a brain dump on the subject.

When an item is stolen via picking a pocket, code flag-labels the item "hot," identifies the victim and sets a timer - something like "is_hot_Harroghty" with valueX 1000. *snicker* Code might then prohibit hot items from being stabled, stored in luggage storerooms, mailed to oneself and left in the post, etc. A few mobs in specified locations (e.g. Westgate, ZK, Waterdeep, etc.) would be designated as fences. The fences would be the only storekeepers that accept stolen goods. Once the item is sold to a fence, the timer value is enacted, allowing the victim a predetermined amount of time to reclaim his stolen property by buying it back. Anyone attempting to purchase the item before the timer expires receives an echo like "That item is not yet available to the public." Once the timer hits zero, anyone can buy the item.

This would allow thieves to profit from the theft and allow the victim a chance for recovery. Since the timer would not start until after the item is fenced, RP surrounding its return could still take place in lieu of fencing.