Shattered Kingdoms

Since you can't backstab someone if there is a person behind them and the damage is delivered to the torso, I would think that it IS a stab to the back.

I didn't write that particular help file, but I think the author thought it was self-evident that backstab refers to stabbing someone in the back. At any rate, WarlordPayne has my back (pun intended) about the back stabbing requirements for using the skill.

The current polling shows a statistical dead-heat within appropriate parameters. In this instance, I have to agree with Dulrik. Like many instances where I agree with Dulrik, I am in opposition to those who wish to skirt the truth by introducing grey areas where there should be none. The fact Dulrik seems particularly interested in defending the obvious in this instance surprises me. For most people with three brain cells and all with four, the issue is very clear, and Dulrik is correct.

I completely disagree for my reasons already stated (Principled people care more about others than about their own reputation or a fair fight, and aberrant people carry their own code of honor, not necessarily one of paladins or hellions) but it seems that too much of the playerbase agrees with Dulrik on this one.

I'm still annoyed that Dulrik decided to make this change without consulting the playerbase first, and also without any evidence at all of this being used incorrectly. It's just really hard for me, having -played- a principled rogue, to roll over while people say that rogues shouldn't be principled and/or aberrant just because they don't -think- it's right. Empirical evidence exists to back my claim, yet there has never been a problem with principled/aberrant rogues in the past.

I suppose I'll just have to settle for playing a complete psychopathic rogue who runs around backstabbing people for fun, or a completely selfish rogue who's just as likely to mug you for money as he is to travel with you for equipment. I suppose now there really -can't- be honor among thieves like the old saying goes.

Or you could play a scrupulous rogue, which IMO was quite likely the alignment you were playing all along. But you have finally said something on this thread that I can agree on. There is indeed no honor among thieves.

Afraid not, Dulrik. I played in the same tribunal as the character in question, and she was definitely principled. Even my principled character thought she was taking honor and peacefulness too far - and I tend to be a stickler about this alignment.

To the extent the rogue alignment restriction has validity, it's that a principled/aberrant person would not be able to be trained as a rogue. That's partly through IC character choice, and partly because no master would tolerate such scruples in an apprentice. This reflects a change in the class concept. I don't see making it more specific as bad; we already have other classes suitable for stealthy principled/aberrant characters. But it is a change.

As long as the rp fits, I don't see the problem then again, you can be filled with generations of hate and still be called a lightie.