Thieves: How to include a class you hate.

[geoffrey]

This thread is for those referees who generally do not like thieves.

Suppose you have a player (or players) who desperately wants to play a thief. "OK," you say. "Get GREYHAWK and make yourself a thief. But here's the catch...

"In the campaign world, thieves (as a character class) exist only as members of the Thieves Guild in a city-state that is basically Lankhmar. You'll have to be a member (and remain a member) of the Guild, or you will become a target of the Guild. The only way to rise in level is to return to "Lankhmar" to train with the Guild each time you get enough xp. Oh, and the Guild accepts only humans as members..."

This allows you as referee to pretty much hermetically seal-off thieves from the rest of your campaign. Your "Lankhmar" hosts the only Thieves Guild in the world. While the thieves in that city-state can get away with thievery, nowhere else can they do so. Why? Because no other government recognizes the immunities that "Lankhmar" grants to the Guild. Outside of "Lankhmar", thievery gets you summarily executed.

Thus, you can 99% ignore thieves in your campaign world, dealing with them only when the thief PC returns to Lankhmar to gain a level.

[Stormcrow]

Better to deal with the cause of the dislike than to embargo them.

For instance, if you don't like that they can just roll dice where others have to describe something, change the thief's special ability to require them to also describe what they're doing, and then you'll give them a better chance based subjectively on their level. Or you could give locks and walls and so forth their own levels, and a character must be a thief of at least that level before he can overcome it.

Why don't you like thieves? What reasons do people give for not liking thieves?

[Falconer]

IMO, most dungeons are not really designed with Thieves in mind. So there is a shortcoming of adequate challenges specific to Thieves. So it’s on the DM to put them in, but, it’s easier just to ban the class. Especially since there aren’t a lot of good examples of what these sort of challenges might be.

Challenges specific to Thieves tend to be very “solo” in nature, anyway, and that begs the question: How large is the group? Are they tolerant of the Thief getting some solo spotlight time? Is the player assertive enough to demand the spotlight, and/or is the Caller willing to use him a lot? If the Caller IS a Thief, that can work well, or it can utterly consume the session in solo play.

And if the challenge requires the Thief to use one of his skills, and he rolls a failure (as he is likely to do), that’s it, challenge failed, Thief possibly dead.

And, of course, the Thief Skill system just doesn’t mesh with the rest of the game. Before the Thief, anyone could try those skills by simply describing their character’s action; now, only the Thief can do them? Or does the Thief roll only when it’s an almost supernaturally difficult challenge? How do you differentiate?

Personally, I have recently un-banned the class; I have to make due with it because my female players (wife included) prefer it. They like the image of being sneaky and clever. (Please understand that I know this is completely anecdotal.) So, it is what it is. I were more of a tinker I would tinker, but I’m not. The game goes on.

As for Geoffrey’s idea, it does resonate with me. I feel that Thieves require a city environment to be played properly, and a guild. The thing is, the DM would have to put his money where his mouth is, be willing to pull out CSIO and spend some solo or small-group time playing with just the Thief player(s). But if the DM isn’t up for that — if it’s not what he had in mind for his campaign — then it only exacerbates the problem.

[Deleted]

I don't use them as a default PC class IMC but I don't hate them, either. If a player insisted on playing a Thief I would certainly allow it.

[Chainsaw]

I would ban it before I would layer on nearly impossible restrictions as a proxy for banning.

[Finarvyn]

I use thieves in my game for a couple of reasons.

(1) I remember fondly the theives in the Lankhmar books, and to a certain extent in Conan. Seems like there ought to be a place for the class in my campaign.

(2) I have a few players who enjoy playing them, whether they are needed or not.

(3) I have enough players where I like to have some variety in class options and the thief is different enough that at least someone wants to play one.

Jun 26, 2014 22:05:16 GMT -6 Falconer said:

IMO, most dungeons are not really designed with Thieves in mind. So there is a shortcoming of adequate challenges specific to Thieves.

That's a really neat observation. I think there are "thief dungeons" and "not-thief dungeons" and the difference is the number of traps, etc, set up for thieves to encounter. Designing a dungeon to give thieves something to do really changes the dynamic of that dungeon, and at that point it won't work well without them.

[inkmeister]

I don't care at all for Geoffrey's approach here (which is sort of rare - I usually dig what he's got going on). It feels far too contrived for me. I try to minimize how much the rules of the game dictate my setting to me. This is one reason I don't do gold = xp anymore, for example.

Of course the thief is a problematic class. That said, in my experience with players in my games, the thief is generally the most popular character choice. My most avid players tend to want to be thieves.

My solution is to follow along the lines of LOTFP. I'm currently playing with a system where everyone can try everything, basically, and roll 2d6 vs target number (based on Stars Without Number). The thief is the only one who gets a bonus for thief type rolls. Likewise, the fighter is the only one who ever gets bonuses to fighting rolls. There's no way I'd ever use the standard D&D thief.

[makofan]

I sit down and work out a deal that both Player and GM can live with about the class. It's for fun after all, isn't it?

[dukeofchutney]

I have all players describe in detail and with logic how they search for traps, not just thief rolls. I don't mind thieves being better at picking locks though. I usually allow a thief to accurately estimate how much something is worth, and i usually find ways to include hiding in shadows, disguises and climbing if there is a thief in my game.

[cooper]

In 0d&d dungeon doors are only open 2 in 6 of the time. In all other cases, the door must be forced open (thereby potentially alerting those on he other side as well as wandering monsters). A thief then, allows for a second chance to open the door quietly--this is an incredible boon BtB. Like so many old rules in D&D, the abandonment of one rule can make something seem superfluous or illogical--like picking locks. Similarly, chases in the dungeon are written so as to assume that these would happen somewhat frequently, hide in shadows then allows for a thief to opt out of a chase other than dropping food or treasure to distract the dungeon denizen. Pick pockets allows for aquiring treasure from a dungeon denizen the character had a positive reaction roll with. Thinking of Od&d more as a rogue-like or Nethack rather than a tournament module of 8-12 players raiding a dungeon puts the thief (or any class...warlock, merchant, pixie) in a more favorable frame of mind.

I will also argue that no class was "designed" for dungeon crawling. The wizard and the fighter were ported over wholesale from CHAINMAIL and there is little in either classes abilities that make them somehow more suited to a dungeon enviornment than the thief.

I do like the lankhmar idea anyway. Maybe even requiring a fighting man to apply receive a favorable reaction roll in order to join the guild and gain thief abilities.

[Stormcrow]

Jun 26, 2014 22:05:16 GMT -6 Falconer said:

IMO, most dungeons are not really designed with Thieves in mind. So there is a shortcoming of adequate challenges specific to Thieves. So it’s on the DM to put them in, but, it’s easier just to ban the class. Especially since there aren’t a lot of good examples of what these sort of challenges might be.

I agree with cooper: fighting-men and clerics aren't designed for dungeons, either. Maybe if you were playing a goblin, with special goblin abilities, you could say it was designed for a dungeon.

If thieves are so unsuited to the game, why do so many people want to be them? And why stop them playing a sub-par class if that's what they enjoy?

Challenges specific to Thieves tend to be very “solo” in nature

I'm not sure I see the logic in this. The thief's primary role in a dungeon is to help the party get past obstacles: locks, guards, walls, traps. How is a thief climbing a wall to let down a rope for his companions any more solo than, say, a magic-user levitating up the wall to let down the rope?

And if the challenge requires the Thief to use one of his skills, and he rolls a failure (as he is likely to do), that’s it, challenge failed, Thief possibly dead.

That's true, but how is that a problem for the game?

And, of course, the Thief Skill system just doesn’t mesh with the rest of the game. Before the Thief, anyone could try those skills by simply describing their character’s action; now, only the Thief can do them? Or does the Thief roll only when it’s an almost supernaturally difficult challenge?

It's the latter. Anyone can be very quiet; only a thief can be absolutely silent. Anyone can climb a wall with projections; only a thief can climb a wall without projections. Anyone can hide behind something; only a thief can melt into a shadow with no physical obstacle to hide behind—and it works on infravision, too. The thief has keener hearing than other adventurers. Only thieves can pick locks (not a supernatural ability) and they can also "foil magical closures" (which IS supernatural). Anyone can attack by surprise; only thieves know the special ways to plunge a dagger into a target to kill an ordinary man instantly. Anyone can TRY to disarm a trap; only thieves can roll to see if they ALREADY KNOW how to disarm the trap.

How do you differentiate?

That's the job of the referee.

[cooper]

I do like an idea that regular members of a thieves guild doesn't have to be thief class in the vein of the mouser/Frodo. A good example is bandit/brigands who are simple fighting men in leather armor.

The issue is that thieves are modeled after the specialist hireling a la the assassin, alchemist, sage, smith. Perhaps a distinction could be made between a fighting man who joins a thieves guild and a specialist (hireling). Benefits could be access to a fence, an in house poison maker/alchemist or something else that would help someone be a thief without being an archetype mix of cudgel/Frodo/mouser. Similar perhaps a guild of paladins could have intelligent horses stabled and scrolls of protection for fighting men who become members.

[Deleted]

Frank Mentzer posted this on an online D&D forum (here, I think) and it seems it might fit with the vision for the class expressed by some.

Disclaimer: I am merely presenting this information, it is not mine and I'm neither endorsing nor looking down upon it. So if you don't like it, it isn't my problem and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to make it my problem.


Greyhawk Page 4: Men & Magic
Characters (Additions and Changes)
Fighting men (including Paladins)
Magic-Users
Clerics

And: Most classes may choose to add new Abilities known only to Thieves, as follows:

1. Any character not of Lawful alignment may add Thief.
2. Once Thief is added, all XP is divided equally between the original class and Thief (see table of advancement).
3. A character with Thief ability may at any time choose to permanently forego Thief progress. XP is no longer divided thereafter, but no further progress as Thief can ever occur normally (though some magical progress may be possible, such as by reading certain Tomes or using certain Artifacts). All abilities remain usable at the percentage chance of success previously obtained.
4. Thief skills (abilities) are gained as given on the chart (Greyhawk pg 11): Open Locks, Remove Traps, Pickpocket, Move Silently, Hide in Shadows, Hear Noise.

Notes: Move Silently and Hide in Shadows are possible only if not wearing metal armor of any sort. Failure at the Remove Traps roll generally does not activate the trap. In this case a character may immediately try again to Remove the Trap, and this second attempt will almost certainly activate the trap if unsuccessful. All Thieves belong to a special Guild of such, and acquire their training thereby, in standard fashion. n.b.: Outside this Guild, no Thief is ever forced to reveal his Thief status, though over time such may become obvious to his or her fellow party members.

Cooperation: When more than one character with Thief ability attempts to Open Locks, Remove Traps, or Pickpocket (these three only), ADD the individual percentage chances of success to determine the joint chance, which action takes the same time as an individivudal attempt. If multiple characters are engaged in Trap Removal when the trap activates, and if the trap is target-specific (rather than an area effect), randomly determine which of the participating Thieves is targeted. Example: A character of Footpad (L2) status has a 15% chance to remove a trap, an action which normally takes 1 turn (10 minutes). If four Footpads cooperate, the cumulative chance is 60%, again taking 1 turn to execute.

Locks & Traps (modifiers): Note than an advanced Master Thief may have a listed 100% chance of success in these endeavors. This is by no means absolute. Certain locks may be rusty or specially made; traps may be unusually well-crafted or otherwise more difficult. Given such a rationale, the DM may apply a penalty (in 5% increments, i.e. -10%, -25%, etc.) to the attempt at handling such a lock or trap. However, this should in fairness be made known to the player in some general way (e.g. "The trap seems to be unusually small and well-protected..."). However, such devices should be infrequently encountered by parties and Thieves of lower levels.

[Deleted]

Seems like an easy solution to "but what about non-thieves trying thief things" could be just have non-thieves have the same chances as a first level thief (or -5% to each skill), but they never improve in ability.

[Lorgalis]

People seek to improve the fighter class so why not give all fighters thief skills and remove the thief as a separate class. They would gain move silently, backstabbing, hide in shadows.

Pick locks would need a locksmith hireling, or a skilled lock picker.
Read scrolls - a sage
Trap removal and finding is based on character perception and roleplay. Maybe a skilled trap builder/finder hireling.

Pick pockets is a skill like lock picking.

Wizards and others could spend points to up skills but it costs more or advances slower than the fighter.

Conan, Gray Mouser, Fafhrd, Elric all seemed fairly roguish while remaining bad ass fighters.

Just a jumble of thoughts.

[Zenopus]

One idea I've had for using the original percentages (since they are in the rulebook, be it Greyhawk or Holmes) is to add the following house rules:

The listed percentages for Thieves are for "difficult" conditions (for example - unlocking a door without making noise, disarming a complex trap, taking a possession from an opponent while conversing with them, hiding in shadows while being followed, moving quietly while an alert guard is listening, climbing smooth walls).

For "easy" conditions, Thieves add 50% to their required chance (for example - unlocking a door noisily, disarming a simple trap, picking the pocket of an unalert person, hiding in shadows or moving silently around a distracted guard, climbing rough walls). Any character may attempt an "easy" task using the standard thief percentages at 1st level.

If converting to d6 chances, a 1st level thief has a 1 in 6 chance for difficult tasks (5 in 6 for a difficult Climb Walls), 4 in 6 for easy tasks (automatic for easy Climb Walls), and other characters have a 1 in 6 chance for easy tasks (5 in 6 for an easy CW).

[Merias]

I like thieves, just not the %-based skills table, which is not fun to use at low-levels. In my OD&D game, I have one character running a thief based on a version I created for S&W Whitebox, which allows the player to pick what skills they want - they get fewer to start, but have a higher chance of success in each. Then at each level gain, they pick another skill and can increase their chances in a skill or skills of their choice (depending on the bonus). Not totally original, as I found out, but the player says he likes this version of the thief better than the RAW one. The details are here: smolderingwizard.com/2014/03/29/a-different-take-on-the-thief-the-rogue-for-swords-wizardry-whitebox/.

I'm not sure there is a conflict between thieves and non-thieves trying to, say, move silently - for example in my game I allow halflings to use their natural abilities or their thief abilities, whichever gives a higher chance of success. They can try once.

[kent]

The first distinction I make among characters who are classed is that only about one in ten are adventurers. Player Characters are always adventurers. So soldiers are Fighters but not adventurers, priests and scholars and court advisors might be certain kinds of specialist Magic-users but they are not adventurers.

And so the Thief and the Assassin are without exception tied to large cities, which are the only places they can unostentatiously devise, practise and teach their craft which is one of learning through apprenticeship to become a journeyman as with other crafts which flourish better in a dense population. But ... adventurers are not tied to cities, and an adventurer uses whatever ragbag of skills he has acquired through his colourful development. The adventuring Thief or Assassin will learn to adapt his skills to the wilderness environment and learn to hunt and track and ambush, with some softening of the sharpness of his instinct for dark alley work. At all times his city-thief craft is perfectly suited to dungeon exploration.

The adventuring thief should begin play in the city for a level or two, his spirit for exploration transforms him into an agent for his guild outside the city to which he returns to hone his skills and present intelligence. There is always a tension between his relative freedom and his usefulness as an information gatherer and liaison with guilds in other cities. In my campaigns this has caused a break in the relationship between levels 4 and 7, with the thief acquiring another profession and usually being on very bad terms with his former guild.

[waysoftheearth]

Jun 26, 2014 15:51:27 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Suppose you have a player (or players) who desperately wants to play a thief. "OK," you say. "Get GREYHAWK and make yourself a thief. But here's the catch...
...
This allows you as referee to pretty much hermetically seal-off thieves from the rest of your campaign.

Is this to say you'd allow a player to select a class but then impose a bunch of restrictions that effectively keep him/her from meddling with "your campaign"?

Unless the campaign is largely set in Lankhmar, I wonder why you'd bother? It sounds to me like: "Okay, I'll (grudgingly) let you have your thief, but I'm gonna ride you so hard you'll regret it. So there."

It's the player's campaign too, isn't it? At the very least, it's the player's leisure time that s/he's generously sharing with you to enrich your campaign.

Jun 28, 2014 8:37:45 GMT -6 Merias said:

I like thieves, just not the %-based skills table, which is not fun to use at low-levels.

I agree.
I like the concept of thieves, but think the "percentile skills" implementation is tragically flawed for a number of reasons including:
1) skills too weak to be useful at low levels,
2) skills too strong to be interesting at high levels,
3) calculation of odds way too fiddly,
4) A PC's odds of success reside with the player not the ref.

There are much nicer ways to implement thieves, starting with Wagner's original thief (which inspired EGG's version).

But ultimately, none of that matters if the referee doesn't want to participate.

[bestialwarlust]

Jun 29, 2014 4:46:39 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Jun 26, 2014 15:51:27 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Suppose you have a player (or players) who desperately wants to play a thief. "OK," you say. "Get GREYHAWK and make yourself a thief. But here's the catch...
...
This allows you as referee to pretty much hermetically seal-off thieves from the rest of your campaign.

Is this to say you'd allow a player to select a class but then impose a bunch of restrictions that effectively keep him/her from meddling with "your campaign"?

Unless the campaign is largely set in Lankhmar, I wonder why you'd bother? It sounds to me like: "Okay, I'll (grudgingly) let you have your thief, but I'm gonna ride you so hard you'll regret it. So there."

It's the player's campaign too, isn't it? At the very least, it's the player's leisure time that s/he's generously sharing with you to enrich your campaign.

Jun 28, 2014 8:37:45 GMT -6 Merias said:

I like thieves, just not the %-based skills table, which is not fun to use at low-levels.

I agree.
I like the concept of thieves, but think the "percentile skills" implementation is tragically flawed for a number of reasons including:
1) skills too weak to be useful at low levels,
2) skills too strong to be interesting at high levels,
3) calculation of odds way too fiddly,
4) A PC's odds of success reside with the player not the ref.

There are much nicer ways to implement thieves, starting with Wagner's original thief (which inspired EGG's version).

But ultimately, none of that matters if the referee doesn't want to participate.

Tis is why I prefer the Delving Deeper method of thief abilities. It retains the d6 "skill" roll present throughout od&d. So any one can attempt a thief skill it's just thieves are better at it. So you can still have a sneaky character no matter what class you play.

[geoffrey]

Jun 29, 2014 4:46:39 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Jun 26, 2014 15:51:27 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Suppose you have a player (or players) who desperately wants to play a thief. "OK," you say. "Get GREYHAWK and make yourself a thief. But here's the catch...
...
This allows you as referee to pretty much hermetically seal-off thieves from the rest of your campaign.

Is this to say you'd allow a player to select a class but then impose a bunch of restrictions that effectively keep him/her from meddling with "your campaign"?

Unless the campaign is largely set in Lankhmar, I wonder why you'd bother? It sounds to me like: "Okay, I'll (grudgingly) let you have your thief, but I'm gonna ride you so hard you'll regret it. So there."

It's the player's campaign too, isn't it? At the very least, it's the player's leisure time that s/he's generously sharing with you to enrich your campaign.

Imagine that you ran a campaign set in Middle-earth. Further suppose that a player wanted to play a Phraint (from Arduin). The easy and less liberal thing to do would be to simply forbid it.

Or you could think of some way to have a Phraint or Phraints on Middle-earth. Of course, it would have to be very restrictive, or pretty soon your campaign wouldn't feel like Middle-earth at all:

DM: "You have arrived at the Phraint city you have been travelling towards."

Player 1: "This is so weird! I don't remember any Phraints in Middle-earth. This is the...what? Fifth? Sixth Phraint city we've come across?"

Player 2: "By my count, we know of no fewer than eleven Phraint cities. And don't forget the Phraints we run into wandering in the wilderness."

Player 3: "And the Phraints in the dungeons."

Player 1: "This just doesn't seem like Middle-earth... Hey, DM, what's with all the Phraints in what is supposed to be a Middle-earth campaign?"

DM: "Ask Fred. He wanted to play a Phraint, so I obliged him by making Phraints just as common a race as Men, Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, and Orcs."

Player 1: "This bullnuts is all because of Fred wanting to play a d**n Phraint? Why didn't you just say he was the only Phraint, or something?"

DM: "Well, I didn't want Fred to feel restricted."

Players: "Blehhh!"

[dukeofchutney]

If this is a broader question of player vs GM determination of the campaign rather than specific to thieves, I think restriction prior to the game is fine.

Generally I explain the broad concept of any game im going to run to the players at the outset. What is my general idea of the game world, what structure will the campaign have, and will we focus on any plot elements etc. The players can then make suggestions or requests if they want to. When character creation comes around the players have to create characters that make sense within the game idea we have come up with.

So if I said this game will be a hex crawl style game in the forests of the east far beyond any known civilisation in an honour based tribal culture. Most sessions will involve exploring the forbidden ruins of the ancients and fighting back the terrors of the dark forest of the south. A player might ask that there will be dwarves in this world and I might say ok. The players would then have to design characters that take an honour based tribal culture into account, so no thieves. Or at least none in the traditional sense. If they agree to the game concept its reasonable for them to abide by it.

[cooper]

1) I don't think it's too much to ask to say that the only thieves guild is in "lankhmar" and training must take place there.

2) modify the thief into a "bandit" or "brigand" class that tweaks the class abilities somewhat that more fits the campaign milieu.

3) Play a fighting man in leather armor and RP the thief.

4) allow for the possibility of a unique cudgel-esque character. There is only one "thief" on the planet with this exact skill set.

"Malak" was conan's sidekick in Conan the Destroyer and he was described as a jewel thief. Much more bandit than thieves guild member. Or even subotai from Conan the barbarian (who was more a fighter/thief). However, especially Malak could be built as a fighting-man with low strength/con and high Dex/cha. The key would just to give big climbing/sneak penalties to armor, then the leather clad man with a good Dex has quite an advantage to sneak attacks (aka surprise) etc.

But! Don't give an AC bonus to dexterity for anyone nor attack bonus for missile weapons, this means that leather armor is like having smaller HD. A man in plate will always be a better fighter and putting your best stat in str will always make you a better warrior (none of this water dancing bullhocky).

[Stormcrow]

If the only thieves' guild is in Lankhmar, then you simply have unregulated thieves outside of Lankhmar.

[waysoftheearth]

Jun 29, 2014 16:30:30 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Imagine that you ran a campaign set in Middle-earth. Further suppose that a player wanted to play a Phraint (from Arduin). The easy and less liberal thing to do would be to simply forbid it.

That's true, but also rather different to the original proposition.

Here you're talking about the ad hoc introduction a race from one well known setting into another well known setting that doesn't have that race. Originally you were discussing ways in which to restrict PCs of a vastly more ubiquitous profession to one locale only--on threat of summary execution, if I recall.

It's different because virtually all historical and/or fantasy literature includes the notion of thieves (so they are easy to introduce), while Phraint are virtually exclusive to one specific setting (so they are complicated to introduce).

Jun 29, 2014 17:51:15 GMT -6 dukeofchutney said:

If this is a broader question of player vs GM determination of the campaign rather than specific to thieves, I think restriction prior to the game is fine.

I agree with the Duke.

[geoffrey]

Jun 29, 2014 21:41:23 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Here you're talking about the ad hoc introduction a race from one well known setting into another well known setting that doesn't have that race. Originally you were discussing ways in which to restrict PCs of a vastly more ubiquitous profession to one locale only--on threat of summary execution, if I recall.

It's different because virtually all historical and/or fantasy literature includes the notion of thieves (so they are easy to introduce), while Phraint are virtually exclusive to one specific setting (so they are complicated to introduce).

Yeah, I was thinking specifically of a world similar in at least some ways with Tekumel, which doesn't have professional thieves since thievery gets you the high ride. They do have assassins, though!

[Falconer]

This is not a new idea, but when I have run 3LBB-only OD&D, modified for Middle-earth (i.e., no Thief class), I have directed players who wanted to play a “sneaky” character towards the Hobbit and the Elf, both of which sufficiently fit that archetype.

[kent]

Jun 30, 2014 10:57:25 GMT -6 Falconer said:

This is not a new idea, but when I have run 3LBB-only OD&D, modified for Middle-earth (i.e., no Thief class), I have directed players who wanted to play a “sneaky” character towards the Hobbit and the Elf, both of which sufficiently fit that archetype.

Dear me, is the 'sneaky elf' in Middle Earth something you deduced from your reading of the History of Middle Earth?

[Falconer]

“They now marched on again in silence, and passed like shadows and faint lights: for Elves (even more than hobbits) could walk when they wished without sound or footfall.” —The Fellowship of the Ring, p. 90

Also, it’s Middle-earth.

[kent]

Do you think being silent and sneaking mean the same thing? That's very poor. You don't appear to have noticed the difference between Gygax's Elves and Tolkien's. If you are going to set a game in Middle-earth it must be disappointing for your players to hear you describe Elves as sneaky thieves.