Yo, peeps, y'all are back on that pickpocketing thing.

:PPPP am not, Im talking bout using the verb challenge for CvC situations, just happpens to be a pick pocketing sentence.

but point taken

<<Actually, no, we haven't. I've yet to hear one solid argument against it, without muddying the waters with accusations about my "perceptions" or failure to separate character from player. The only possible objection to an "opt out" option is that thieves would no longer be able to target unwilling participants for their own ends.>>

Heathyr, you've been given PAGES of solid argument, none of which you've managed to make any logical argument against. "I don't want to play!" is not a defense. The reasonable objection to the opt out is that it removes the potential for roleplayed conflict. That is indisputable, although you're certainly welcome to argue that the skill in question is under-utilized for that purpose. I would tend to agree, and have my own thoughts on exactly why that is - but you don't seem to feel that's relevant to the discussion. Oh, but back to copping out! What were we talking about?

~Taverkin

<<<This blanket statements implies that 'most' thieves are only concerned with themselves.>>>

Is there anybody, anywhere that thinks this is not a perfectly valid statement about thieves? I wasn't "implying" anything. But if that's your take-away message, I won't merely imply it, I'll state it as a truism. Most thieves are only concerned with themselves. That's why they are thieves.

<<<There's nothing in my statement that supports the idea that (most) thieves are only concerned about themselves.>>>

Here's a little lesson in Logic 101: All people are concerned about themselves. All thieves are people. Therefore, all thieves are concerned about themselves. Not only does your statement support mine, it is logically impossible for it not to. The point is moot, however, since it has absolutely nothing to do with the context of my original statement.

<<<You're right. There are signs of impairment here, but I think you're mistaken on where the location is.>>>

That the best you got? "Am not, but you are"? Care to add a "nya nya na nya na" to the end of that? Pretty weak, farmer. I'm almost disappointed.

<<<Looking at any situation in the game purely from a player standpoint is the exact opposite of roleplaying. Choosing not to roleplay something because it annoys the player behind the character is the opposite of roleplaying. Opting out of any situation because the player doesn't want to be involved is the exact opposite of roleplaying. (Note this includes normal game situations)>>>

Incorrect. Just because I may bow out of a situation I personally don't enjoy, doesn't mean I can't continue roleplaying. I may not be roleplaying your scenario, but that doesn't mean my roleplay stops. I simply choose to focus my attention elsewhere. You seem to be of the mind that we should treat our characters as robots, mindlessly accepting every situation that arises, regardless of any personal preferences. Are you willing to spend hours playing through situations that you don't enjoy, all for the sake of roleplay? Why are you playing a game if you're not enjoying it? Who are you trying to impress, exactly?

There's nothing wrong with picking and choosing which scenarios you're interested in roleplaying, and which you aren't. It's got zilch to do with the ability to separate one's self from one's character. What counts is how well you RP the situations you do choose to become involved with.

~ Heathyr

<Here's a little lesson in Logic 101: All people are concerned about themselves. All thieves are people. Therefore, all thieves are concerned about themselves. Not only does your statement support mine, it is logically impossible for it not to. The point is moot, however, since it has absolutely nothing to do with the context of my original statement.>


Well I actually took logic 101 and 102 in school, and thats not accurate. Logic starts out with variables not statements. You work the variable to the conclusion then work the statements backwards to fill in the variable. Logic also has IF and THENS at every level of the equation included in it.

IF A = all people are concerned about themselves, and IF B= all thieves are people, then C= all thieves are concerned about themselves. Not that I am disputing any ones arguements on the actual subject matter, but Logic does not work with the assumption all statements are True.

It would be more.. All thieves are concerned about themselves.. Verified as True, therefore, C is true, IF C is true is B= all thieves are people, T or F. True.. Thus is A= All people are concerned about themselves T or F , False, nothing in or about C or B clearly states or supports all people are concerned about themselves. Only that all thieves are concerned about themselves, and Thieves are people.

>Is there anybody, anywhere that thinks this is not a perfectly valid statement about thieves?

Absolutely.

>I wasn't "implying" anything. But if that's your take-away message, I won't merely imply it, I'll state it as a truism. Most thieves are only concerned with themselves. That's why they are thieves.
~ Heathyr

Your personal feelings aren't facts. Regardless of how strongly you feel.

>Here's a little lesson in Logic 101: All people are concerned about themselves. All thieves are people. Therefore, all thieves are concerned about themselves. Not only does your statement support mine, it is logically impossible for it not to.

You need to brush up on your logic classes (as correctly illustrated by GILBERTJ26). There is a noticeable difference in your original statement, your followup 'logic' and my own statement. It deals with the word 'only'.

>That the best you got? "Am not, but you are"? Care to add a "nya nya na nya na" to the end of that? Pretty weak, farmer. I'm almost disappointed.

If you really want to devolve this into petty insults, and from your last posts taking every opportunity to do so at my expense, it really seems you want to, I'm sure we can find the proper place and time for that elsewhere. Should I meet you at the playground after school?

>Incorrect. Just because I may bow out of a situation I personally don't enjoy, doesn't mean I can't continue roleplaying. I may not be roleplaying your scenario, but that doesn't mean my roleplay stops. I simply choose to focus my attention elsewhere.

Not at all.

You've stated repeatedly that you, the player, do not enjoy a certain scenario that happens in game. It doesn't matter in the slightest that the situation could be roleplayed or not, you, the person, want nothing to do with it. You can either respond as a character, or as the player. When you respond as a player with zero character separation that is the opposite of roleplay.



-farmer

<<Good actors put a little bit of themselves into every role. The concept that characters can exist entirely independent of players (or actors) is nonsensical. There is no character without a player. It's absolutely, completely 100% impossible. You can disagree with that premise all day, but you'll still be wrong.

~ Heathyr>>

Ahh, the literal interpretation of the word "separation". You do enjoy word games, don't you?

Sorry, but I'm not interested in arguing the definition of every word I use. You win again!

~Taverkin

<<That has actually been her main argument all along for the most part. Some are likely opposed to it because when you consider their characters, you have to wonder what it says about them that they'd enjoy doing what they do.>>

Right. Unless I'm misunderstanding her, she doesn't actually play her characters this way, but doesn't trust others not to. Thus if a pickpocket targets her, it's a personal assault on her as a player, not because she doesn't separate player from character, but because she assumes other players do not. Or at least that's what I'm getting out of this. If not, color me confused.

Frankly, I don't understand how a person can fail to see the impact of playing a roleplaying game as if you ARE your character (Defined: like most people would play a game like WoW). But being that roleplaying is a two-way street, practically speaking an inability to give other players the benefit of the doubt at the onset of an interaction (at least until they prove otherwise!) has the same negative impact on the roleplaying environment.

That's why I've advocated my approach to roleplayed conflict. If people could just take a step back and stop being so affronted by anything negative that happens to their character, they might be able to turn more of these pointless interactions into meaningful ones. Leading by example and all. Ya dig?

~Taverkin

I've chimed in to this thread a few times, and I'm going to say a few more things.

1. Roleplay isn't about 'picking the situation'. It's about adapting to whatever situation comes your way. Something happens? React to it, spin it, do what you want to it... this is honestly where I get irritated with a lot of people. Sometimes I wonder if people realize just because something SAYS something on your screen you don't really HAVE to feel that way.

An excellent example of this would be the messaging for musical instruments. I can't recall the number of times people have said "My character wouldn't tap her toes! Change it!"... well, for one everyone is seeing the same message, the screen does not scroll "Person taps their toes in time with the music" for everyone in the room. It's a SUGGESTION so that you have an accurate idea of what the music would sound like (we've all heard 'toe tapping' music, so it gives an accurate suggestion of what the music would sound like. Feel free to react differently.

2. Character separation - Heather, I'm going to both agree and disagree with you. SOME truly good actors put themselves into the character, but they also tend to be part actors... the guy you see in the same part over, and over, and over, because that's just the part they fit. Actors with more scope separate themselves fully from who they are and BECOME the part.

I've often told people I am crazy when it comes to my characters. I don't discuss them in terms of "I did" or "I think" or really even myself at all. It's always "She thinks" or "I think she might". And sometimes there are questions I can't answer because I won't know what my character's going to do until she's in that situation. I am NOT my character. I may be the person typing, but she says, does, and thinks things, I wouldn't.

I won't deny I'm the person playing, because I am, but I am not my character. Perhaps you don't believe in true separation, but I do. I don't spend time thinking about the other player, because I am not in this game. What I think doesn't matter, what I feel doesn't matter. What matters is what my character does/thinks. It's about what she does. It's about experiencing thing world THROUGH her, and absolutely nothing else.

The idea of 'opting out' of things is so entirely OOC it's ridiculous. As soon as you start enacting things like this, you start disrupting the continuity of other people's experiences. As it as been said, there are pickpocketing opt outs... just the same as there are in real life. Sometimes the roleplay isn't about catching the person in the situation, but about the discovery later and what your character chooses to do that at that point.

I am crazy, I have no problems admitting it. I wish more people were, the game would be a lot more fun.

<<The idea of 'opting out' of things is so entirely OOC it's ridiculous. As soon as you start enacting things like this, you start disrupting the continuity of other people's experiences. As it as been said, there are pickpocketing opt outs... just the same as there are in real life. Sometimes the roleplay isn't about catching the person in the situation, but about the discovery later and what your character chooses to do that at that point.>>

This.

<<I've corrected this point a million times. No, I don't take it as a personal assault on me as a player. I never said I did. I never implied I did. I've gone to considerable lengths to explain this. If you don't get it by now, you never will.>>

No. What you've done is turn every argument into a debate over the definition of various words, of which it seems clear that most everyone else understands perfectly but you. You use this as a distraction to avoid directly addressing the points being made in this thread. Your reason for supporting the opt out is that being stolen from bothers you, the player. You said so yourself, right here...

"I don't think being pickpocketed is a "horrible crime" against myself, personally. I never suggested it was. I simply don't care for that scenario. I don't find it interesting or rewarding, and I'd prefer not to be involved. If it was a GM-driven scenario, I could safely assume there was more to it than the self-serving RP of a single player. Players who steal rarely have much to offer in that vein. Surely there are exceptions, but they are rather rare."

"I simply don't care for that scenario."

There it is. Plain as day! Now I suppose you'll argue the degree to which you consider this an affront to yourself. But please, don't bother. Whether it's a "horrible crime" or barely a misdemeanor from your perspective, the underlying reason is the same: This bothers you as a player. It's okay! You can admit it! All I've been telling you all along is that you should strive not to feel that way by keeping things in perspective (You are not your character!). And in the event that you fall short, you should try even harder to block your emotions as a player from inappropriately influencing that of your character. The moment they do, you've taken the conflict where it should never have gone: OOC.

I also brought up your lack of faith in other players. Again, your own words:

"If it was a GM-driven scenario, I could safely assume there was more to it than the self-serving RP of a single player. Players who steal rarely have much to offer in that vein. Surely there are exceptions, but they are rather rare."

Roleplaying is a two-way street. You don't get a pass because your preferred style of roleplay is not antagonistic. You should be making your best effort to meet pickpockets halfway until they reveal their intentions one way or another. Roleplay should be acceptable regardless of whether the character is friendly or not. We're supposed to be able to handle those interactions objectively, not request a mechanical switch to block out anyone whose character might not play nice with your own.

~Taverkin

The CHALLENGE verb is a great way to make the GM's job easier when it comes time to sorting out a player complaint over a PvP scenario. But it's of limited use to players. It only really applies at the point where the characters come to blows. If used prior to that point, it's just a good way to make the situation feel contrived. You've already made your intentions clear from the outset, rather than allowing the scenario to unfold naturally.

I'm usually not interested in killing other players unless they take the lead. It's kind of pointless in GS. At the same level it's whoever attacks first. There's not much to it. I just do it when the scenario calls for it, but it's rarely any fun. The lead up is always the most entertaining part, so all the better when we manage to settle our differences peacefully - or at least not settle, but not kill each other either!

~Taverkin

<<It removes the ability of people to steal from me, unbeknownst to me, and under circumstances I can do nothing about, other than never having silver on my person.



I never become enraged when people steal from me. In life if I left my purse and wallet wide open what would you say to me?

"Tough luck, lady. Maybe you should close your purse and wallet, duh."

It is the same concept in game. Do I think there should be some sort of device to keep your silvers from being snatched? Yes, but until they make one, I'll use a note. Simple things like keeping bags shut in high traffic areas and carrying a note work effectively and if you do happen to leave your container open, get some claws or some cursed gems, while it won't stop them, they may think twice about stealing from you again, for awhile at least.

---
The Tehir and the Illistimi's string puller
<<I know merchanting sessions for me usually end with me huddled in a corner, rasping about "Judgment Day" and talking about Terminators. --Auchand

So, I had to go to store earlier today. I was standing about 6th in line listening to the person at the front of the line argue with the cashier. This person had about 10 cans of cat food in the buggy. The cat food regularly cost $1.00 a can,( happen to buy that same kind every now and then for a kitten I have) this person said there was a sale sign on the cat food stating they were $.89 a can this weekend only.(wont say the store but something about a Rollback price) The cashier of course was using a scanner to ring things up, and had asked for someone to check for the sign.

After about 15 minutes of this, and still no one coming back with a price, Im thinking to myself why do I always pick the slow line, as I am watching the light over the register continue to flash again and again and again..

I am starting to feel agitated, the cashier is agitate, the person with the cat food is agitated, everyone in line is agitated. Finally, I walk back to the cat food myself, sure enough there is a sign, $.89 but its particular flavors,, not all of them (fine Print). I go back up front, the light is still flashing and flashing and flashing.. I walk around to the cashier and the woman and explain to the cashier what the problem is, the cashier explains to the customer, and the customer is still agitated because it was in fine print not clear.
I think to myself you know what there both right in my mind, but the line is still stuck. So I give the customer a $1, and say just pay her what it rang up for, here a $1 to cover the difference, Im tired of waiting in line as all the other lines are just as long.

The customer thanks me but refuses as she feels the store should make the effort....I explain to the customer that actually the store is right, even if I do agree its fine print. The customer is now agitated with me also..

As I was driving home I thought of this entire discussion. Who was the antagonist, who was not? I came to the conclusion, much of this entire thread (removing the theft parts) is just like the store. Its all about each persons perspective of every encounter, and there just is no way to clearly define personality or character conflicts and have it be remotely plausable.

We cannot walk around the grocery store with a flag over our head that says,, you may like my thoughts or not but this flag that I choose to have over me means you cant disagree with me, and on the reverse side, just because you dont have a flag over your head does not mean everyone wants to hear an argument about $1 .

In the sense that I'm not convincing anyone, I agree with your point. However, consider me the employee who saw the light flashing, checked the price to determine the issue, and then intervened to give the customer the price they wanted while allowing the cashier off the hook for responsibility. In other words, if you chose to accept my advice, regardless of whether or not you agree with the underlying perspective, your issue with the situation would be resolved.

Prove me wrong. Where is the flaw in my approach to roleplayed conflict? I've outlined it several times. If each of us chose to take the responsibility on ourselves to not only meet other players halfway, but MORE than halfway by remaining objective and attempting to steer the interaction in an IC direction (because antagonist or protagonist, this is ultimately what we want, right?). And if it fails? Walk away. Be the bigger person. Can you find any reason to believe we wouldn't see more roleplaying with such an approach? And not only more roleplay in general, but with players taking a more objective approach, we'd be better able to handle roleplayed conflict.

All I get is "I don't wanna be stolen from!" Like I've said repeatedly, this completely misses the point. It's why the thread was moved here in the first place!

~Taverkin

---

I was hoping we wouldn't devolve into the definition game, or picking pockets debate again (except as to illustrate a conflict situation). I am going to continue to refrain from some folks belaboring such. Disregard the protagonist vs antagonist analogy, and focus on what is considered positive actions vs negative ones within the scope of the game.

Also, disregard any comments relating the the separation of player and character as it has no VALUE to the discussion at hand. The discussion was opened to "role-playing" the various parts in the game, much like a stage and actors. A stage is a made up world on which actors portray a role. Simply put. I hope everybody gets that.

Now consider that players (actors) in this game have their own agenda and preferable play interactions, one cannot really separate this from themselves as players or in character from the game itself. Either you enjoy participating in a long drawn out GM run invasion, or you don't. Either you come to play this game to get away from the stresses of daily life for a bit of pleasurable killing of monsters (which rarely effects another adversely) or you don't. If it doesn't give you pleasure as a player in the interactions (conflicts or otherwise) then likely you will stop playing this game entirely. That's a bad thing.

Not everybody is going to be open to every kind of interaction in the game. Many are going to be solitary players focused on their "brand" of fun. That's what makes this game so wonderful. There are numerous ways for player to enjoy the game, and many do not involve conflicts with another. Some players thrive on conflicts, as it is apparent with the likes of ISMANO, and BLACKKOBOLD, on these forums and apparently wanting the same in game. This isn't an attempt to label someone good or bad, but a preference to game-play style, or whatever the mood that fancy you at the time.

I cannot support any form of an opt out system, as that will essentially eliminate any kind of confrontation between characters. If that were the case I'd opt out from dying in the Bowels when a stupid Jarl is on the ground stunned and about to be vanquished to nail me in the neck with a stone-fist crit, the second he became unstunned. As much as I hate that, I will only work toward refining my hunting tactics to eliminate that possibility, or bring it to near zero probably. That is natural for anybody playing this game to do. But without a chance of dying, or any other such thing there is no challenge left.

Conflicts between players as characters will always create some emotions on the part of the players involved. You cannot deny this because without that emotion running high there is exactly NO POINT in playing out the conflict to begin with, except in the case of OOC PvP. The one instigating is emotionally charged by it as much as the one who is the focus of it. Willingly or not. Having said that much, it is always the responsibility of the instigator to make a proper judgement of whether the intended target for their antics is going to be receptive to it. It is silly to think it works the same in reverse. The one who is targeted didn't make any conscious choice to become a part of a role-playing conflict. Often they NEVER are conscious of it before the act of instigation by an antagonist INITIALLY.

Obviously, once there becomes a history and reputation of a conflict between players (in character) there will then be precedence for further conflicts unless it was somehow resolved to a conclusion by both parties at the onset. It may very well be later, another day, a month that the conflict may be resumed, or broken out of any prior settled matter. Reputation precedes you, and often it will be less surprising and wholly within the continuing saga between said characters to act out further that conflict. In all cases there must be consent by BOTH parties to ACT out a conflict. Nobody can dispute that. It is when a conflict ceases (or never was) considered fun by one or the other that it ought to be immediately disengaged, and dropped. Trying to impress your antagonistic antics onto an unwilling player is a recipe for a full blown OOC PvP conflict. That does not promote good role-playing.

And yes the said wizard was Edward, Tav. He was a good guy at heart, but like I said, he "seemed" clueless (or indifferent at the time) to the agony and grief he caused numerous players in the area. He eventually "got it" that some people didn't appreciate our efforts of clearing out all them zombies in the most efficient manner that we had developed. I was also the focus some folks ire for similar tactics as a young mana starved wizard early in the day when cloud (or area of affect) spells were more player unfriendly. In every case, I played it out as a player, but kept the discussion wholly within character. Basically, I was guaranteed to get grief by someone witnessing me using such clouds/storms even in remote areas where I was the sole hunter, and get a lecture on the evils of my ways. Sadly, it totally destroyed my initial concept for Zizzle as a storm wizard, and perpetually keeping thus about myself.

Even still I would always stay within character and accommodate those around me, or convince them to JOIN me and hunt together and enjoy the benefit that my spells had to offer. While I succeeded many times in that endeavor, I couldn't shake the prevailing bad reputation those spells had, and the apparent immediate feral reactions I was forced to deal with the second someone came into the room I had a storm in, until it eventually came to be that I forsook the practice entirely to avoid the eventual conflict it would caused.

Quite simply, I do not come to play this game to cause conflicts between players. Most of my characters are in that boat, and will forever seek to avoid any such conflict. I get far enough drama in my real life that coming to play a game, I seek more of a cooperative game-play (mostly through hunting), than cooperative conflicts between characters. It'll happen from time to time, and I may rise to the occasion IF I am in the mood for it, otherwise like HeatherHaze, it simply isn't fun for me to play out those scenarios all the time.

--Zizzle

<<Then just say so! I can't speak for everyone, but if what I'm doing IC bothers you as a player, then tell me and chances are I will try my best to accommodate you. If you don't want to play characters that cause conflict, then don't. You know what started this debate and we appear to be in agreement at this point. I just don't support the opt out, and I have what I feel are very good reasons for that.>>

---

I think that is what we have been saying all along. Some of us do not want the conflict to begin with. Consider it a blanket statement by me for me, I'll let others chime in their views.

Not to bring up the pick pocket thing, but for illustration purposes here only. When someone engages in picking pockets, they should expect a conflict to occur. Initially it may not be consented to, but should start out tentatively as such. In the case of successful theft the victim is none the wiser, and no conflict is to be had. In those cases ignorance makes it irrelevant whether there is a role-playing event or not. However, if the thief was prepared to play it out if caught, there is a possibility to role-play it out by the victim.

I used my recent example in the graveyard theft attempt to illustrate that either the thief had no intention of role-playing at all, or was blatantly just stealing from everybody in the wilds and run off to other hunting grounds and completely avoiding any confrontation along the way. The argument that I should have attempted to play out the scene falls completely flat, as there was no scene to play out. I caught him red-handed and he moved along before I had a chance to utter a single word, let alone to perform any kind of role-playing action. My question is, was that a role-playing opportunity lost by me? I didn't initiate it. I didn't ask for it, but was ready and willing to play it out then and there. I am sure my then level 5 monk wouldn't have had a chance against the thief, as I am sure he was on his way into the higher level hunting grounds in the graveyard. Regardless, my monk wouldn't have just attack either. I was immediately ready to chastise him verbally IN CHARACTER if given the opportunity.

I wasn't upset personally, as I do not care that much about getting stolen from, but was a bit sad that whatever role-playing could have happened might have been something more than the NOTHING it was. I am not sure how anybody can blame the victim in this as they had no real choice, and zero recourse when this kind of thing happens. To me it is blatant mechanical abuse of a skill along the lines of someone coming along and taking a swing at me and running away.

When I say that the instigator has the sole responsibility to play out his part of the conflict, I do not mean that the victim cannot play their part as well, but rather that the instigator is the one driving the conflict. Not the other way around. Unless you know before hand that somebody will be a good candidate for the conflict, you are treading on unknown territory and may never know the full extent of your actions against them. The unwilling (or unwitting if you will) can only react to the affront caused by the antagonist and it may not have been at a good time for the victim to play along.

--Zizzle

>I used my recent example in the graveyard theft attempt to illustrate that either the thief had no intention of role-playing at all, or was blatantly just stealing from everybody in the wilds and run off to other hunting grounds and completely avoiding any confrontation along the way. The argument that I should have attempted to play out the scene falls completely flat, as there was no scene to play out. I caught him red-handed and he moved along before I had a chance to utter a single word, let alone to perform any kind of role-playing action.
--Zizzle

There's been no argument, from anybody, that this type of thing doesn't happen. However, as plenty have pointed out, it doesn't happen this way 100% of the time and never has.

This second part is the key though:
> I didn't ask for it, but was ready and willing to play it out then and there.... I was immediately ready to chastise him verbally IN CHARACTER if given the opportunity

The fact you were willing is the difference. And something that should happen all the time.

This isn't always the case when a player chooses to respond with their own annoyed feelings of being stolen from, instead of responding as their character should have.


-farmer

You do realize your analogy is off? Training in picket pockets would be like training in edged and training in perception should be like training in shield or dodge. By your way of thinking we should all train in weapons to better protect ourselves from them.

I think you are purposefully missing my point and applying how the mechanics currently work to suit your needs. I don't need to know how to successfully pick someones pockets in order to stop people from picking mine. One just needs general knowledge on how it is done and to be aware of their surroundings. Learning to pick pockets should likely help you to spot people with their hands in your pockets a little better but I don't think it should be a lot better then someone who trains in perception.

>>You usually train in perception for other things, not just to catch people stealing.

This is more your problem with it I think, perception is a very general skill with more then one facet and, to you, it shouldn't be able to defeat your more specialized/specific skill. A funny thing about that to, to be good at picking pockets you'd have to have a good awareness of what is going on around you to both spot marks and to avoid detection.

You also don't really have to concern yourself so much with my view on this either. It should be obvious that they aren't going to remove the skill of pick pocketing, nor are they going to change how it works, despite the recent commotion about it the staff have much bigger fish to fry.

Sanced nodes are useful for me so that I don't have to take my armor off to cast spells, but I still hate them for public places, and I tend to get annoyed with people who sanc public places. So, I am all for removing them. People who have enough ranks of pick pockets can actually pull out jaws traps that are still armed, which is hilarious but you need a very large number of ranks before it starts to happen. As far as closing your bags, I think that is reasonable that people can do it but not many people often close their bags unless a known thief is in the area.

Your weapon skill is not the best skill to train for defense. And perception is not the best skill to train for catching thieves. Does it help in both cases? Absolutely. But it's not the main skills for it.

---

My understanding is that Perception and Pickpcketing count equally for spotting a pickpocket (1x training in either would be equivalent). Are you saying that Pickpocket training weighs in stronger in the current implementation?

-- Robert