Theft is a non-confrontational physical resolution vector within the broader Conflict system. It is the attempt to resolve a state of Conflict over a resource by taking possession of it from another agent without their consent, typically through stealth or deception rather than force.

Within ATET, Theft is an act of narrative re-appropriation. It is a declaration, through action, that the thief’s claim to an object is more valid than the owner’s. This justification, whether righteous or self-serving, is the core of the act’s meaning.

The Justification for Theft

An agent does not simply “steal.” It acts on a Belief that re-frames the act from a crime into a necessity, a right, or even a duty. This internal narrative is crucial, as it determines the Eidos generated and the agent’s psychological response. The ActionAppraisalSystem will only favor Theft if a strong justifying Belief is present to offset the inherent risks of being caught.

Common justifying Beliefs, which often serve as the impetus for a StealItemGoal, include:

• Theological Justification (“Sacred Right”): An agent with a powerful Faith may believe an item held by an outsider or heretic rightfully belongs to their order.

  • Driving Belief: Item_X IS_PROPERTY_OF My_Faith.
  • Example: A Chorister stealing a “Harmonic Resonator” from a Cartographer, believing it to be a sacred relic of their “dreaming city.”

• Moral Justification (“Deserved Forfeiture”): An agent may believe the current owner is unworthy of the item due to their actions or character.

  • Driving Belief: Owner_Y IS_UNWORTHY_OF Item_X.
  • Example: A colonist stealing medical supplies from Joric in “Benevolent Leader,” believing his hoarding makes him undeserving.

• Need-Based Justification (“Primal Urgency”): An agent’s critical Need overrides social contracts. Their desperation makes their claim feel more legitimate than the owner’s comfort.

  • Driving Belief: My_Need_For_Item_X IS_GREATER_THAN Owner_Y's_Need.
  • Example: A starving agent stealing bread from a well-fed merchant.

• Utilitarian Justification (“Insignificant Loss”): An agent believes the owner is so wealthy or powerful that the loss of the item will be unnoticed and therefore cause no real harm.

  • Driving Belief: Theft_Of_Item_X WILL_CAUSE_NO_HARM_TO Owner_Y.
  • Example: A scavenger stealing a single power cell from a massive Hegemony depot.

• Systemic Justification (“A Cut of the Action”): An agent believes the theft is simply a form of unofficial tax or payment for a service, often in a lawless or corrupt system.

  • Driving Belief: I_AM_OWED Item_X AS_PAYMENT_FOR Protection_Service.
  • Example: A pirate or syndicate enforcer taking a “cut” from a local trader’s cargo.

The Mechanics of Theft

Unlike the overt confrontation of Violence, Theft is a system of stealth, opportunity, and risk management.

Solo vs. Organized Theft

• Solo Act: Most theft is opportunistic, carried out by a single agent. This is typically higher risk for the individual but has limited scope. Success relies on the agent’s personal skills (stealth, lock-picking, deception).
• Organized Act: Factions with a shared Faith or Goal (like a thieves’ guild or a rebel cell) can engage in organized theft. This is a far more complex operation, involving roles (Lookout, Distraction, Infiltrator) and coordinated action. The potential rewards are much greater, but so is the potential for betrayal and the scale of the social consequences if caught.

Consequences of Discovery

If an agent is caught in the act of theft, the situation immediately escalates into a direct Conflict in the Social or Physical Arena.

• Social Confrontation: The owner may attempt to publicly shame the thief, resulting in a severe loss of reputation and the application of a persistent IS_THIEF Belief by witnesses.
• Physical Confrontation: The owner or their allies may initiate a non-lethal brawl or, depending on the value of the item and the owner’s Beliefs, escalate directly to Violence.

The Eidic & Psychological Impact

The Eidos generated by an act of Theft is uniquely shaped by the justification behind it.

• An agent stealing out of desperate need might generate Eidos of Shame or Relief, but not necessarily Guilt.
• An agent stealing out of sacred duty might generate Eidos of Righteousness or Conviction, feeling no remorse whatsoever.
• An agent stealing for personal gain might generate Eidos of Cunning or Greed.

This ensures that “evil” is not a hard-coded mechanic. An act is defined by the agent’s internal narrative. A player who builds an Incarnation around the Faith of a holy warrior might see stealing a relic as their most heroic act, and the game’s systems will reflect that back to them through the Eidos they acquire.

The Player’s Experience

The player, like any agent, must have a motivation to steal, which will often be presented as an emergent Quest or a solution to a critical Need.

• The Opportunity: The UI might highlight an object of interest with information like “Owned by: [NPC Name]” and a prompt to initiate a steal attempt.
• The Risk/Reward: The interface would then communicate the risk factors—line of sight, security measures, proximity of guards—and the potential consequences of failure.
• The Narrative Choice: The player’s actions leading up to the theft—gathering information, creating a distraction, waiting for the right moment—are as much a part of the system as the final act itself. The game rewards clever planning over simple stat checks.

Theft provides a rich avenue for players who prefer to solve their problems with cunning and subterfuge rather than direct confrontation, while still carrying its own unique set of moral and narrative consequences.