Guard taking non-stolen soulgem
I stole the filled grand soulgem from Galbedir's desk in Balmora Mage's Guild and used it to enchant an item.
I acquired other empty grand soulgems legally later.
I was caught in a crime and after paying the fines the guard took away one of my empty grand soulgems.
This might have worked the same way in vanilla (not remembering), but I find it a bit frustrating.
Windows 8.1 64bit
#1 Updated by R. D. almost 2 years ago
I can confirm this happens.
FWIW, I also tested vanilla, and not one, but all three of the empty grand soulgems I gave myself through the console after stealing and disposing of Galbedir's filled grand soulgem were taken by a guard. I believe there's a known issue in vanilla with all items of a type being flagged as stolen if you take any one of them, which may be the reason.
OpenMW 0.39 64bit nightly (c64b8ab297)
Windows 7 64bit
#2 Updated by R. D. almost 2 years ago
BTW the OpenMW behavior seems reasonable to me. If you steal an item, get rid of it, then acquire another of the same item, it makes sense that a guard would confiscate it, either mistaking it for the stolen item or taking it as compensation for the unrecoverable original.
There might be a question about whether to treat filled soulgems and empty soulgems the same, but as far as confiscating goes, vanilla seems to treat them the same.
#3 Updated by katz . almost 2 years ago
R. D. wrote:
FWIW, I also tested vanilla, and not one, but all three of the empty grand soulgems I gave myself through the console after stealing and disposing of Galbedir's filled grand soulgem were taken by a guard.
The OpenMW behavior is certainly an improvement in that case.
I personally still find this strange, because why would a guard know that you were responsible for stealing a different item before. Ideally, being stolen should be the property of an instance of an item, not a whole item type.
#4 Updated by R. D. almost 2 years ago
why would a guard know that you were responsible for stealing a different item before. Ideally, being stolen should be the property of an instance of an item, not a whole item type.
Well, the way I pictured it was the player becomes "wanted" for stealing, for example, a grand soulgem from Galbedir. Then, when a guard catches you, they search your belongings and find a grand soulgem, and confiscate it either because they think it is the stolen one, or as a replacement for the stolen one.
I guess I will note here that in Oblivion, where items being stolen is tracked by "instance," non-stolen items are never confiscated, so this would match the behavior you are suggesting. Assuming the vanilla Morrowind behavior is not working as intended, it might be arguable about what Bethesda meant the system to do. For someone used to playing Oblivion (or maybe other Gamebryo games, haven't checked), the Morrowind and OpenMW behaviors might be unexpected.
#5 Updated by katz . almost 2 years ago
Well, the way you put it makes sense. Since you are a criminal the guards won't be fair and assume you are responsible for other crimes.
Tracking being stolen by instance is certainly a feature request, not a bug.
Tracking soulgem stolen status differently based on the contained soul may be worth considering though. So stealing the Winged Twilight grand soulgem will cause only one Winged Twilight grand soulgem confiscation.
#6 Updated by R. D. almost 2 years ago
Right, and sorry, I think I didn't understand you correctly at first. When you said
why would a guard know that you were responsible for stealing a different item before.
you probably meant why does a guard who catches you stealing an item right now somehow know that you stole something else before, too. But that deals with the whole issue of all guards in the game having sharing immediate and perfect knowledge of your crimes everywhere you do them, right? (Sorry if I misunderstood you) That's just how things are in vanilla, and OpenMW is first trying to just emulate without enhancements as I understand.
Yeah, about the soulgems, it could make sense to treat them differently. But as I said in vanilla it seems (from my one test that I wrote about above) that they treat them the same for confiscating, so this is a bit of a judgment call.
Also, I'm not sure if it's OK or not for us to be posting so much on one issue in the bugtracker, so I'm going to try to make this my last comment on this issue.