Evil's a matter of perspective. I'm sure the one being tortured and his friends considered it so.
it's not evil, it's pragmatic and a smart tactic. nothing in the paladins code forbids torture. and torture isn't an even an evil act. intellegent undead are assumed to be evil and a good paladin wants to see the undead follower suffer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if you meant torturing, perhaps, it depends on a lot of things
if you torture a vampire with sunlight to get information out of it that could help save a city, it can count as a necessary deed to rescue innocents
of course there are always those who either agree or not with a decision or action, so even ingame RP should represent different opinions on some events, probably even among various Inquisitors some deeds would be considered acceptable or even preferable while among others inacceptable and abhorrent
some knightly orders and thus I assume also paladins may list among things not to do like backstabbing, lying, or attacking fleeing/unarmed enemies also the ban on torturing, same can be true for some religions and thus clerics and just mere followers who take it seriously
if the vampire mentioned would be tortured just for fun and not to gather information of any kind, then yes I would list the deed among evil acts
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
it's not evil, it's pragmatic and a smart tactic. nothing in the paladins code forbids torture. and torture isn't an even an evil act. intellegent undead are assumed to be evil and a good paladin wants to see the undead follower suffer.
It's also hypocrisy like that, that causes no one to feel bad at all when a Paladin bites the dust.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Possibly evil, and certainly dishonorable (like poison). Combine that with lying about sparing the other guy and you have a paladin walking on thin ice. Probably a fall if he personally did the lying and torturing. (I assume that since you ask the question you care about that particular bit of baggage, not everyone does.)
Also, you can't apply selective spell to antimagic field.
a non-dumb paladin would probably consider if the undead may be good to begin with, also: not all paladins rush in battle ignoring surroundings, and not all of them follow laws strictly to the letter, especially if their Code of Honor is their very own, and not that of some religion or knightly order they follow
a paladin could just as well be a member of mostly chaotic good bandit band in a forest (let's call it Sherwood for simplicity) and attack rich folk that got rich by mistreating people, slavery, taking over lands by force, if he believes this is the right thing to do to help others on a grander scale
it's not evil, it's pragmatic and a smart tactic. nothing in the paladins code forbids torture. and torture isn't an even an evil act. intellegent undead are assumed to be evil and a good paladin wants to see the undead follower suffer.It's also hypocrisy like that, that causes no one to feel bad at all when a Paladin bites the dust.
so what if the paladin were to use a wand of cure light wounds to torture a bound helpless vampire then toss him out in the sun to die afterwards?
according to the paladin's god, there is no redemption for the undead, they are abominations who deserve the most painful deaths possible.
if i were a paladin, i would sever a few of the undead maguses digits, touch the base with a cure light wand, cut out his eye and force feed it to him like a grape as well. using positive energy to prevent the damage from regrowing. after i get what i want, knock him unconscious and toss him out into the sun.
| 35 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is evil. Doing something to someone evil does not make it less evil. PF/D&D does not support a means justify the ends concept. That is how evil works, and the fact that "good" is not supposed to operate like that is the only thing separating them from evil.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
it's evil in my book, but I often get criticised for my Disney view of alignments, even if the alignment implimentation suggests a Disney view of the initial developers in my opinion.
But also it's pragmatic and smart of course, but still plain evil because it's torturing. Either they can feel pain, and it's evil, or they don't feel pain, then it's not torturing because they have no incentive at all to give you information.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
it's not evil, it's pragmatic and a smart tactic. nothing in the paladins code forbids torture. and torture isn't an even an evil act. intellegent undead are assumed to be evil and a good paladin wants to see the undead follower suffer.It's also hypocrisy like that, that causes no one to feel bad at all when a Paladin bites the dust.so what if the paladin were to use a wand of cure light wounds to torture a bound helpless vampire then toss him out in the sun to die afterwards?
according to the paladin's god, there is no redemption for the undead, they are abominations who deserve the most painful deaths possible.
if i were a paladin, i would sever a few of the undead maguses digits, touch the base with a cure light wand, cut out his eye and force feed it to him like a grape as well. using positive energy to prevent the damage from regrowing. after i get what i want, knock him unconscious and toss him out into the sun.
That sounds a lot like a paladin who fell into the trap of replacing the belief of "I'm righteous because I do good and righteous things" with "Since I'm righteous, whatever I do must be righteous and good by default".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is evil. Doing something to someone evil does not make it less evil. PF/D&D does not support a means justify the ends concept. That is how evil works, and the fact that "good" is not supposed to operate like that is the only thing separating them from evil.
nothing in the paladins code forbids torture, and even though it is perceieved in the real world as an evil act. you are talking about a 3 decade old game that was originally based off a wargame that was loosely inspired by a series of fictional sources that took place in a setting where torture is a perfectly valid means to get information.
we aren't playing Disney Princesses D20.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PRD uses the conjunction "and", seems you've got an old copy.
Also, Shuriken's proposed god sounds kind of evil, what with the demand for suffering. Administering pain in retribution for sins is a devil's job.
it's not evil, it's pragmatic and a smart tactic. nothing in the paladins code forbids torture. and torture isn't an even an evil act. intellegent undead are assumed to be evil and a good paladin wants to see the undead follower suffer.It's also hypocrisy like that, that causes no one to feel bad at all when a Paladin bites the dust.so what if the paladin were to use a wand of cure light wounds to torture a bound helpless vampire then toss him out in the sun to die afterwards?
according to the paladin's god, there is no redemption for the undead, they are abominations who deserve the most painful deaths possible.
if i were a paladin, i would sever a few of the undead maguses digits, touch the base with a cure light wand, cut out his eye and force feed it to him like a grape as well. using positive energy to prevent the damage from regrowing. after i get what i want, knock him unconscious and toss him out into the sun.
it depends on the god of the paladin then, if it is an anti-undead god then if the paladin tortures and slaughters masses of evil and good undead the God will be happy with it
if the god is however against unnecessary harm and suffering, against torture and cruelty, then the paladin is likely to lose its powers
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
it's not evil, it's pragmatic and a smart tactic. nothing in the paladins code forbids torture. and torture isn't an even an evil act. intellegent undead are assumed to be evil and a good paladin wants to see the undead follower suffer.
wow, justify much?
Utilizing any form of harm to interrogate or otherwise punish a prisoner of war is morally, ethically, contrary to the humane condition. A creature, whether born of dark magic and evil intent, a normal human, or any other creature that thinks and feels ( a status that can be long debated in itself)is the target of the act, not a justification.
This is why we have the Geneva Convention, and why much of the German military was held accountable for atrocious acts after WWII (for detailed information that I'm referencing open a book, or wake up during history class, whichever most applies to your situation.)
So now that we understand that the ends rarely, if ever, justify the means, replace "intelligent evil undead" with "my family member" and see how it hypocritical you sound. that, or morally psychotic, in which case you need to see a medical professional. STAT!
The reason a Paladin has a code, and the replied to is just weaving interpretation into generalization, is to protect people from the paladin as well as the paladin protecting the people. How often in real history have we seen the label "evil" slapped on a minority, so we can.....oh say, enslave them, keep them from voting/integrating when they're finally freed, Taking thier land/women/children/wealth in general, converting them to christianity and obliterating their culture.
I can go on, but will assume I've made my point. If you have to justify any questionable act as 'for the good', just own up to doing an evil act. the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
PRD uses the conjunction "and", seems you've got an old copy.
Also, Shuriken's proposed god sounds kind of evil, what with the demand for suffering. Administering pain in retribution for sins is a devil's job.
it's no more evil than the church of the silver flame. my ebberron books say that they were Lawful Good and they did this kind of stuff too.
PRD uses the conjunction "and", seems you've got an old copy.
Also, Shuriken's proposed god sounds kind of evil, what with the demand for suffering. Administering pain in retribution for sins is a devil's job.
a god, even if called "good" that is a God of Vengeance can be a lot of times evil in its deeds and methods
a Vengeance god I think is a good example, in DnD they tend to be represented as chaotic good, but honestly I think they don't really qualify as good in majority of cases
Depends on whether or not you consider torture evil.
it depends on the god of the paladin then, if it is an anti-undead god then if the paladin tortures and slaughters masses of evil and good undead the God will be happy with it
if the god is however against unnecessary harm and suffering, against torture and cruelty, then the paladin is likely to lose its powers
see above post, and rules-wise, undead or any monster doesn't fall below zero or go unconscious, they die at zero. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's no more evil than the church of the silver flame. my ebberron books say that they were Lawful Good and they did this kind of stuff too.PRD uses the conjunction "and", seems you've got an old copy.
Also, Shuriken's proposed god sounds kind of evil, what with the demand for suffering. Administering pain in retribution for sins is a devil's job.
It's really hard to take the alignments given to organizations seriously at times, because iirc the Trust from Zilargo who were essentially secret police who encouraged paranoia and made dissenters into "un-people" were also LG.
it's evil to torture an innocent human bystander because they did nothing to deserve the pain. but it's good to torture an intellegent undead because they did everything in thier power to deserve it. slaying legions of human lives, feasting on humanity, creating more of thier tainted kin. undead shouldn't have rights because they became evil abominations who prey on men. nor should demons, devils or aberrations. all of which deserve the same suffering as an undead.
shadowmage: please don't take christianity and slam the whole generalization on it, it isn't as if other religions or cultures didn't do the same, that is not even a matter of religion, as groups of people in history constantly tried to subdue those that were not of their own group, be it for religious, cultural, skin color, language, gender, territory owned, or any other imaginable reason
Using RL examples is not a good thing anyway, even Geneva convention doesn't matter as in a game world morals may be different plus that agreement is pretty recent in our history anyway, and usually gets ignored anyway but that is done out of sight of the community/media
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
it's evil to torture an innocent human bystander because they did nothing to deserve the pain. but it's good to torture an intellegent undead because they did everything in thier power to deserve it. slaying legions of human lives, feasting on humanity, creating more of thier tainted kin.
Then a morally right and lawful defender of the innocent would seek to destroy said "evil" not keep it around, performing evil acts to garner information on the off chance that said coerced information pans out.
again, justifying an evil act with evil. two wrongs don't make a right. we can euphemize this subject all day long.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"it's evil to torture an innocent human bystander because they did nothing to deserve the pain. but it's good to torture an intellegent undead because they did everything in thier power to deserve it. slaying legions of human lives, feasting on humanity, creating more of thier tainted kin."
So, what about undead that were turned without them wanting to? without them ever making others into one, or attacking anyone without a good reason or for self defense?
and what about wizards who became one just to gain immortality so they can be an eternal bookworm in some hidden library? what about elven liches that are chosen as guardians of burial grounds and ancient cities, or of secrets and lore?
Not all undead are evil, just because they are undead, that is what I call generalization
Sure, some religions and paladins and such, like inquisitors or witch hunters may be perfectly fine with eradicating anything and everything, but that doesn't make it right from an outside perspective
i'm racist against undead, aberrations, evil aligned outsiders and space aliens. i believe all 4 of those groups are to be enslaved by the human race and given the worst of treatments. monstrous humanoids such as lycanthropes or gnolls might as well be aberrations.
Not all undead are evil, just because they are undead, that is what I call generalization
I agree with you, but I think it's one of the nonsensical rules as worded that all undead are evil, but then again that's probably just because Paizo likes things unambiguous.
i'm just playing around with the all undead are evil rule and having a little too much fun yanking chains.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, sorry I went and used "real life" in a subject thread that said nothing about being an "in game" subject.
I'm truly sorry I used referenced the all-mighty christianity for their acts in the crusades, and are even now, travelling in droves to third world countries indoctrinating natives in asia and africa because they have nothing else to believe in under brutal dictatorial rulerships.
I'm sorry I used "real life" historical references as recent as 70 years ago to support my argument.
If you're going to wave the "oh, we were discussing an imaginary society moral" flag, you've already lost the argument.
i'm racist against undead, aberrations, evil aligned outsiders and space aliens. i believe all 4 of those groups are to be enslaved by the human race and given the worst of treatments. monstrous humanoids such as lycanthropes or gnolls might as well be aberrations.
okay, this is the moment where I realize the thread became trolled, and I slowly back out the door
i'm just playing around with the all undead are evil rule and having a little too much fun yanking chains.
Forum Troll wins.
i'm just playing around with the all undead are evil rule and having a little too much fun yanking chains.
You did a good job with it :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, sorry I went and used "real life" in a subject thread that said nothing about being an "in game" subject.
I'm truly sorry I used referenced the all-mighty christianity for their acts in the crusades, and are even now, travelling in droves to third world countries indoctrinating natives in asia and africa because they have nothing else to believe in under brutal dictatorial rulerships.
I'm sorry I used "real life" historical references as recent as 70 years ago to support my argument.
If you're going to wave the "oh, we were discussing an imaginary society moral" flag, you've already lost the argument.
no, read what I wrote: no other group, be it religious, cultural, or anything else is better than christianity, since ancient times one group (be it a culture, clan, nation, religion, or anything) was never any different
just as your examples of what christians did it is also true that arabs conquered and spread out in north africa and eradicated last remnants of ancient egyptean and persian cultures, also similar to how communism tried to dominate the lives of people and make decisions for them on how to live, or how caucasians spread out in the world or recently how han chinese repopulate wast amount of lands, same is true on how homo sapiens dominates the world to begin with
What I said was only that pulling the "ooh religion is evil, especially christianity" card is nonsense. Because humanity is stupid with or without it the same way, and without this trait we wouldn't even be human.
EDIT: also, do you seriously need a clarification that it is an ingame subject if the question of the OP is about the morale aspects of torturing undead?
Either way, I'm off to work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is evil. Doing something to someone evil does not make it less evil. PF/D&D does not support a means justify the ends concept. That is how evil works, and the fact that "good" is not supposed to operate like that is the only thing separating them from evil.nothing in the paladins code forbids torture, and even though it is perceieved in the real world as an evil act. you are talking about a 3 decade old game that was originally based off a wargame that was loosely inspired by a series of fictional sources that took place in a setting where torture is a perfectly valid means to get information.
we aren't playing Disney Princesses D20.
We are playing PF which is based off of 3.5, and in 3.5 torture was evil. Note that PHB did not call torture out, but the BoVD which was written by Monte Cook who also wrote the PHB did call it out as evil.
Venkelvore(Barghest Hero) NE famine, graves, torture
Andirifkhu (Demon Lord) Temple dungeons, labyrinths, torture chambers
Agonize
School evocation [evil]; Level cleric 3, sorcerer/wizard 4You afflict a creature you have conjured via planar ally (or a
similar spell) with bolts of vicious energy. These foul energies
inflict terrible pain upon the summoned creature, torturing it
to make it more pliant to your will. The targeted creature must
make a Fortitude save or take a –1 penalty for every 2 levels you
possess (maximum –10) on all saves and checks made against
you for the next hour. In addition, creatures that demand
payment for their services reduce the payment by 20% for
every 4 levels you possess (maximum 60% reduction). However,
beings tortured by this spell quickly come to resent you, making
them more likely to try to pervert your orders to malicious ends
or try to seek retribution after their release. This spell has no
effect on creatures that are immune to nonlethal damage.
I am sure that it is no coincidence that torture is only associated with evil.
I should also point out that Kytons which are evil are also based on torture. I am sure that if Paizo writes a book on defined evil torture would be in there since James who is mostly in charge of fluff/flavor thinks it is evil.
Torture, in my opinion, is evil. If you torture someone, you're committing an evil act. Whether or not one act of torture is enough to change your alignment toward or to evil depends on a lot, though; on how heinous the torture is, on how often you do it, on the GM's interpretation of what is torture, and so on.
In any case, alignment itself doesn't allow or prevent anything. Alingment is a result of actions, not the cause of actions.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
we aren't playing Disney Princesses D20.
I find this highly ironic, as all of your characters (On the PbP/Aliases,etc..) seem to be...er, teenage girls.
Sure, you may be a teenage girl yourself, but somehow I doubt it (Thus, you are RPing a badass Disney Princess! =^><^= ).
Back On-Topic:
Justifying black and white Evil/Good calls, based upon one's prejudices is just...f-ing retarded.
Not every Undead wished the state upon themselves...In fact, the majority did not. Nobody says 'Hmm...I sure wish to become a Wraith! Awesome!
Sure, Liches do, but Vampires? Nope..
It is a failing of the designers that 'All vampires are CE' etc... All of our RPing campaigns would have more interesting options without that stipulation. Not all Vampires, as depicted in various media are 'Evil'.
(And no, I am not talking about Twilight, or even True Blood...
Barnabus Collins, the original...simply awesome character).
-Uriel
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
regardless wether the undead are evil or not, torture should be evil, at best a necesary evil. I do not think there was much reluctance to torture at all, which, in my opinion, trully makes it an evil act.
It is doubtful torture would work well against undead, they do not feel pain in the traditional manner do not suffer from low morale, sickness or the like. I think the magus had every reason to assume they would destroy it anyway, since they appeared quite ruthless, why even give them what they wanted ?
on the OP.
Is it an instant alignment change, no. Was it evil, not really. When does it become an issue or an alignment change, when it becomes the norm for the PC.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Evil.
If its evil doing it to a kitten then its evil doing it to a vampire.
The nature of the act is not dependent on the target.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Torturing someone for information is pretty much the definition of an Evil act, and a Paladin should fall for doing such a thing.
Now, assuming it works and important things are at stake, it's the kind of Evil act that a Good being might resort to without necessarily shifting Alignments (as long as it doesn't become a common occurence, anyway).
But, morality aside, it also doesn't work.
In the real world, torturing a lone enemy for information is a notoriously bad and unreliable tactic for information extraction, as they will say anything to make the torture stop...but that includes blatant and subtle lies as well as true statements. Torturing enough people who all have the same information is a viable tactic...but the numbers required (usually in the dozens...all of whom have to actually have the same info) make it even more morally repugnant. And a long (not short) term tactic as well, since you need to check every detail of all their stories against both the others being tortured and outside information sources. Even then, there's not any real evidence it delivers better information than other, more humane, interrogation methods.
In the game, there's no mechanical support for torture as a means of interrogation, and it is thus just a fancy description for an Intimidate check, which can be done in a number of other ways that are, in fact, not Evil acts.
So, in any game going by either the rules as they are, or following how the real world works, it's pointless and thus always an unjustified Evil.
In a game following the rules of certain media, where the Jack Bauer interrogation method is actually more effective, it's still Evil, but the kind of Evil that a Good character might occasionally perform in order to accomplish a greater good.
That depends on your view of ethics.
On the one hand you could consider that torture in and of itself is an evil practice, no matter who you are torturing. It is the act that is evil. It's a hardliner approach as it for instance would also condemn theft in any and all cases even if it's only for survival. It also means that all PC's are evil simply because killing for anything but self defence (and even then) is evil.
On the other hand you could consider that the results are the only things that matter and as you do good with the result the act can not be evil. This is a bit of a slippery slope though as you could justify things like genocide. It is the standard defence for many PC's, the question if it is actually any good.
Personally I'm of the opinion that good PC's don't exist and am closer to the first than to the second idea. Even good PC's only care about "their" people and feel justified to kill anyone else that threatens their existence, even if it's a simple matter of survival for the ones she's after. PC's actually do things that make us see real life people as monsters only because they target people of different ethnicities than their own while the PC targets a different race/species. Butchering goblins simply because they are goblins, things like that.
The DM in me doesn't like to see his baddies beaten, and likes even less the idea of my Lich's servants being brutally tortured for information. The players (a N Cleric and CG sorcerer) captured an intelligent undead (9th level Magus with Advanced and custom undead templates applied) in a way that I didn't fully anticipate. The sorcerer readied an action to cast AntiMagic field as he was again going to turn into his gaseous form and retreat. Party melee moved in and disarmed him, grappled, then pinned and then totally subdued him and tied him down.
At first glance it seemed Change Shape, Gaseous Form and most of his attacks are completely nullified by this spell. The sorcerer continually recast the spell as it was running out, and each cast was good for almost 2 hours. Naturally, baddy had nothing positive to say to the PCs and was going to serve his "master" until death. That is until the party Rogue started severing his digits, plucked his right eye out of socket and made him eat it and finally they resorted to torturing him to near death with positive energy (the min-maxing PCs used Selective Spell with Antimagic Field). Eventually he disclosed the location of his master after having lost a hand, an eye and both feet and being ritualistically tortured for a few hours. The party Paladin was running undead debuffs outside the barrier to discourage his friends from coming back to save him. (which as mindless and already wounded Chaotic Evil underlings, their controller wasn't even remotely considering rescuing one pawn).
The party melee unceremoniously decapitated the magus the same way they had his vampiric predecessor. (The players lied and said they would spare him if he sold his master out) For the Paladin's part, he virulently hates undead and has no interest in "redeeming" them, as his deity regards undead as abominations that are to be slaughtered on sight.
I am skimming your post for a 2nd time, and I have not read the entire thread, but selective spell feat does not work with antimagic field.
That depends on your view of ethics.
On the one hand you could consider that torture in and of itself is an evil practice, no matter who you are torturing. It is the act that is evil. It's a hardliner approach as it for instance would also condemn theft in any and all cases even if it's only for survival. It also means that all PC's are evil simply because killing for anything but self defence (and even then) is evil.
On the other hand you could consider that the results are the only things that matter and as you do good with the result the act can not be evil. This is a bit of a slippery slope though as you could justify things like genocide. It is the standard defence for many PC's, the question if it is actually any good.
Personally I'm of the opinion that good PC's don't exist and am closer to the first than to the second idea. Even good PC's only care about "their" people and feel justified to kill anyone else that threatens their existence, even if it's a simple matter of survival for the ones she's after. PC's actually do things that make us see real life people as monsters only because they target people of different ethnicities than their own while the PC targets a different race/species. Butchering goblins simply because they are goblins, things like that.
I don't think butchering goblins because they are goblins is as common as was. I know that once I started to GM I made monsters more than walking bags of XP. It took a while to get that point to some older players though. Yeah a goblin is more likely to be evil than the core races, but not every orc or goblin is evil, nor can they be killed "just because". This seems to be a stance I am seeing more and more.
That depends on your view of ethics.
In the real world, maybe/maybe not.
But this is a game with a long history of Objective Morality.
If the party is high enough level to cast several anti-magic spells they are high enough to have had first hand experience of outsiders that are Objective Morality incarnate.
The problem with that is that Objective Morality does not exist, not even in a game. If it would that would mean every single race would consider the exact same things good or evil. If so everyone who willingly associates with an evil outsider should consider themselves evil for doing so, yet they don't. It is a game that claims to have objective morality while it actually simply is the collective morality of it's creators and, to a lesser extent, users.
On the subject of Order vs Chaos I think it should be possible to come closer to an objective idea, though even there the associated outsiders are off. While Proteans representing chaos is going quite nicely Inevitables are the epitome of law and not order and law is only a possible expression of order but does not equate it. But this is all a bit off-topic.
In theory the game assumes all the same things are good or evil, but the evil people just don't care. When it comes to telling stories though it does not work out so well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's evil to torture an innocent human bystander because they did nothing to deserve the pain. but it's good to torture an intellegent undead because they did everything in thier power to deserve it. slaying legions of human lives, feasting on humanity, creating more of thier tainted kin. undead shouldn't have rights because they became evil abominations who prey on men. nor should demons, devils or aberrations. all of which deserve the same suffering as an undead.
Wait, my arguments are being slaughtered because I was speaking out of my ass (and I watch too much Fox)? Lol, I wuz just trolling yoo guiz. Trusty face-saving defense to the rescue!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is evil. Doing something to someone evil does not make it less evil. PF/D&D does not support a means justify the ends concept. That is how evil works, and the fact that "good" is not supposed to operate like that is the only thing separating them from evil.
I'm pretty comfortable that Wraith has reasonably stated a valid case I agree with, call this a +1.
I think it is reasonable to apply the principles of LOAC and Geneva convention - I'd hardly call that Disney.