| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hear hear.
Torture is always evil.
More info is needed to make a clear and complete answer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using those books (vile darkness and exalted deeds) to define alignment is insane. One says inflicting pain is evil, the other say using special holy poison to inflict the worst suffering possible is good.Hey, diss the silly Book of Exalted Deer all you want (the only useful thing in the whole g~#&*&n book is the twilight armor enchantment) but the Book of Vile Darkness is exactly what it says.
It came off more like Book Of Icky Grossness than real evil. Oh my slime and kinky sex, how vile. It didn't work for me
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have skimmed some posts, and I will say this-->. "The lesser of two evils is still evil."
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.
D&D / PF presents a world or moral absolutes. Torture is evil. So, arguably, to a lesser extent is lying and that's not exactly a small lie either. Some people will argue "practicality" or say the recipient was himself evil. It doesn't matter. Some will argue for the greater good or what the characters "intentions" were. The road to H3ll, as they say, is paved with good intentions. The characters actions are what you are judging. And evil, is evil. The Paladin hating the undead is no excuse. Destroying undead on sight is one thing, enjoying another being's pain is another. Evil acts committed for "the greater good" are still, in and of themselves, evil. My 2 cp and I'm sure others have their own interpretations.
|
| 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.
Two way street. When you act evil you own up to it. We are not playing heroes who want to torture and be good guys D20.
It disturbs me that it is.
Like, what the...?
|
Hard to say. I mean, evil undead are...a pickle, so to speak. According to canonical lore, the only way to retain your sanity and sense of self as an intelligent undead is through a long and convoluted ritual, and Count Tiriac still ended up being Evil...as a result, assaulting one has no...er...few moral repercussions.
But on the other hand, couple of things. To anyone with any training whatsoever and psychology, torture kind of stinks as an interrogation method, especially for an undead enemy. Good god, they don't even feel pain the same way we do, so chopping off their fingers is like...I dunno, picking your nose for a normal person. So, a.) it's pointlessly impractical.
Then, when you think about it, it does seem needlessly cruel. If they can cast Antimagic Field...why don't they just cast a freakin' Zone of Truth. Works just as well, much cleaner...and, well...the thing is, the torture seems needlessly cruel. If you fight a dude whose all like evil and stuff and he threatens to torture your loved ones, the first thing you do when you get him (assuming you're good aligned) is not to do exactly what he threatened to do to you, since that sort of reciprocity makes one a hypocrite, and hypocrisy is the first bane of the good alignment in many cases. In other words, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because he's evil doesn't mean you have to be so dang vicious. I mean, jeez. Those guys went all Ramsay Snow on him from the sound of things. It might not be evil per se, but man is it nasty, and it speaks about a disturbing willingness to do that sort of thing that even undead-hating gods might not approve of. Sarenrae hates undead, for instance, but I doubt she'd approve of a worshipper catching an undead, feeding them his/her extremities, and then doing the equivalent of force-feeding them bleach for hours on end and then healing them. I mean, there's disliking and slaying undead, and then there's going all Jack Bauer and getting those Geneva folks in a tizzy. ESPECIALLY since its needlessly cruel, see above.
One thing is, Generaly speaking PF deals with absolutes witch regards to good evil law and chaos there are probly some grey reas but those things probly fall in the realm of stealing lieing etc, Murder and torture fairly easily fall into the evil catagory.
However If you do insist there is a grey area, when that torture goes beyond 'roughing them up' into im re-enacting stuff from a horror movie on them then I think its kind of kicked grey area to the curb.
Paladins really have no grey area at all the moment they act in any way befitting a Hero in every positive sense of the word then they stop being a paladin.
|
We aren't discussing whether it's an effective method of information extraction or not. We're discussing whether it's morally evil. Paizo gets the final say on this, as Golarion (sp?) and it's cultures are their intellectual property. HOWEVER, most civilized real world cultures hold torture to be abhorently evil. Unfortunately, we always have the moral-relatavists (and Dick Cheney) arguing the point that it's 'justifiable'. At my table it doesn't fly. It's an evil act, and will be annotated on your chronicle sheet and advertised here for future GM's to see. If someone playing a paladin or cleric of good alignment would resort to such things at my table ... well, let's just say I'd go the 'extra mile' to see the character got what's coming to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to throw my vote into the "yes it is evil" camp.
However, I don't think that undead can be tortured. Torture is about causing the other person to be afraid and saying things they don't want to say. It taps into a person's animal-level fear of damage and pain.
Undead are immune to pain and mind effects (like fear). I don't think this is because they don't feel pain, since then they would injure themselves like leprosy sufferers. I think the undead lack the direct fear-response to pain and danger. In a way, an intelligent undead is perfectly aware of its urges and feelings and can freely ignore them.
Possibly the only way to torture a vampire would be to deprive it of blood, since as far as I know that is the only urge they have left.
D&D / PF presents a world or moral absolutes.
Yeah, they do try to be that way, but I always feel a little disgusted by the implications, like someone sat down and thought "it would be great if you could be justified in hating someone just because they look different or have a different culture so lets make it a reasonable stance in this fantasy world", like the escapist part of you wants racism to be justified. Not saying this to you in particular, person I'm quoting, it's just a thought I get when I think about the idea of wanting absolutes in a fantasy setting.
That aside, I find the idea of enforcing clear cut good and evil immersion breaking if its meant to be just the way the world is, as opposed to a construct made by the people in the world. Still, with a world of beings with infinite power and mortal failings, it's understandable that they could force their views (especially on their followers. Makes me wonder if a Paladin's "detect evil" is more like "detect what my god disagrees with").
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
D&D / PF presents a world or moral absolutes.Yeah, they do try to be that way, but I always feel a little disgusted by the implications, like someone sat down and thought "it would be great if you could be justified in hating someone just because they look different or have a different culture so lets make it a reasonable stance in this fantasy world", like the escapist part of you wants racism to be justified. Not saying this to you in particular, person I'm quoting, it's just a thought I get when I think about the idea of wanting absolutes in a fantasy setting.
To put your mind a bit at ease, the absolute apply more to actions than to races. The actual rules point out that alignment found in race/monster entries are the usual norm, not the absolute for all. That, and free will exists, so members of all mortal races can be of any alignment. After all, we run into a lot of evil elves and dwarves in published adventures despite both of them getting a G in their listed alignment in monster books.
(and heck, one of the Empyreal Lords in Pathfinder's setting is technically a risen fiend, which is a pretty glowing endorsement of "what you are matters less than who you choose to be")
The kitten has hidden a nuke that will detonate one hour from now in LA and is the only one who know where it is.
I'm always disturbed by the number of people who think torture is justifiable or acceptable.
So sitting on ones hands, when torturing a vile piece of undead garbage could save hundred or thousands of innocent lives. In fact a paladin that failed to save these innocents could/should face considerable repercussions from society for his failure to act. A social upheaval could lead to persecution of the paladins deity, a justifiable persecution.
I personally couldn't stand there and do nothing because some uptight artificial moral code/divine edict. I'd be driving wooden stakes into every vital organ of that blood sucker in reverse alphabetical order while smacking it along the side the head with a braid of garlic. And if that didn't get it talking I'd move on to water boarding, with holy water.
So, is raping a vampire Evil? I certainly think so.
Could be considered Chaotic as well. Got to check the local laws on necrophilia. ;) I'm having flashbacks to Oblivion's Falanu Hlaalu.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The kitten has hidden a nuke that will detonate one hour from now in LA and is the only one who know where it is.
As I noted in my first post here, this is, in point of fact, not a situation where torture is remotely useful, all morality aside. That's simply not how torture works.
So sitting on ones hands, when torturing a vile piece of undead garbage could save hundred or thousands of innocent lives. In fact a paladin that failed to save these innocents could/should face considerable repercussions from society for his failure to act. A social upheaval could lead to persecution of the paladins deity, a justifiable persecution.
I personally couldn't stand there and do nothing because some uptight artificial moral code/divine edict. I'd be driving wooden stakes into every vital organ of that blood sucker in reverse alphabetical order while smacking it along the side the head with a braid of garlic. And if that didn't get it talking I'd move on to water boarding, with holy water.
Uh huh. Did you read my original post? Because it actually specifically addressed this.
Basically: If you're living in a world where it's a remotely effective option, I think it's the kind of Evil act Good characters might perform without shifting Alignment. Still Evil, though, and thus not Paladin-safe.
But quite frankly, the lie ("We'll let you live if you tell us.") seems to me to be just as likely to work all by itself, and to not even be an Evil act (I don't classify lying to Evil people as Evil). Which makes the 'necessity' of the torture somewhat dubious. Indeed, outside of hypotheticals there are almost always other alternatives at least (if not more) effective and far less morally repugnant.
Could be considered Chaotic as well. Got to check the local laws on necrophilia. ;) I'm having flashbacks to Oblivion's Falanu Hlaalu.
I'm not finding this all that funny. Though I have never played Oblivion.
Vampires are obligate serial killers. They're not going to wind up in Elysium. Once you end his undeath he will be subjected to horrors you can't duplicate or even imagine. You're not doing any real harm to the vampire by torturing it, you're delaying far worse by not killing it immediately.
If you know someone is evil killing them quickly is the cruelest thing you can do. At this point you can either ban all good alignments from adventuring or you can admit that the morality of actions depends on who they're done to.
Ignoring the 'vampires' actions don't impact the original soul's afterlife' bit, and the fact that not all Evil people wind up in a nasty afterlife according to Pathfinder, this whole attitude is still very problematic.
Indeed, this attitude justifies literally anything you do to Evil people or creatures. Literally anything. It thus rather makes any system of morality largely pointless, and is profoundly disgusting to me on a moral level.
|
|
Evil.
If you find your name as the Subject in a sentence where torture is the verb - you are doing evil. The object is immaterial.
If you are arguing Ends justifying means then welcome to Neutrality.
I argue that Ends don't justify Means, as by doing the torture for the benefit of society you are fundamentally corrupting the society by doing the torture.
Oh and BTW ... just my POV (but you knew that) :)
Alternatively you could just ask "what would Batman do?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alternatively you could just ask "what would Batman do?"
There are quite a few Batman continuities, so you can run from "no" to "hell yes" to the question of what Batman would be willing to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So sitting on ones hands, when torturing a vile piece of undead garbage could save hundred or thousands of innocent lives. In fact a paladin that failed to save these innocents could/should face considerable repercussions from society for his failure to act. A social upheaval could lead to persecution of the paladins deity, a justifiable persecution.
Okay, first of all it doesn't matter what kind of creature type you are. If you can be tortured doing so is evil. That this is about an undead is just a cheap excuse, living people can be far worse monsters than vampires.
Now let's assume the PCs were running against the clock to stop the boss from extinguishing the sun forever (I've seen too many Dawnguard trailers) even though the OP didn't write anything about that. That's the point where you send the paladin away with someone away to go scouting. Then you start to threaten your prisoner (fun fact, torture is only bonuses on an intimidate check, something the inquisitor has as a class feature and that you can get with charisma buff spells etc.). You can explain to him that he can either tell you where his boss is, and live on in a world with normal day/night cycle until he crosses a vampire hunter or that there is a special reason that you didn't want your paladin here and it's not that he would disapprove of a deal with a vampire. Now if he absolutely didn't get the hint I would start using healing magic on him (no dismemberment, only stuff that can be reversed with a little bit of negative energy). And if that doesn't work threaten to kill him with sufficient force to back up that threat.Would that be an evil act? Most definitely. Would it shift my alignment? I hope not, in case it does I would seek out a priest of a good deity to atone. What does that make me? Someone who should not play a paladin or take exalted feats for the shiny benefits.
I personally couldn't stand there and do nothing because some uptight artificial moral code/divine edict. I'd be driving wooden stakes into every vital organ of that blood sucker in reverse alphabetical order while smacking it along the side the head with a braid of garlic. And if that didn't get it talking I'd move on to water boarding, with holy water.
Sooo, you would try to make him talk by burning off his face and tongue? Very smart....
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...paladin...hates undead...
Hatred leads to the dark side.
---
That said, I don't think the end justifies the means. Perhaps subjectively, it helps the paladin rationalize his actions. But it's still objectively evil, and he Falls.
A paladin who is truly committed to the Greater Good may at some point have to sacrifice himself, to Fall so that the rest may survive. One fallen paladin is a small price to pay to destroy great evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
seriously, a paladin that specialized to kill something be it dragons or undead or similar doesn't automatically have morale issues by doing so. torturing them? for no reason? now that is another issue
|
|
Would that be an evil act? Most definitely. Would it shift my alignment? I hope not, in case it does I would seek out a priest of a good deity to atone. What does that make me? Someone who should not play a paladin or take exalted feats for the shiny benefits.
Well said Navarion. I think that sums it up. It comes down to character concept.
I occasionally play a Paladin or good aligned character. I also have some in games that I run. I've not come across a game yet that wouldn't allow for me to have a chance of saving the day due to my alignment/character choice but that's for the PCs and GMs to work out.
It's not in the OP but I wonder if that was the ONLY way to get the information or if it was a character choice. If it was a question of torture or do nothing put to good aligned characters then it was a poor game. If it was a choice made by Good aligned characters then the abuse (and deceit to a lesser extent) as described in the OP (which is pretty extreme read again) would seem to indicate a change in alignment away from good.
That being said I have run a game with an evil PC who did bring torture to the table and I posed these questions to the Players as to what they thought and what they were going to do. The Good cleric said they'd leave the room at which point I asked if someone wanted to GM as I wasn't interested in running that. It was all happy families though as we are all great and respectful mates
Would that be an evil act? Most definitely. Would it shift my alignment? I hope not, in case it does I would seek out a priest of a good deity to atone. What does that make me? Someone who should not play a paladin or take exalted feats for the shiny benefits.Well said Navarion. I think that sums it up. It comes down to character concept.
I occasionally play a Paladin or good aligned character. I also have some in games that I run. I've not come across a game yet that wouldn't allow for me to have a chance of saving the day due to my alignment/character choice but that's for the PCs and GMs to work out.
It's not in the OP but I wonder if that was the ONLY way to get the information or if it was a character choice. If it was a question of torture or do nothing put to good aligned characters then it was a poor game. If it was a choice made by Good aligned characters then the abuse (and deceit to a lesser extent) as described in the OP (which is pretty extreme read again) would seem to indicate a change in alignment away from good.
That being said I have run a game with an evil PC who did bring torture to the table and I posed these questions to the Players as to what they thought and what they were going to do. The Good cleric said they'd leave the room at which point I asked if someone wanted to GM as I wasn't interested in running that. It was all happy families though as we are all great and respectful mates
IMO things like this are more chaotic than evil, a paladin in the example would risk not becoming evil or closer to it, but to become chaotic good
It's not in the OP but I wonder if that was the ONLY way to get the information or if it was a character choice. If it was a question of torture or do nothing put to good aligned characters then it was a poor game. If it was a choice made by Good aligned characters then the abuse (and deceit to a lesser extent) as described in the OP (which is pretty extreme read again) would seem to indicate a change in alignment away from good.
Same here. As far as I read it the party simply looked for an easy way to find their enemy.
IMO things like this are more chaotic than evil, a paladin in the example would risk not becoming evil or closer to it, but to become chaotic good
Sorry, but nothing about torture is chaotic. The afterlife where you are constantly tortured is the lawful evil one. What could be considered chaotic is the threat of torture or murder without the intent to actually do it. I don't know if anybody here has seen Crocodile Dundee II, there the protagonist strings a would-be assassin up upside down on the balcony and threatens to drop him unless he tells him where his boss is. However, one could argue that that is more of a use of bluff.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Re: Kitten has a nuke.
Keep in mind there's a difference between 'torture' and 'making you think you're being tortured' Especially in a magical/techonological sense.
For evil undead dude, using magic, a high bluff check, etc etc would allow you to perform all sorts of 'vays to make you talk.' Heck for a undead guy, killing him and then tossing a raise dead or reincarnate (remember the example PCs were tossing around a metamagicked AMS) puts him back among the living, where you can just toss off some charm magic and he's your best friend. Or for that matter, just kill him and speak with dead on the corpse.*
Also, the difference between torture and EIT is the safety of the person on the metaphorical rack. The PCs in this case had no regard for the undead's well being, and in fact were going to kill him anyway. Both also require the ability to mix questions you know the answer to with ones you don't know the answer to, so the target doesn't know when it's 'safe' to lie.
As others have said, the lying is what concerns me. The Paladin should fall, hard, if he's using the default code of 'no lying'. Lying by omission is still lying. IMHO, what makes playing 'good' a challenge is that the end doesn't justify the means.
Often times, the difference between good and evil blurs as time goes by.
If an evil act saves a city, that evil act eventually is likely to be shrouded in legend and myth to become a good act.
Sometimes the good act "in the now" turns out to cause more damage over time while the evil act "in the now" turns out to work out better.
Alexander the Great is rarely called out for being a conqueror. No one is screaming at the Irish for wiping the Picts out.
So, considering history has a certain "greying" effect on morality, and gods are "forever", would not a god have a significantly different scope by which they view actions?
I beleive it is often clear what is good and what is evil, people only want to justify their actions to do what they want.
It is clear if you go by the very black and white morality system built into fantasy gaming.
It is a lot less clear if you're the kind of DM that tries to represent morality more realistically as a whole lot of grey shades.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is though, the job of the Paladin is to represent the zenioth of the White end of the spectrum. The rest of the world can swim around in the grey, but what makes him unique is that his role is unasamedly unambiguous.
Thats right, it is a spectrum, but a spectrum has two ends, and he is one of them.
I just find that a very limiting view of a Paladin.
I see a Paladin like a combination of a crusader and a cop. You can have dirty cops, clean cops, rookie cops, old veterans.
It's like Space Marines. Some Space Marines follow the Codex Astartes like it is the air they breathe. Some chapters are a little looser with their interpretation but they maintain the spirit of the codex.
Some Paladins are going to follow the word of their god/church/organization word for word.
Some Paladins are going to maintain dedication to the spirit of the word, but may interpret slightly different methods of getting there.
It makes the Paladin class a LOT more three dimensional.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The thing is though, the job of the Paladin is to represent the zenioth of the White end of the spectrum. The rest of the world can swim around in the grey, but what makes him unique is that his role is unasamedly unambiguous.
Thats right, it is a spectrum, but a spectrum has two ends, and he is one of them.
Damnation Shifty!
Why do you always have to make my points clearer than I can? :P
|
|
We aren't discussing whether it's an effective method of information extraction or not. We're discussing whether it's morally evil. Paizo gets the final say on this, as Golarion (sp?) and it's cultures are their intellectual property. HOWEVER, most civilized real world cultures hold torture to be abhorently evil. Unfortunately, we always have the moral-relatavists (and Dick Cheney) arguing the point that it's 'justifiable'. At my table it doesn't fly. It's an evil act, and will be annotated on your chronicle sheet and advertised here for future GM's to see. If someone playing a paladin or cleric of good alignment would resort to such things at my table ... well, let's just say I'd go the 'extra mile' to see the character got what's coming to them.
Agreed. But to quickly clarify, I mentioned the effectiveness of the exchange to point out that not only is their behavior vicious, but its also petty, therefore eliminating any grey area whatsoever. If there was at least a purpose behind it, or if they had no other choice, I'd still call it evil, but then I'd also admit that at that point, I suppose under certain circumstances I could let it slide under Chaotic Neutral (then again, the person making the argument would have to have a tongue literally made out of silver to convince me of that, because I don't think any ends justify those means. Never ends well for fantasy protagonists to go that way, since its usually that thing the creepy demon seductress is whispering in their ear to do. In my experience, when a demon tells you something is a good idea, it usually isn;t). But since there's no purpose to what they're doing, they're just causing pain for the sake of pain, they are capital-E Evil.
P.S. to what Buddha668 said...erm...once again, I have to actively point out that they DID have a non-violent option. Although, to be fair, undead are not susceptible to that spell, Matthew Morris brings up a good point. Speak with Dead, Reincarnation, and all of that jazz also work just as well (they have a cleric and someone who can cast a metamagic AMF, they have A LOT of options).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just find that a very limiting view of a Paladin.
I see a Paladin like a combination of a crusader and a cop. You can have dirty cops, clean cops, rookie cops, old veterans.
It's like Space Marines. Some Space Marines follow the Codex Astartes like it is the air they breathe. Some chapters are a little looser with their interpretation but they maintain the spirit of the codex.
Some Paladins are going to follow the word of their god/church/organization word for word.
Some Paladins are going to maintain dedication to the spirit of the word, but may interpret slightly different methods of getting there.
It makes the Paladin class a LOT more three dimensional.
Then you are playing a holy crusader, you are not playing a Paladin.
It also shows a lack of vision on your behalf, not a 2d representation on mine.
St Francis of Assisi was a good man who was bent on doing good, Mahatma Ghandi was also a man prepared to die whilst seeting the example for good and promoting non-violent solutions to colonial rule, Mother Theresa likewise had her calling, and lets look at the acts of Jesus or Guatama Budhha - yet you would suggest that they are all mere carbon copies of each other and lack depth and development?
Sure there are dirty cops, however the high point of being a cop is being a GOOD cop. Perhaps the accord the Paladin felt in his heart was what got him noticed and blessed by the gods and had him ascend to Paladinhood, perhaps the gritty determination in the heart of his fellow was what left them as just plain fighters.
It's a hard road to tread and requires a good heart and a wise mind, it is not the path for everyone; the mistake is to accept that being the pinnacle of good is the same as being a fundamentalist or crusader.
Torturing aka consciously inflicting pain, is at least an "non-good" act.
I can see a neutral inquisitor doing this, but a lawful good paladin, who believes in doing good and providing justice, I don't see this as apropriate. If the undead was intelligent and performed evil deeds, he should either destroy it or if captured, turn over to appropriate authorities.
But the question is:
How do you torture a creature that doesn't feel pain?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just find that a very limiting view of a Paladin.
I see a Paladin like a combination of a crusader and a cop. You can have dirty cops, clean cops, rookie cops, old veterans.
It's like Space Marines. Some Space Marines follow the Codex Astartes like it is the air they breathe. Some chapters are a little looser with their interpretation but they maintain the spirit of the codex.
Some Paladins are going to follow the word of their god/church/organization word for word.
Some Paladins are going to maintain dedication to the spirit of the word, but may interpret slightly different methods of getting there.
It makes the Paladin class a LOT more three dimensional.
Then you are playing a holy crusader, you are not playing a Paladin.
It also shows a lack of vision on your behalf, not a 2d representation on mine.
St Francis of Assisi was a good man who was bent on doing good, Mahatma Ghandi was also a man prepared to die whilst seeting the example for good and promoting non-violent solutions to colonial rule, Mother Theresa likewise had her calling, and lets look at the acts of Jesus or Guatama Budhha - yet you would suggest that they are all mere carbon copies of each other and lack depth and development?
Sure there are dirty cops, however the high point of being a cop is being a GOOD cop. Perhaps the accord the Paladin felt in his heart was what got him noticed and blessed by the gods and had him ascend to Paladinhood, perhaps the gritty determination in the heart of his fellow was what left them as just plain fighters.
It's a hard road to tread and requires a good heart and a wise mind, it is not the path for everyone; the mistake is to accept that being the pinnacle of good is the same as being a fundamentalist or crusader.
Hey man, they're just different ways of looking at the same thing. Neither of us is right or wrong, we just see alignment a little differently.
I like to use the Real Alignments way of looking at things.
Lawful Good is, when filtered through Shalom Schwartz's "10 motivations", an adherence to Conformity/Tradition and Benevolence.
There are a million different ways to act on motivations related to Conformity/Tradition and Benevolence. Two people motivated by these exact things could have very different moralities.
Like me. I am, by the linked websites standards, Neutral Evil. That's my "real life" alignment. Now Neutral Evil sounds bad. It sounds like I'm evil. But when you filter NE through Shalom Schwartz's motivation wheel, I am simply someone motivated by Power and Achievement, and I have leanings to Chaotic Evil, which is hedonism.
When you put it that way, yeah, it describes me quite well. I am an achievement motivated guy who has a desire for power and I am heavily motivated by my more hedonistic desires. Sounds a lot more three dimensional than "Neutral Evil with a leaning toward Chaos".
The nice thing about looking at alignment this way is that a character can have multiple motivations from other alignments, just not likely completely opposite alignments. So an LG (again, that's tradition/conformity and benevolence) could even have "achievement" as a motivation, which is a traditionally NE motivation, but since it's not total opposite (CE, or Hedonism) he wouldn't "fall" for it.
I love that website, it change my entire view on running alignment in my games. I now have my players use these words for their alignment:
Righteous (Lawful Good) - Conformity/Tradition and Benevolence
Humane (Neutral Good) - Benevolence and Universalism
Transcendent (Chaotic Good) - Universalism and Self-Direction
Autonomous (Chaotic Neutral) - Self-Direction and Stimulation
Sybaritic (Chaotic Evil) - Hedonism
Ambitious (Neutral Evil) - Achievement and Power
Ascendent (Lawful Evil) - Power and Security
Orthodox (Lawful Neutral) - Security and Conformity/Tradition
Pragmatic (True Neutral) - (any values)
Or, for a more "path" related character
Path of Integrity (Lawful Good) - Conformity/Tradition and Benevolence
Path of Mercy (Neutral Good) - Benevolence and Universalism
Path of Liberty (Chaotic Good) - Universalism and Self-Direction
Path of Autonomy (Chaotic Neutral) - Self-Direction and Stimulation
Path of Luxury (Chaotic Evil) - Hedonism
Path of Supremacy (Neutral Evil) - Achievement and Power
Path of Ascendency (Lawful Evil) - Power and Security
Path of Harmony (Lawful Neutral) - Security and Conformity/Tradition
Path of Equity (True Neutral) - (any values)
|
|
Often times, the difference between good and evil blurs as time goes by.
If an evil act saves a city, that evil act eventually is likely to be shrouded in legend and myth to become a good act.
Sometimes the good act "in the now" turns out to cause more damage over time while the evil act "in the now" turns out to work out better.
Alexander the Great is rarely called out for being a conqueror. No one is screaming at the Irish for wiping the Picts out.
So, considering history has a certain "greying" effect on morality, and gods are "forever", would not a god have a significantly different scope by which they view actions?
A good point, but two quick things. First off, this all depends on what type of God he's following. For instance, while I'm sure Iomedae, or gods like her, would just say that "okay, well, in the end, this will benefit, so what the hay..." some other gods (like Shelyn) would probably find that their follower's willingness to use evil means to justify good ends a bit indicative of their personality, and in a way in which they wouldn't feel comfortable granting said person power. Plus, keep in mind that morality on a clerical/paladin scale is not historic, but personal. If the deity believes that person to be corrupt of character or spirit, they deny them power, regardless of what history says. Sure they might save the day, but some (not all) gods might not be entirely comfortable with them using their powers to save it quite like that...
Second point, I've always viewed the Consequentialist argument of morality as more Chaotic Good (since it depends on outcomes rather than a specific code of morality). Since a Paladin must remain Lawful Good, they can't afford to abide by a consequentialist attitude, since unlike a real world person, they aren't just "bound" by their principles, they're literally magically bound to them. Think of it like a contract. You agree to follow these specific guidelines, and in exchange, we give you radar vision and a glowing fire-sword. If you decide to not play by those guidelines, we take away your radar vision and fire sword. End of story. Another good character can get away with a consequentialist viewpoint. A Paladin cannot, since they DO have a set of black and white moral guidelines they must follow to maintain their powers. For a paladin, there are no shades of grey, because any shade other than white (pardon the metaphor) for a Paladin means they lose powers. They might not lose alignment per se, and the quest for atonement might not be particularly difficult compared to if they'd fallen in some other way, but thy would still Fall, and no amount of "ends justifying means" arguments would work here. For clerics...maybe. Depends on the god. For paladins...no sirree. For Inquisitors, btw, they can frequently get away with it since it specifically states they can do stuff for the Greater Good without losing their powers (within reason).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very interesting question, undead don't suffer morale effects, take ability score damage to physical stats, or ever have to make a fortitude save, so I don't think you could torture one with 'pain'.
"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." --core rule book p. 166
The important part being the 'dignity of sentient beings'. Intelligent undead are most certainly sentient beings and being tortured is not very good for your dignity.
So yeah according to the rules it looks like it is not a good action.
For whats it's worth this comes from someone who wants more real world Jack Bauer types running around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Physically torturing an undead would probably be more mental torture. Seeing your body slowly being destroyed before your eyes and knowing you will most likely have to exist out eternaty in that deformed state would constitute mental torture.
Also the interaction of positive energy and the negitive energy that keeps your body animate would cause some kind of discomfort.
Total aside, but that was sort of the reason explained in Robocop 2 as to why they couldn't make more successful Robocops.
The police officer couldn't deal with no having a physical body, so they'd often go psychotic and kill themselves.
The only reason why Murphy worked out is because he was deeply Catholic and had such a strong internal revulsion to suicide that he was able to stay sane.
So, yes, I could see even the undead (I would consider Robocop undead) have attachments to their body, regardless of the ability to feel pain.