|
Here's an interesting question.
So the players manage to round up a bad guy (who no doubt was trying to do something evil that would kill many people), and get all the useful information they can out of him or her. After they are done, the more sadistic people in the party take the bad guy out and gleefully torture the enemy to death.
Is this considered an Evil Act? If the enemy was an Evil character, is it not then that the act of punishing the Evil character is considered a Good Act? Or is torture considered an inherent evil?
(Let's leave out the use of torture for procuring information. I'm talking about using torture to exact justice and punishment upon Evil characters.)
I'm of the opinion that this is unquestionably an Evil act, but I am going by my own moral standards. I know morality works differently in the world of Pathfinder/D&D, where morality is more black and white (there are even spells that react to Good and Evil, after all).
Yeah that would probably ding to me as evil. Chaotic Evil, even.
Prolonging suffering is just sick and twisted. I don't care if they did murderer and burn the whole orphanage, just kill them on the spot then if your just going to kill them. Then just bury him, or burn him just so it's immediately harder to revive them.
|
I assume we talk humanoids here.
Torture = evil ?
I would say in a world like Golarion it depends on circumstances. There are still discussions if water boarding should be regarded torture or not.
If a group tries minimal force and damage to extract information then I'm unlikely to give a alignment in friction warning.
Gleefully torturing someone to death - You can bet that I will talk to the player/players afterwards and note this on the chronicle.
With Gleefully I assume they enjoy it. Carrying on until death seems to imply that is what they want.
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My rule of thumb is that in any story, you can tell who the bad guys are: they are the ones using torture.
The exception is farce, I think it was the 80's Dragnet movie that had the memorable use of the desk drawer as an interrogation technique. There are some campaigns done in that idiom but I don't see PFS as one of them.
W
|
Well let's see what the rules have to say.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Well, these are pretty broad terms, and don't really cover all the possible situations where torture might be used, but lets look at it in general. I don't see any part of gleeful torture that shows a respect for life or a concern for the dignity of the tortured. I don't see where the torturer can be said to be making a personal sacrifice. So gleeful torture certainly isn't a good act. Let's see if it meets the broad, general definition of evil.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Well here we go. Hurting or killing others, without qualms, simply because it is convenient, or even for sport. That sounds more like your example above.
Really though. I know alignment threads are sometimes contentious, and people often try to justify or vilify corner cases but I don't see this as a corner case. The OP seriously came in here and asked if characters gleefully torturing a creature to death was evil. Where the hell is your line if you have to ask if that's over it or not?
|
|
The powers that be have ruled that nothing is evil as long as it helps fulfill your faction mission. Justifying the torture as required by your faction is left as an exercise for the reader.
That isn't exactly true. I don't care to argue about this point, but, if you torture just for the "fun" of it with no other reason than to see the person/creature suffer, it is an evil act.
I don't recall any faction mission that advises to torture someone to death after you have all the information required for a action mission.
Also, regardless of faction mission, if you violate a class code of honor, such as paladin restrictions, you lose those powers.
|
|
if you have to torture to get information to complete the mission, and stop when you have said information....gray area.
if you get the information, then torture the guy to death. Clearly VERY EVIL.
The biggest difference is the inscentive. You can always argue greater good. in fact killing and cremating the evil guy after you get the info is likely to be "ok" alignment wise, simply because letting them live could cause a lot more problems than its worth.
but it's never ok to enjoy torturing someone to death for the fun of it.
Well, maybe Dexter, but he's only getting serial killers.
|
|
I would say torture, even for information, is always an evil act in Pathfinder. We're talking about a world where Speak With Dead exists. A world with Scrying. Augury. Torture will never be the only source of information, so if you need to torture someone for what they know, you're probably doing it wrong.
|
The rule about faction missions and actions taken to complete them not being considered evil on the soul of the actor, but rather on the one giving the order (faction head), does not mean you can take whatever action you want to complete said mission. Some faction missions specifically ask you to do things that could be considered evil (cut out that guy’s tongue while still alive), and in this case, the faction head ordering said mission would carry that guilt/taint. But if a faction mission tells you to get information from some guy, and you choose to torture him, that’s on your character, as diplomacy or straight intimidation could have worked.
|
|
if you have to torture to get information to complete the mission, and stop when you have said information....gray area.
if you get the information, then torture the guy to death. Clearly VERY EVIL.
The biggest difference is the inscentive. You can always argue greater good. in fact killing and cremating the evil guy after you get the info is likely to be "ok" alignment wise, simply because letting them live could cause a lot more problems than its worth.
but it's never ok to enjoy torturing someone to death for the fun of it.
Well, maybe Dexter, but he's only getting serial killers.
It's not even okay there. Dexter may be the protagonist of the series, but he's no hero. But examining that form of sociopathy which may be driven by biology is outside the scope of a gaming alignment mechanic.
Evil acts are no less evil because the target is more acceptable.
yeah, he even constantly calls himself a monster. He know's that he's evil.
Torture is a basically Evil act, but then there is the question of Burn notice where they often "do what's needed" including torture, but they have no intention of long term harm.
As Sean said
We're not in the world of wonky circumstances, we can just kill the guy and speak with dead, or charm them and make them talk. We simply don't need torture most of the time.
Here's an interesting question.
So the players manage to round up a bad guy (who no doubt was trying to do something evil that would kill many people), and get all the useful information they can out of him or her. After they are done, the more sadistic people in the party take the bad guy out and gleefully torture the enemy to death.
Is this considered an Evil Act? If the enemy was an Evil character, is it not then that the act of punishing the Evil character is considered a Good Act? Or is torture considered an inherent evil?
Well .. I think you sum this up in your first paragraph.. AFTER THEY ARE DONE. So right there.. you're saying they got all the information they wanted, and are done, and just decide to torture the guy for kicks. EVIL!!
Even if they hadn't gotten the information, torture is still an semi-evil act, there are much better ways to get information out of people. Specifically, zone of truth ( or other magic ). So torture would be "extreme" to say the least.
|
|
Some faction missions specifically ask you to do things that could be considered evil (cut out that guy’s tongue while still alive), and in this case, the faction head ordering said mission would carry that guilt/taint.This, is flat out contradicted by this:
Also, regardless of faction mission, if you violate a class code of honor, such as paladin restrictions, you lose those powers.I prefer the second version, but its a bit confusing at the moment...
You know I wasn't referring to class codes of honor. I was referring to things in general.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Torturing someone to death is certainly Evil.
Torturing for information probably is. Good people certainly wouldn't do it. I would imagine that the standard "enhanced interrogation" technique used by good aligned clerics/inquisitors/others is is to put someone in a comfy chair in a zone of truth and dominate them then ask whatever you want.
This honestly squicks me out more than the torture, since it is basically a paladin saying "Don't worry, I have unimpeachable moral standards. I'm not going to harm you, I'm just going to take your mental autonomy for a moment so that I can root around in your mind."
|
Torturing someone to death is certainly Evil.
Torturing for information probably is. Good people certainly wouldn't do it. I would imagine that the standard "enhanced interrogation" technique used by good aligned clerics/inquisitors/others is is to put someone in a comfy chair in a zone of truth and dominate them then ask whatever you want.
This honestly squicks me out more than the torture, since it is basically a paladin saying "Don't worry, I have unimpeachable moral standards. I'm not going to harm you, I'm just going to take your mental autonomy for a moment so that I can root around in your mind."
Its lawful good remember. Free will and individual choice take a back seat to the greater good.
|
|
Its lawful good remember. Free will and individual choice take a back seat to the greater good.Torturing someone to death is certainly Evil.
Torturing for information probably is. Good people certainly wouldn't do it. I would imagine that the standard "enhanced interrogation" technique used by good aligned clerics/inquisitors/others is is to put someone in a comfy chair in a zone of truth and dominate them then ask whatever you want.
This honestly squicks me out more than the torture, since it is basically a paladin saying "Don't worry, I have unimpeachable moral standards. I'm not going to harm you, I'm just going to take your mental autonomy for a moment so that I can root around in your mind."
Yeah, I can see a Lawful Good Inquisitor doing that, but not any Chaotic Good one. Heck, most Chaotics would probably have a severe problem with spells like Dominate to begin with. That doesn't change the fact that torture is certainly Evil, as it causes unnecessary suffering:
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts.
A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do.
Torture definitely fits in the first one if they want information. Could also fit under chaotic evil if someone is doing it out of hatred as well.
|
|
That doesn't change the fact that torture is certainly Evil, as it causes unnecessary sufferingWhat if it's not 'unnecessary'?
Please, don't leave us hanging. What, exactly, is "Necessary Suffering"?
Sometimes to win you may have to chose the lesser of two evils. Still evil.W
And then the Paladin smacks you upside the head and tells you "the lesser of two evils" is a false dichotomy.
That's right. Not all Paladins dump Int.
|
|
That doesn't change the fact that torture is certainly Evil, as it causes unnecessary sufferingWhat if it's not 'unnecessary'?
I fail to see how, in a magical world where there are a dozen alternate ways that can extract the information you need that torture could ever be construed as necessary. This is especially true when these other methods are proven to be much, much more reliable than torture!
Now, if you want to give me an extremely unlikely situation where a dozen unrelated circumstances conspired to produce a situation where torture is the only possible way out? Congratulations, it's still Evil. You just need an Atonement spell afterwards.
|
|
Its lawful good remember. Free will and individual choice take a back seat to the greater good.Torturing someone to death is certainly Evil.
Torturing for information probably is. Good people certainly wouldn't do it. I would imagine that the standard "enhanced interrogation" technique used by good aligned clerics/inquisitors/others is is to put someone in a comfy chair in a zone of truth and dominate them then ask whatever you want.
This honestly squicks me out more than the torture, since it is basically a paladin saying "Don't worry, I have unimpeachable moral standards. I'm not going to harm you, I'm just going to take your mental autonomy for a moment so that I can root around in your mind."
Yep, and thats why Chaotic is better at being good. ;) Also a great way to make antagonist paladins who are LG and still clearly in the wrong.
I agree that dominate person and charm person would be all sorts of illegal if the typical campaign setting worked anything like modern standards of morality.
|
|
Its lawful good remember. Free will and individual choice take a back seat to the greater good.Torturing someone to death is certainly Evil.
Torturing for information probably is. Good people certainly wouldn't do it. I would imagine that the standard "enhanced interrogation" technique used by good aligned clerics/inquisitors/others is is to put someone in a comfy chair in a zone of truth and dominate them then ask whatever you want.
This honestly squicks me out more than the torture, since it is basically a paladin saying "Don't worry, I have unimpeachable moral standards. I'm not going to harm you, I'm just going to take your mental autonomy for a moment so that I can root around in your mind."
Yep, and thats why Chaotic is better at being good. ;) Also a great way to make antagonist paladins who are LG and still clearly in the wrong.
I agree that dominate person and charm person would be all sorts of illegal if the typical campaign setting worked anything like modern standards of morality.
In Golarion, they are illegal in certain regions(River Kingdoms) and heavily frowned upon in others(Andoran), while still some embrace it wholeheartedly(Cheliax). It really does depend on the law-chaos axis.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
That doesn't change the fact that torture is certainly Evil, as it causes unnecessary sufferingWhat if it's not 'unnecessary'?Please, don't leave us hanging. What, exactly, is "Necessary Suffering"?
Sometimes to win you may have to chose the lesser of two evils. Still evil.W
And then the Paladin smacks you upside the head and tells you "the lesser of two evils" is a false dichotomy.
That's right. Not all Paladins dump Int.
Now I never studied philosophy and have never had cause to use words like syllogism. So I may be confused here but.... I always thought that a dilemma or dichotomy is only false and thus a logical fallacy:
If it is purporting to describe a situation where only options a or b exist when in fact there is at least option c.
Here I am saying that if to achieve a certain state of affairs that apparently requires doing something very bad or just a little bit bad both are still bad.
W
|
|
And then the Paladin smacks you upside the head and tells you "the lesser of two evils" is a false dichotomy.Now I never studied philosophy and have never had cause to use words like syllogism. So I may be confused here but.... I always thought that a dilemma or dichotomy is only false and thus a logical fallacy:
If it is purporting to describe a situation where only options a or b exist when in fact there is at least option c.
Here I am saying that if to achieve a certain state of affairs that apparently requires doing something very bad or just a little bit bad both are still bad.
W
I believe we agree with each other here, insofar as there is always a third option. (Discounting for the moment that all generalizations are false.)
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
I believe we agree with each other here, insofar as there is always a third option. (Discounting for the moment that all generalizations are false.)And then the Paladin smacks you upside the head and tells you "the lesser of two evils" is a false dichotomy.Now I never studied philosophy and have never had cause to use words like syllogism. So I may be confused here but.... I always thought that a dilemma or dichotomy is only false and thus a logical fallacy:
If it is purporting to describe a situation where only options a or b exist when in fact there is at least option c.
Here I am saying that if to achieve a certain state of affairs that apparently requires doing something very bad or just a little bit bad both are still bad.
W
The "Kobayashi Maru" philosophy goes further in that there is aparently always even a second option ;-)
I remember the scene from A Man For All Seasons where Thomas Moore's right hand man betrays him and gets rewarded with a position of great authority in Wales. Leading to this response:
“For Wales? Why Richard, it profit a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. . . but for Wales?!"
I kinda feel that way about torturing someone for an XP or PA.
W
|
|
I would say torture is "not good" if it's for information or a quest, as in a neutral person shouldn't have a problem with it.
Torture for any other reason is evil, since if you need to "off" someone you can simply kill them instead of torturing.
I would advise good-aligned characters against it entirely, and neutral-aligned characters would need to be careful of their motives.
|
|
I would say torture is "not good" if it's for information or a quest, as in a neutral person shouldn't have a problem with it.
Torture for any other reason is evil, since if you need to "off" someone you can simply kill them instead of torturing.
I would advise good-aligned characters against it entirely, and neutral-aligned characters would need to be careful of their motives.
I agree with you, in the sense that neutral characters can torture and not slide into evil. Torture is still an evil act though, it just so happens that torturing someone every now and then isn't enough to turn a person completely evil. It is, however, an act that a good character should be very much against.
|
|
That doesn't change the fact that torture is certainly Evil, as it causes unnecessary sufferingWhat if it's not 'unnecessary'?I fail to see how, in a magical world where there are a dozen alternate ways that can extract the information you need that torture could ever be construed as necessary. This is especially true when these other methods are proven to be much, much more reliable than torture!
Now, if you want to give me an extremely unlikely situation where a dozen unrelated circumstances conspired to produce a situation where torture is the only possible way out? Congratulations, it's still Evil. You just need an Atonement spell afterwards.
Not coming down on the side of torture, but...
In any given PFS game, the "world" is kind of irrelevant. The ways of extracting information are limited to the abilities of the 5-6 characters in the game. I've been in scenarios with no spellcasters fairly often, and most of the alternate ways to extract information--outside of Intimidate or Diplomacy--aren't available.
The bigger problem, I think, is that the situation is limited to the imaginations of the 5-6 players at the table. It's very easy to see the NPCs as "not real" and harming them as "not counting." Even worse, for most classes other than divine spellcasters, alignment itself doesn't really "count" to a lot of players, especially inexperienced ones.
Barring an official, in-character declaration against torture from the Pathfinder Society, it's usually going to be up to the GM to enforce a moral code or at least remind players that what they are about to do would violate their alignment. As a GM, I would probably suggest trying something else first or giving the players the Spock eyebrow with "Really? You're actually going to do that?" I've been lucky, though, that I haven't had to deal with this situation.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Good characters (not bound by an honour code) can torture w/o losing their goodliness, once in a while. The good player might (should?) hunt down an attonement, since it is an evil act, but it's not 'good bye cleric' anymore than a priest of Zon Kuthon saving an orphanage automatically kicks him out of the club.
Now *should* good characters torture? I guess it depends on what you call torture. Dexios (who's NG) used brand to mark some people attacking a fellow pathfinder with "Vandal" and told them the mark would fade after they did pennance (kind of true, it would fade in a couple days, by which time they'd have repaired the damage.) Is that torture? If so, then guilty.
Now going around and branding orphans? Clearly evil. In the OP's example, they crossed the line from, um, "aggressive interogation" to "the more sadistic people in the party take the bad guy out and gleefully torture the enemy to death."
So Mike says torture is evil. What is 'torture' and what is 'aggressive interrogation?'
|
|
Golarion is a world in which Planes of existence beyond the material are proven, as is the meddling of deities (as seen by spells conferred to their priests, incursions of their servitors, and so on). "Morality" is a tangible thing, detectable by spells and spell-like abilities, and is organized on axes - good/evil; law/chaos; neutral.
It's hard to argue for contemporary moral relativism in a world where "moral conviction" is not simply a state of mind, but a *thing* (demons, angels) and a *place* (The Abyss, Elysium).
At some level, though, the beings of the Prime Material plane - unlike their extra-planar counterparts - exercise a degree of free will and self-determination. "Outsiders" do not: demons are inherently evil (no, incarnately evil) and, say, azatas and incarnately good. They have no self-determination - indeed, they have no souls! It could be argued that they *are* souls, but they are "mechanical" representations of their ethos.
Now, is issue with torture isn't "pain" - killing an enemy "hurts", but that's seldom a debated issue - but the stripping away of the victim's self-determination (compulsion magic probably falls under the same category, but that's an issue for a different day): is that, objectively, an evil act? The one thing "beings with souls" - humanoids, monstrous humanoids, magical beasts, even aberrations (anything which can be the recipient of a Raise Dead) - have is their ability to self-determine: if there's ONE implied and shared moral principle on Golarion, it would seem to be *that*.
Torture, enslavement, ongoing compulsion, possession of humanoids (at the very least) - these seem to be, at their core, evil, at least from a Golarion-centric viewpoint.
Binding, controlling, torturing and so on of outsiders, undead and constructs would seem to be, by the same token, NOT *necessarily* evil - in some sense, these are all "things", not "beings".
(It's interesting to say "okay, here's the metaphysics of Golarion" and see what kinds of philosophical propositions precipitate from that: ethics, aesthetics, epistemology and so on...)