Torturing to Get Information


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

In light of the recent thread I started asking whether torturing after information was gained was considered an Evil Act (apparently it is) I want to ask the more interesting question then:

Is torturing a creature to get information out of it considered an Evil Act in Pathfinder Society?

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Yes.

3/5

Yes, and all the contrived situations that you can try to make up to justify it in certain circumstances don't help because of the existence of magic which can be used to make someone give up information without torture at all (charm and dominate as well as things like zone of truth).

The use of such magic is something that even a paladin can do, but it is still just as wrong as torture by our modern moral standards.

Grand Lodge 4/5 *

2 people marked this as a favorite.

How is this even a question? I can think of few "acts" more obviously evil. Espcially since as stated above, torture is just the lazy way or the cheap way to do it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Pathfinder Society is a world where people can maintain slaves and it's apparently not considered objectively Evil. I figure morality must just work differently in the world of Golarion.

Dark Archive 4/5

Yes torture is pretty much objectively evil. However, one evil action does not kick a Pathfinder out of the Society. Don't do it as a paladin, and don't make a habit of using it as your first choice.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
zean wrote:
Pathfinder Society is a world where people can maintain slaves and it's apparently not considered objectively Evil. I figure morality must just work differently in the world of Golarion.

No, the slavers just don't care about it being an evil act.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

Forget torture. Just give your victim a quick and painless death and then cast "Speak with Dead".
OR try the various "Charm" spells, or the bardic fascinate/suggestion combo.
Intimidation works wonders.

Dark Archive 4/5

TriOmegaZero wrote:
zean wrote:
Pathfinder Society is a world where people can maintain slaves and it's apparently not considered objectively Evil. I figure morality must just work differently in the world of Golarion.
No, the slavers just don't care about it being an evil act.

Slavery is not evil in Golarion, pretty sure.

The Exchange 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Torture in Golarian is SO unneeded. Besides the fact that torture victums often give WRONG information....

Use Detect Thoughts to get information from prisoners -

Diviner: "Who sent you to kill us?"
Mook: "You'll never make me talk!"
Diviner: "Where did you first meet this masked man?"
Mook: "huh?"
Diviner: "How much did he pay you? "
Mook "Hay! that's not fair!"
Diviner: "and where did you put the money?"
Mook "Now wait, that MY money!"
Diviner "Where were you going to meet him after the job?"
Mook "La-la-la-la, I can't hear you!!"

And it's SO much faster. You don't even have to wait for the Mook to reply before you ask the next question.


Of course, your group might not have the right spells available, or prepared.
Generally the contrived situation that justify torture are time-sensitive, so while magic might exist that's more effective than torture, if you don't have it ready then and there, it doesn't really matter.
And of course, your target does get a will save.

And killing helpless prisoners, just so you can question them easier, also pings my evil meter. If you killed them in the fight, then used Speak with Dead, that's different, but then you couldn't have tortured them anyway.

The Exchange 5/5

thejeff wrote:

Of course, your group might not have the right spells available, or prepared.

...snipping lots of good stuff...

well... yeah. But the same thing could be said about healing, or fighting swarms or fighting at range or flying or working underwater or etc.

We (as players) should try to be prepared for this, like we prepare for so many other thing that often pop up in the adventure. Ask yourself this question: How do you plan to get information from a Mook?

3/5

Executing prisoners to use Speak with Dead is not Evil. Most campaign worlds don't have a Geneva Convention governing the treatment of prisoners, so unless the prisoners in question are noble/important or managed to surrender with terms, I can't see even the super-Lawful having a problem with killing them in most situations. The Paladin might have to go get some ice-cream for everyone while the interrogation happens though, depending on the DM's views on paladins and plausible deniability.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Fun aside: I've played my LG cleric exactly twice. Both times, he's straight-up executed someone. Go figure, eh?

The Exchange 5/5

Saint Caleth wrote:
Executing prisoners to use Speak with Dead is not Evil. Most campaign worlds don't have a Geneva Convention governing the treatment of prisoners, so unless the prisoners in question are noble/important or managed to surrender with terms, I can't see even the super-Lawful having a problem with killing them in most situations. The Paladin might have to go get some ice-cream for everyone while the interrogation happens though, depending on the DM.

heard at many a table in my area during a melee:

"Don't kill 'em, they're worth more alive!"
then the Andorans try to kill the mooks before the Chelish/Qadiran/Osirion players can capture them...

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Fun aside: I've played my LG cleric exactly twice. Both times, he's straight-up executed someone. Go figure, eh?

Does he have ranks in Profession (Judge, Jury, and Executioner)?


Saint Caleth wrote:
Executing prisoners to use Speak with Dead is not Evil. Most campaign worlds don't have a Geneva Convention governing the treatment of prisoners, so unless the prisoners in question are noble/important or managed to surrender with terms, I can't see even the super-Lawful having a problem with killing them in most situations. The Paladin might have to go get some ice-cream for everyone while the interrogation happens though, depending on the DM's views on paladins and plausible deniability.

Can't the exact same argument be made for torture?

Sure, there were plenty of historical cultures where prisoners could be fairly casually killed. Torture was at least as common. Why is it different?

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Dylos wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Fun aside: I've played my LG cleric exactly twice. Both times, he's straight-up executed someone. Go figure, eh?
Does he have ranks in Profession (Judge, Jury, and Executioner)?

Cleric of Iomedae, so basically the same thing. ;)

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Executing prisoners isn't necessarily evil. Executing a prisoner just to use speak with dead on them is. Killing someone because its easier than dealing with them alive is evil.

Dealing with someone who has or hasn't negotiated terms of surrender is a question about the Law/Chaos axis. Why do people always get Order and Good confused?

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Mystic Lemur wrote:

Executing prisoners isn't necessarily evil. Executing a prisoner just to use speak with dead on them is. Killing someone because its easier than dealing with them alive is evil.

Dealing with someone who has or hasn't negotiated terms of surrender is a question about the Law/Chaos axis. Why do people always get Order and Good confused?

In my case, the people my LG cleric executed were a known mass-murderer and an evil necromancer.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Jiggy wrote:
Mystic Lemur wrote:

Executing prisoners isn't necessarily evil. Executing a prisoner just to use speak with dead on them is. Killing someone because its easier than dealing with them alive is evil.

Dealing with someone who has or hasn't negotiated terms of surrender is a question about the Law/Chaos axis. Why do people always get Order and Good confused?

In my case, the people my LG cleric executed were a known mass-murderer and an evil necromancer.

the mass-murderer I can understand, but "...an evil necromancer..."? I am sure there are other reasons that this individual had to die. "Evil" is not a captial offence. "Necromancer" is neither. What where his crimes?

3/5

thejeff wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
Executing prisoners to use Speak with Dead is not Evil. Most campaign worlds don't have a Geneva Convention governing the treatment of prisoners, so unless the prisoners in question are noble/important or managed to surrender with terms, I can't see even the super-Lawful having a problem with killing them in most situations. The Paladin might have to go get some ice-cream for everyone while the interrogation happens though, depending on the DM's views on paladins and plausible deniability.

Can't the exact same argument be made for torture?

Sure, there were plenty of historical cultures where prisoners could be fairly casually killed. Torture was at least as common. Why is it different?

Not really, because the standard here is the reasonable reduction of suffering, and possibly the preservation of as much honor as possible. A clean death meets this standard, even to the medieval mind. Torture most certainly does not.

Even cultures which were blase about killing had limits on the use of torture, so the difference was recognized even by those cultures.

Percy Footman wrote:
the mass-murderer I can understand, but "...an evil necromancer..."? I am sure there are other reasons that this individual had to die. "Evil" is not a captial offence. "Necromancer" is neither. What where his crimes?

Actually, I'm pretty sure that to a LG cleric, Evil is a capital offence.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Percy Footman wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Mystic Lemur wrote:

Executing prisoners isn't necessarily evil. Executing a prisoner just to use speak with dead on them is. Killing someone because its easier than dealing with them alive is evil.

Dealing with someone who has or hasn't negotiated terms of surrender is a question about the Law/Chaos axis. Why do people always get Order and Good confused?

In my case, the people my LG cleric executed were a known mass-murderer and an evil necromancer.
the mass-murderer I can understand, but "...an evil necromancer..."? I am sure there are other reasons that this individual had to die. "Evil" is not a captial offence. "Necromancer" is neither. What where his crimes?

Kidnapping and selling the victims as slaves (the slavery is of course not illegal in itself, but they weren't legitimate slaves). Additionally, these activities were conducted as part of an organized criminal group known to torture its enemies and wreak destruction upon innocent communities.

And finally, this cleric showed no remorse or sign of being involved due to desperation or any such thing.
In summary: an evil individual, with evil intentions, using evil magic, committing senseless acts of violence, kidnapping, trafficking in stolen goods, supporting an evil organization, and supporting (and likely personally committing) torture. She spat curses and threats even while we tried to reason with her after her defeat. In the end, I made the call that the best resolution was a (relatively quick and painless) death.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saint Caleth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
Executing prisoners to use Speak with Dead is not Evil. Most campaign worlds don't have a Geneva Convention governing the treatment of prisoners, so unless the prisoners in question are noble/important or managed to surrender with terms, I can't see even the super-Lawful having a problem with killing them in most situations. The Paladin might have to go get some ice-cream for everyone while the interrogation happens though, depending on the DM's views on paladins and plausible deniability.

Can't the exact same argument be made for torture?

Sure, there were plenty of historical cultures where prisoners could be fairly casually killed. Torture was at least as common. Why is it different?

Not really, because the standard here is the reasonable reduction of suffering, and possibly the preservation of as much honor as possible. A clean death meets this standard, even to the medieval mind. Torture most certainly does not.

Even cultures which were blase about killing had limits on the use of torture, so the difference was recognized even by those cultures.

Really? Torture as a political tool has been pretty much standard throughout history. If you include the standard "beating with a rubber hose" to get a confession, it continued pretty openly up to a few decades ago even in the US. (And less openly today, though we try to take measures against it.) And that's not to mention the War on Terror.

I don't think most adventuring parties are going to carrying around the full apparatus of torture, so it's mostly going to be crude beatings and cutting, along with healing to keep the victim from dying to quickly. That kind of thing has pretty much always been done. If it's been limited before the modern era, it's been limited to keep it in the hands of the powerful.

The Exchange 5/5

Saint Caleth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
Executing prisoners to use Speak with Dead is not Evil. Most campaign worlds don't have a Geneva Convention governing the treatment of prisoners, so unless the prisoners in question are noble/important or managed to surrender with terms, I can't see even the super-Lawful having a problem with killing them in most situations. The Paladin might have to go get some ice-cream for everyone while the interrogation happens though, depending on the DM's views on paladins and plausible deniability.

Can't the exact same argument be made for torture?

Sure, there were plenty of historical cultures where prisoners could be fairly casually killed. Torture was at least as common. Why is it different?

Not really, because the standard here is the reasonable reduction of suffering, and possibly the preservation of as much honor as possible. A clean death meets this standard, even to the medieval mind. Torture most certainly does not.

Even cultures which were blase about killing had limits on the use of torture, so the difference was recognized even by those cultures.

Percy Footman wrote:
the mass-murderer I can understand, but "...an evil necromancer..."? I am sure there are other reasons that this individual had to die. "Evil" is not a captial offence. "Necromancer" is neither. What where his crimes?
Actually, I'm pretty sure that to a LG cleric, Evil is a capital offence.

Evil is NOT a capital offence. otherwise we would have Clerics and Paladins killing people in the streets of Absalom all day. There is a percentage of the regular population that is evil. (anyone who have raised children KNOWS the little buggers are evil!)

Now for history.
"Even cultures which were blase about killing had limits on the use of torture...".
well, I guess, as long as you realize that the limits INCLUDED torture, and or maiming.
Organized societies in history have often considered torture to be the NORM.
For example, Roman law allowed a slave to give testamony in court - but the slave could only do so AFTER torture - even if he wanted to give his statement before! "Otherwise, how do you know if what he says is the truth?" This belief often colored legal systems up to the modern age.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Thomas, the Tiefling Hero! wrote:
Percy Footman wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Mystic Lemur wrote:

Executing prisoners isn't necessarily evil. Executing a prisoner just to use speak with dead on them is. Killing someone because its easier than dealing with them alive is evil.

Dealing with someone who has or hasn't negotiated terms of surrender is a question about the Law/Chaos axis. Why do people always get Order and Good confused?

In my case, the people my LG cleric executed were a known mass-murderer and an evil necromancer.
the mass-murderer I can understand, but "...an evil necromancer..."? I am sure there are other reasons that this individual had to die. "Evil" is not a captial offence. "Necromancer" is neither. What where his crimes?

Kidnapping and selling the victims as slaves (the slavery is of course not illegal in itself, but they weren't legitimate slaves). Additionally, these activities were conducted as part of an organized criminal group known to torture its enemies and wreak destruction upon innocent communities.

And finally, this cleric showed no remorse or sign of being involved due to desperation or any such thing.
In summary: an evil individual, with evil intentions, using evil magic, committing senseless acts of violence, kidnapping, trafficking in stolen goods, supporting an evil organization, and supporting (and likely personally committing) torture. She spat curses and threats even while we tried to reason with her after her defeat. In the end, I made the call that the best resolution was a (relatively quick and painless) death.

And you acted correctly - though I feel it was for the following "...committing senseless acts of violence, kidnapping, trafficking in stolen goods, ..." and not so much for the others. The fact that these crimes were commited against persons of Noble blood (I believe), this raised the punishment from mearly enslavement at hard labor, to death (and possibly raising as a lower undead so that she could not be returned to life later). IMHO, you acted lawfully and correctly.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Suddenly I'm not so sure, actually...

Dirty Chelaxian! ;)

3/5

nosig wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:


Percy Footman wrote:
the mass-murderer I can understand, but "...an evil necromancer..."? I am sure there are other reasons that this individual had to die. "Evil" is not a captial offence. "Necromancer" is neither. What where his crimes?
Actually, I'm pretty sure that to a LG cleric, Evil is a capital offence.
Evil is NOT a capital offence. otherwise we would have Clerics and Paladins killing people in the streets of Absalom all day. There is a percentage of the regular population that is evil. (anyone who have raised children KNOWS the little buggers are evil!)

It obviously depends on the social development present in the setting, but anyone Evil and powerful enough to ping evil should certainly be placed in a very uncomfortable place at the pointy end of a righteous blade. The implication was that this necromancer was a BBEG or at least a highly placed henchman. The combination of Evil and power certainly justifies a summary death.

nosig wrote:

Now for history.

"Even cultures which were blase about killing had limits on the use of torture...".
well, I guess, as long as you realize that the limits INCLUDED torture, and or maiming.
Organized societies in history have often considered torture to be the NORM.
For...

Well, remember that when we look that far back in history we see completely alien constructions of morality, even in the West. To the Romans, slaves were not people, they were "speaking tools". What I was talking about was that the protection from torture was one of the few rights which even "barbarians" (free non-citizens) had under Roman Law. For citizens it went farther to ban the more gruesome forms of execution. It was limited to strangulation or decapitation with a few exceptions like drowning for patricide. For the first couple centuries BC that is light years ahead on the humanitarian meter.

Tangent question for nosig:
Would you consider the Roman Republic to be a LE state then? Because to me, they, along with the more Confucian Chinese Dynasties, are my go-to examples of LN.

Even in the depths of the Middle Ages, torture was only used routinely in cases which had a nasty political tinge, or by the Church, and I think that we can all agree that the Inquisition were the bad guys.

Lets not get sidetracked though. My main point was that the reasonable reduction of suffering was a satisfactory moral distinction between execution and torture, especially in cases where you need to extract information.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

What you all think about the actual threat of torture without performing the torture to get information, i.e. intimidate?

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Dragnmoon wrote:
What you all think about the actual threat of torture without performing the torture to get information, i.e. intimidate?

I think that's clearly different. In fact, I am reminded of

Scenario Name Spoilered:
Web of Corruption
in which a certain NPC needs some information extracted from him. His simplified stat block makes it clear that intimidation is the PCs' best bet, and also adds the caveat that displaying force will give a bonus to the intimidate check (or reduce the DC, one of the two). This seems to pretty clearly indicate that there's nothing wrong with a show of force in the course of intimidating someone. So the line is somewhere between that and actual torture.
Silver Crusade 5/5

Thomas, the Tiefling Hero! wrote:

Suddenly I'm not so sure, actually...

Dirty Chelaxian! ;)

Surely I mean it in the best way sir!

Bahahahaha!


Saint Caleth wrote:

Yes, and all the contrived situations that you can try to make up to justify it in certain circumstances don't help because of the existence of magic which can be used to make someone give up information without torture at all (charm and dominate as well as things like zone of truth).

The use of such magic is something that even a paladin can do, but it is still just as wrong as torture by our modern moral standards.

The existance of magic doesn't change the moral compass of the world. By your arguement, murder wouldn't be evil because people can get raised from the dead.

I agree that magical compulsion and charm would be considered wrong by today's moral standards.

I don't think all torture is inherently an evil act. It's definitly not a good act, though.

2/5

JOHN DICKERSON wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:

Yes, and all the contrived situations that you can try to make up to justify it in certain circumstances don't help because of the existence of magic which can be used to make someone give up information without torture at all (charm and dominate as well as things like zone of truth).

The use of such magic is something that even a paladin can do, but it is still just as wrong as torture by our modern moral standards.

The existance of magic doesn't change the moral compass of the world. By your arguement, murder wouldn't be evil because people can get raised from the dead.

That's not a good analogy. The argument being presented is that torture can be avoided entirely with magic, not that the effects of torture can be removed with magic.

That does change the moral compass, because there is a safer, cleaner and more reliable way to gain information than torture. Torture is often justified because 'it's the only way'. With magic, this is simply not true.


While Pathfinder isn't a low magic setting, it isn't a high magic setting either. Those spells are not so commonplace that morality assumes everyone has access to them. Remember, abilities that adventurers possess are not something within the reach of common people. Think about how many Day Job checks a 1st level would have to make to earn enough to get access to those kind of spells. And they would have to spend the gold on spellcasting instead of feeding their family.

In a setting like DnD's Ebberon, where spellcasting is common and part of everyday life, perhaps the moral compass would change to reflect this.

Maybe for someone with access to those spells, the arguement would be true, but Pathfinder has an objective moral alignment system. Good and Evil are inherently defined things.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

JOHN DICKERSON wrote:
While Pathfinder isn't a low magic setting, it isn't a high magic setting either.

A mere 61-person village has access to speak with dead and other 3rd-level spells. Maybe Golarion is a bit more "high-magic" than you think.


JOHN DICKERSON wrote:

While Pathfinder isn't a low magic setting, it isn't a high magic setting either. Those spells are not so commonplace that morality assumes everyone has access to them. Remember, abilities that adventurers possess are not something within the reach of common people. Think about how many Day Job checks a 1st level would have to make to earn enough to get access to those kind of spells. And they would have to spend the gold on spellcasting instead of feeding their family.

In a setting like DnD's Ebberon, where spellcasting is common and part of everyday life, perhaps the moral compass would change to reflect this.

Maybe for someone with access to those spells, the arguement would be true, but Pathfinder has an objective moral alignment system. Good and Evil are inherently defined things.

Not really relevant though. Torture isn't usually an issue for peasant farmers. Why would someone doing their Day Job be choosing between torturing someone and killing him to use Speak with Dead to talk to his corpse? Even in societies where torture was expected as a political/legal tool, peasants usually couldn't do it.*

It's an issue for adventurers, who will probably be casting the spells themselves, and it's an issue for rulers or other powerful people.

*Of course, such societies did tend to use corporal punishment/torture in the family setting as well: Beating of wives and children to ensure obedience was often commonly accepted.

Dark Archive 4/5

One of the things that rings in my ears, is how often people who play LG detect evil, find evil, and slay it.
Evil isnt a means to bloodshed. Nor is being lawful good a writ to kill evil people.
I've done it before, and most frankly would do so again, on most LG clerics / paladins killing people because they are evil, even if attacked first, if they are taken unconcious, that the lights would go out and atonements need be had, as LG folks are the ones who should trying to save people, not murder them because of an alignment detector.

Silver Crusade 2/5

CptTylorX wrote:

One of the things that rings in my ears, is how often people who play LG detect evil, find evil, and slay it.

Evil isnt a means to bloodshed. Nor is being lawful good a writ to kill evil people.
I've done it before, and most frankly would do so again, on most LG clerics / paladins killing people because they are evil, even if attacked first, if they are taken unconcious, that the lights would go out and atonements need be had, as LG folks are the ones who should trying to save people, not murder them because of an alignment detector.

Depends entirely on the God they worship. Iomedae? Yeah, chopping off the head of all things evil is pretty standard. Sarenrae? If they gave them a chance to repent, off with their head. Good doesn't mean gullible or foolish. I play a *lot* of LG characters. Most of them will give you a chance to yield, after that, they play for keeps.

As a GM, I don't really think you get the right to determine that all LG players must try to be kind and gentle redeemers.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hate bloodthirsty heroes. To me, they're not heroes.

Silver Crusade 2/5

KestlerGunner wrote:
I hate bloodthirsty heroes. To me, they're not heroes.

There is a difference between bloodthirsty and "not a pacifist". Most enemies in PFS are already hostile to you, and if you try to talk them down, you'll just get your skull caved in. Most of my LG characters are resigned to the fact that evil creatures don't want to repent, they are evil and enjoy it.

1/5

I play a paladin of Iomedae; I try to play her like a cop. She usually gives the BBEG an ultimatum at the beginning of the fight:

"Drop your weapon and surrender, or I *will* strike you down." And only *then* does she start the Smiting of Evil.

Fortunately, so far, her sword has been able to cover the checks her mouth has been writing. :-D

Silver Crusade 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a lawful good cleric of Iomedae, I'll say this:

If I pass you on the sidewalk and happen to think/know you're evil, I'll probably keep walking.

If you attack me, my comrades, or an apparently innocent victim, I will kill you. If you want to convince me to do otherwise, you'd better talk fast because I'm not going to stand by and let you keep hurting people while I try to discern whether or not your heart's in it.

The good alignment and balls are not mutually exclusive.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Iomedae is probably hoping that at some point your hero stops to wonder if the attacker is dominated/charmed/possessed/been tricked/mentally ill/under the effects of a rage spell/antagonise feat/illusion effect/or just acting.

Silver Crusade 2/5

KestlerGunner wrote:

Iomedae is probably hoping that at some point your hero stops to wonder if the attacker is dominated/charmed/possessed/been tricked/mentally ill/under the effects of a rage spell/antagonise feat/illusion effect/or just acting.

Detect magic and a really nice spellcraft check usually serve nicely. And I *really* don't think that PFS will have NPCs spending all that time and energy to create disposable mooks out of nice people. Its not the style of the campaign, and is really designed to screw people over.

Grand Lodge 4/5

My point was more that mandatory killing of people who attack other people certainly isn't smart, and it definitely isn't good. Not in this world and definitely not in a world with an entire school dedicated to enchantment magic.

Silver Crusade 2/5

If I were to investigate the possibility of enchantment every time I encountered any evildoer, far more lives would be lost by my hesitation than would be saved by spotting such puppetry. If I have a specific reason to suspect compulsion, then obviously I would investigate. But the world can't afford for every evildoer to be checked for such influences.

Rest assured, however, that whatever villain may put innocent people at risk by forcing them to carry the torch of evil will face wrath like no other.

5/5 *

KestlerGunner wrote:
Iomedae is probably hoping that at some point your hero stops to wonder if the attacker is dominated/charmed/possessed/been tricked/mentally ill/under the effects of a rage spell/antagonise feat/illusion effect/or just acting.

Well, then Pharasma will probably judge them into heaven for not being evil due to their own will. Good ending anyway! And more than half the items up there won't screw with "detect evil" anyway.

I have a Paladin of Iomedae as well, as my solution was to purchase merciful for my weapon. Pretty much anything that is immune to non-leathal damage and is evil deserves to be smited. (I still check).

Liberty's Edge 3/5

There is STILL the problem of all the villains being written as "Fanatics that fight to the DEATH". I agree that torture is universally evil. However, if you NEED the information, you can always use prestige to buy scrolls of the various "charms" or "Speak with Dead" or "Zone of Truth". You don't always have to prep every spell.


There is also the aspect of perpetrators of torture damaging their own well being by doing what is obviously against all moral codes. Ptsd etc...
http://www.blatner.com/adam/psyntbk/PerpetratorPTSD.html

Dark Archive

I have no problem taking prisoners. Knock them down, stabalize, bind, ship em off to trail, and represent those poor souls before the court. I am a public defender after all...those mooks are worth money!

Poor misguided individuality said, Wait you already took all my money!
Dear boy the State pays me, I'm a public defender.

1 to 50 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Torturing to Get Information All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.