Paladins and Torture


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 232 of 232 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Dalindra wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:

2ndly I repeat, demons are irredeemable rules as written,

unique ones are the exception to that rule.... but should not be the norm.

Like I've said before: Exception does NOT prove the rule. If there is an exception, the rule is invalidated.

"Prove" in "exception proves the rule" means "provides proof of" when you only know about the exception, not the underlying rule it is an exception from. By identifying an exception, we can see the boundaries of what the rule ordinarily covers. The exception, by its terms, is evidence or proof (and therefore "proves" to some extent the particulars) of what the actual rule is, even if we don't have the full text of the rule.

I also encourage you not to try ignoring all rules with exceptions. Just because tax filing extensions are available, for example, doesn't mean the IRS isn't going to get mad at you if you ignore the April 15th deadline.

That's actually a good example of what the phrase means. If you knew nothing about IRS filing deadlines and someone said "I don't have to file by April 15th, I filed for an extention," you can say, "aha, I didn't know I had to file, but this exception proves that the ordinary rule is to file by April 15th."


Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Dalindra wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:

2ndly I repeat, demons are irredeemable rules as written,

unique ones are the exception to that rule.... but should not be the norm.

Like I've said before: Exception does NOT prove the rule. If there is an exception, the rule is invalidated.

"Prove" in "exception proves the rule" means "provides proof of" when you only know about the exception, not the underlying rule it is an exception from. By identifying an exception, we can see the boundaries of what the rule ordinarily covers. The exception, by its terms, is evidence or proof (and therefore "proves" to some extent the particulars) of what the actual rule is, even if we don't have the full text of the rule.

I also encourage you not to try ignoring all rules with exceptions. Just because tax filing extensions are available, for example, doesn't mean the IRS isn't going to get mad at you if you ignore the April 15th deadline.

That's actually a good example of what the phrase means. If you knew nothing about IRS filing deadlines and someone said "I don't have to file by April 15th, I filed for an extention," you can say, "aha, I didn't know I had to file, but this exception proves that the ordinary rule is to file by April 15th."

pointless semantic derail:
Whatever the origin of the saying, we're talking two different things here: One is "Only an exception is specified, so you can infer the general rule from that." "No swimming after dark" implies swimming is allowed before dark.

The other is "Only the rule is given, but exceptions are seen." If the rule is "All swans are white", seeing a black swan does invalidate that rule.
To me it looks like redemption of outsiders is closer to the second. The general rule may be that they're not redeemable, but we've seen a number of cases where individuals have been redeemed. That implies to me it's just very rare and difficult, not impossible. It could suggest there's a larger specific exception defining which outsiders can change, but I don't think we have enough evidence to deduce one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kjeldorn wrote:
Mark Thomas 66 wrote:

Paladin's don't torture people. That's what Inquisitors are for.

Paladin questions villain to no avail. Offers one more chance. Villian spits in Paladin's face.

Paladin sighs. "I tried"

Leaves the room, noting the Inquisitor on his way out.

There are many who serve. Each is called differently

Leaves the area.

While I actually agree with both the sentiment and idea here. I just feel that...well I'm not really sure what's bugging me about but it, but I think it just seems to easy to twist...

Paladin's don't murder people. That's what Slayers are for.

Paladin watches the incompetent and vile city official intently. Offers one more chance to better his ways. The city official laughs in Paladin's face.

Paladin sighs. "I tried"

Leaves the room, noting the Slayer on his way out.

There are many who serve. Each is called differently

Leaves the Town Hall.

Specious.

Incompetence is not considered evil or a crime, nor is being vile, unless you are using it is some secret code for having done evil and criminal acts. If this is so, the it would likely be within the Paladins Canon to act against, where he would capture the evildoer and bring him to justice, or kill if capture is impossible. If he has done nothing the Paladin can act against, the paladin will not act. If the paladin thinks he is missing something and is incapable of getting at the truth, he will take steps to have the Official be investigated by more capable individuals, including Inquisitors, Investigators, trusted adventurers, or whatever it takes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Though I would argue that the Paladin would not rely on actual evil "capable individuals" or said individuals using evil methods. She would not, for example, capture criminals or heretics and turn them over to be tortured. She can't simply outsource evil deeds to others.

The paladin does not wash her hands of the evil done by others.

At least in my understanding.

If that's the character you want to play, you don't want to play a paladin. If that's what's necessary to succeed in a GM's campaign, that's not a good campaign for a paladin - unless you actually want to play out the inevitable fall or failure. A paladin is not a good fit for Game of Thrones. In that setting, she's simply a naive fool. In Middle Earth though, the paladin's mercy and purity are rewarded by Grace.


Steelfiredragon wrote:
Bard-Sader wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:
Bard-Sader wrote:

Arushulae is from an adventure path.

** spoiler omitted **

my thanks.

still though, that would make her an unique monster and not teh norm. same with F-F-G.
irredeemable is the norm.

now someone put her on the wiki....

or point me the way

Every person is unique. Therefore, by your logic, we should discount every single person's story? You can correctly say that the vast majority of demons are so difficult to redeem that the chances of seeing one in your lifetime is almost zero. You can't correctly say demons are irredeemable period. Because if there is at least one example, your point is refuted.

no its not. Gamelore states they are irredeemable.

to make one cannon ingame would make it an exception to the rule or the rule gets errata and Changed. Then everybody will want a reformed fiend in each AP and home grown ones and then it will be all Drow are supposed to be evil and should be evil arguements when it comes down to a certain non evil drow ranger with two scimitars and a black cat messing it up, now everybody wants one.

as for all people being unique, oh yes we are all different as are each of our characters.

thing is, both dnd and pathfinder have their demons craving destruction and death on massive scales. With no remorse so more or less psychopaths.

Could you see DC redeeming the Joker character?

That's the thing. It is NOT a hard and fast rule. "Always" evil, by RAW, is basically one in millions will be non-evil. The non-evil fiend follows the rule perfectly. The rule just states that 99.999999% of fiends are evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If at least one fiend can be redeemed then you can not pretend that the rule is "Fiends are never redeemable". If only one fiend in all the universe would be redeemable, how can you know that the fiend you have just met is not that one?

By the way, if you want to know what the legal context of "Exception proves the rule" is, I've posted it before. In case you have missed it: This is the link. Just open the Spoiler tag.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:
Kjeldorn wrote:


While I actually agree with both the sentiment and idea here. I just feel that...well I'm not really sure what's bugging me about but it, but I think it just seems to easy to twist...

Paladin's don't murder people. That's what Slayers are for.

Paladin watches the incompetent and vile city official intently. Offers one more chance to better his ways. The city official laughs in Paladin's face.

Paladin sighs. "I tried"

Leaves the room, noting the Slayer on his way out.

There are many who serve. Each is called differently

Leaves the Town Hall.

Specious.

Incompetence is not considered evil or a crime, nor is being vile, unless you are using it is some secret code for having done evil and criminal acts. If this is so, the it would likely be within the Paladins Canon to act against, where he would capture the evildoer and bring him to justice, or kill if capture is impossible. If he has done nothing the Paladin can act against, the paladin will not act. If the paladin thinks he is missing something and is incapable of getting at the truth, he will take steps to have the Official be investigated by more capable individuals, including Inquisitors, Investigators, trusted adventurers, or whatever it takes.

When I said, that I liked the idea and sentiment, I should have clarified that I felt that a Paladin, probably wouldn't resort to torture, unless that was specifically the story, the player of paladin wanted to tell. The problem I tried and, apparently failed, to show was way better show by thejeff's post.

thejeff wrote:

Though I would argue that the Paladin would not rely on actual evil "capable individuals" or said individuals using evil methods. She would not, for example, capture criminals or heretics and turn them over to be tortured. She can't simply outsource evil deeds to others.

The paladin does not wash her hands of the evil done by others.

At least in my understanding.

But even here, I find that the Paladin to be, for the lack of a better term, too pure, hopeful and naive.

I think, that it might more be a question of playstyle and campaign tone, as thejeff also hits at.

thejeff wrote:
If that's the character you want to play, you don't want to play a paladin. If that's what's necessary to succeed in a GM's campaign, that's not a good campaign for a paladin - unless you actually want to play out the inevitable fall or failure. A paladin is not a good fit for Game of Thrones. In that setting, she's simply a naive fool. In Middle Earth though, the paladin's mercy and purity are rewarded by Grace.

I would say, that the campaigns I have run, have had a lot of grimdark elements, which made it a lot more challenging to play a paladin. In those campaigns I would try to invoke, in any paladins, the palpeble feeling of an open, oppressive and almost blatant Evil when they where visiting the equivalent of Cheliax. When they then visited the (closest) equivalent to Andoran, they didn't feel the opposite, No, they would feel the same Evil, but hidden, skulking and more on the defensive.

In a lot of those campaigns, being a paladin was often a very tragic experience, in that they were the stanch defenders, and litteral embodiments, of high ideals. These ideals though, had been traded away by most other people, to make it possible to live a everyday life, Whether it was done give them security, food on the table or to advance in some hierarchy. So the paladin were very often faced with the fact, that while they often could fight an Evil (person, organization or even nations), they couldn't actually fight Evil (as a whole) as it would entail cleansing the multiverse.

I think, what I trying to say is, you should play your paladin, as you feel it would fit the campaign setting, the tone of the game your playing and most importantly, play the paladin to tell the story you what to tell.


Quote:
but I looked into it myself. that also said zone of truth is a flawed alt too, namely its will negate thing.

As an aside, I will say that the absolutely most bizarre-seeming argument in this thread to me is that you can't trust zone of truth because if they dice don't work out they can lie to you, so you ought to go with torture. Beckett said something to that effect too. I'd love if he explained what his thinking was.

Because if the dice don't work out on torture, you might get bad information.

Look, I've argued in other threads that torture shouldn't be made to seem ineffective or useless (largely on trope grounds, I want my LE villain tropes to work). But it is still subject to the dice, and so you can't be sure whether you can trust the information that you receive. If you torture someone and they roll high on their Will save (or if you roll low on your skill check, or however you decide to run torture mechanically), they can lie to you. Torture shares the exact same weakness as zone of truth in that you can't know for sure whether you succeeded or not.

How is a case for torture supposed to come out of this comparison?

EDIT: I found the line by Beckett that I was thinking of.

Quote:
When things like Zone of Truth fail or can not reasonably be trusted, which I would say is 95% of the time, a paladin should not have an issue torturing Demons for information to save innocents.

What gives? Why is information gained by torture not subject to similar doubts?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, it's lots of fun to torture Paladins.

That was the question, wasn't it?


Can evil actions be done to evil people? Can the ends redeem the means?

Are any actions evil? Is any action potentially evil based on the actors and intentions involved?

The answers to these questions will shape how you view a paladin conducting torture. But in Pathfinder, we can answer one of those questions(Are any actions evil?) simply:

PFSRD wrote:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

From this we can glean that in Pathfinder there are in fact actions that are evil. Not "actions that are evil only when you do them to good or neutral characters", as that distinction would be stated in the rules if that was the intention.

So if torture is not an evil action, what action in Pathfinder is evil? We know there must be at least 1.


Shadowkire wrote:


So if torture is not an evil action, what action in Pathfinder is evil? We know there must be at least 1.

Casting a spell with an Evil descriptor is an evil action.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.

And so is torture.

Torture Implements wrote:
These devices cause great pain, and are often used in torture. Engaging in torture is ultimately nothing more a sadistic means to control another person. Rather than being an effective means of interrogation, torture produces notoriously inaccurate information designed to tell the torturer what she wants to hear and make the torture stop. Each act of torture shifts the torturer’s alignment one step toward evil, and it counts as a willful evil act for the purpose of effects like atonement.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Rysky, you are great!

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thank you ^w^


Rysky wrote:

And so is torture.

Torture Implements wrote:
These devices cause great pain, and are often used in torture. Engaging in torture is ultimately nothing more a sadistic means to control another person. Rather than being an effective means of interrogation, torture produces notoriously inaccurate information designed to tell the torturer what she wants to hear and make the torture stop. Each act of torture shifts the torturer’s alignment one step toward evil, and it counts as a willful evil act for the purpose of effects like atonement.

I thought I had read something like that somewhere.


Horror Adventures.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yep.

I am relieved that they finally put aside (and at the same time saddened they had to put aside) word count to bluntly point out that,

A) Yes, Torture is EVIL.

and

B) Aligned spells are Aligned acts.

Pretty sure the Developer meeting went something like:

"We don't need to spell that out, do we? It's kind of obvious."

*reads the forums for months*

"Okay, we DO need to spell that out."


I always just didn't allow casters to cast alignment spells out of their alignment. torture thing is obvious.


Seemingly not so obvious.

Silver Crusade

*sigh*


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for finding that Rysky.
Am also somewhat saddened that it had to be spelled out.
I guess that, since this is an escapist medium, spelling out that some things are just wrong, and should have consequences is necessary to avoid endorsing and encouraging dehumanizing behavior. Considering what people are willing to do to others in the real world, drawing lines in the game is probably the responsible thing to do.

Silver Crusade

*nods*


That torture implements thing is pretty uselessly circular.

Quote:
Engaging in torture is ultimately nothing more a sadistic means to control another person.

Ok, so anything that is more than sadistic means to control another person isn't torture. Great, we've established that torture is evil under the equipment rules (LOL) but that lots of things people previously thought were torture aren't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:


Ok, so anything that is more than sadistic means to control another person isn't torture.

What is to you a «more than sadistic means to control another person» that it isn't torture, then?

Quote:
Great, we've established that torture is evil under the equipment rules (LOL)

What's so wrong about that? A rule is still a rule. Feel free to ignore it in your games but it is still there.

Quote:
but that lots of things people previously thought were torture aren't.

Like what?

Honestly, this is becoming arguing for the sake of arguing. The rules are there. Take them or don't.


Kileanna wrote:


Honestly, this is becoming arguing for the sake of arguing. The rules are there. Take them or don't.

It's been that for pages now.

Community & Digital Content Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts and locking. Sarcastic remarks regarding rape and other similarly insensitive comments have no place on our forums. We recognize that our community is comprised of folks from a variety of backgrounds (and that that may include folks who've experienced real life trauma), and do not feel that this line of discussion does anything to contribute to the welcoming space we attempt to foster here.

201 to 232 of 232 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Paladins and Torture All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion