Let's ignore the morality for a moment and talk pure game mechanics. Torture is at best going to get you what, a +2-5 circumstance bonus on Intimidation or Diplomacy to make someone talk?[/devil hat]
I can definitely imagine fantasy situations where torturing someone for info is the most effective (though certainly not the only available) course of action.
Risking failure rather than compromising your ideals sounds like a hard choice to make.
Well, okay, talking pure game mechanics, I'm not actually sure whether there are any rules on the subject in Pathfinder, but the old BovD rules for 3.x went up to +12 Intimidate (doubled to +24 if you used it twice), which are both a lot more than 2-5. Hooray for backwards compatibility.
First of all I'm very disturbed by all the people justifying torture, and fear for my nation :(I feel that way, too, at least sometimes.
Justice inspired my high Creator
Wouldn't be the first. I think devils should be excellent at justifying atrocities.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok that's fair, I only threw that in last minute because I realized it would probably make an effective counter-argument, you can call it 'sniping at the military' if you want, but the fact is some people in it are in it for the money, they take it as a job where they may occasionally have to kill other people. That does not make them evil or dicks, or make the military an amalgamation of hypocrites and serial murderers, it just means sometimes killing is necessary and important, such that it can become a profession that is not always frowned upon, much like adventuring in Dnd/Pathfinder, which is precisely why my pro-torture in PF arguement deflated itself before I finished posting it.
Text is often a really poor method of communicating what you actually mean, and all that actually sounds entirely reasonable. Sorry that I misinterpreted you.
I'm not saying the PC's are going about killing anything for money either, well not the good/neutral/willsurvive-3-adventures-in-a-reasonable-setting-where-laws-ar e-enforced type, but most characters build themselves to be better killing machines, or better assistant kill-team members, because they actively seek and expect violence, the mechanics of the game reward killing, and even if the character isn't motivated by 'experience' the players are usually very motivated by experience. Almost all PC's are basically mercenaries, and they are generally not opposed to killing or seriously harming something else, even slowly burning it to death with alchemist fire if need be, generally without a trial, to get their payday, experience, and maybe walk back into town with a little bit of swagger. There are of course some PC's who wouldn't hurt a fly, or only do nonlethal damage, or put enemies to sleep, tie them up, then haul them into town for a trial, but these are usually the exception, not the norm.
All true...but that makes them warriors, soldiers, or mercenaries (as you note) and none of those things are inherently morally wrong to be. PCs mostly don't fight for foul or unpleasant causes, they usually don't abuse people only tangentially related to their targets, and they are otherwise generally very unobjectionable people of violence morally speaking. Those who do in fact do unpleasant things like that would probably be Evil.
|
I like utilitarian ethics and I'm still of a mind that a paladin should fall for torture even if it would achieve a good end. Here's why:
This is completely off topic but you're asking the wrong question. The right question is what would the world be like if the police had been able to torture him? The answer is it would be horrendous. Take a look at what eastern Europe was like before the wall fell and the wide spread abuses by the authorities. Don't forget emotive cases like the above are extremely rare and powers given to authority WILL be misused, typically against the most vulnerable members of society.
If it's seen as OK to torture - if a paladin condones the use of that tactic - it will make torture more prevalent in the world. And that's such a huge negative utility that it would take a horribly contrived-by-the-GM situation to come out positive in the end.
Saying they should have Class abilities based on torture is like saying Barbarians should have abilities based on committing atrocities because many real barbaric tribes did that in war. Or that all Clerics must be Christian. Classes just aren't that closely based on real groups.
Or that monks have to be celibate. Or cavaliers have to ride horses. Or that oracles should cast Divinations (prophecy). PF does a pretty good job of giving classes simple yet evocative names, but as Deadmanwalking says they're not meant to be perfect analogues. Though I expect such associations with the Spanish Inquisition led the OP's player thinking that the Inquisitor class had special license to torture.
That does not make them evil or dicks, or make the military an amalgamation of hypocrites and serial murderers, it just means sometimes killing is necessary and important, such that it can become a profession that is not always frowned upon...
I read an essay back in high school that said the true job of the soldier is not to kill, but to die, and it is their willingness to die that makes them more heroic than assassins or executioners.
I like utilitarian ethics and I'm still of a mind that a paladin should fall for torture even if it would achieve a good end. Here's why:
This is completely off topic but you're asking the wrong question. The right question is what would the world be like if the police had been able to torture him? The answer is it would be horrendous. Take a look at what eastern Europe was like before the wall fell and the wide spread abuses by the authorities. Don't forget emotive cases like the above are extremely rare and powers given to authority WILL be misused, typically against the most vulnerable members of society.If it's seen as OK to torture - if a paladin condones the use of that tactic - it will make torture more prevalent in the world. And that's such a huge negative utility that it would take a horribly contrived-by-the-GM situation to come out positive in the end.
In Pathfinder, a paladin succumbing to arguments justifying torture - compelling or no - is a light going out in the world for Good.
|
|
Well, okay, talking pure game mechanics, I'm not actually sure whether there are any rules on the subject in Pathfinder, but the old BovD rules for 3.x went up to +12 Intimidate (doubled to +24 if you used it twice), which are both a lot more than 2-5.
A bonus to Intimidate is a really bad way to reflect what torture does mechanically, actually.
Also...even if you go with that, anyone with enough Intimidate flat out doesn't need torture to get results, leaving it as a refuge of the incompetent.
Totally disagree. Because your closer to #1s beliefs your overlooking some things. I won't get too deep into it because I was asked not. However in a nutshell... Number 2 doesn't see it as matter of morality but one of results. Even "bad" or "adequate" results may not be what #2 wanted so much as he got the desired results. This is a deep and dark rabbit hole where ethics and morals lose their power. If they had any power then person #2 wouldn't exist (mostly).
Morals and ethics are ideas. And ideas have as much power as people give them. I personally give morals quite a bit of power in my own life, and try to create an environment around myself where other people care about them as well. And that's the point of the argument involving morals...to create an environment like that on a larger scale.
In Golarion the alignment system hoses you in even simple mundane stuff. Paladin goes to an evil town example. So you have to allow the grey and tell the players where the lines are when they get close or follow a relic of an alignment system to the letter. Choose your poison well.
No it doesn't. Paladins can go into Evil towns just fine.
Well, okay, talking pure game mechanics, I'm not actually sure whether there are any rules on the subject in Pathfinder, but the old BovD rules for 3.x went up to +12 Intimidate (doubled to +24 if you used it twice), which are both a lot more than 2-5.A bonus to Intimidate is a really bad way to reflect what torture does mechanically, actually.
What would you suggest, if, purely hypothetically of course, some debate partner on the Internet were to wonder what is the better way?
Clear beam of understanding in my dark jungle of attempted communication
Heh.
Imprisonment depends on length and condition. If someone bound to a chair has to be afraid that you just left him there and no one will ever find him, or he's forced to soil himself because he can't go to the toilet you have crossed the line. However, you should remember that you usually don't switch alignment for a single act. Neutral characters can get away with the occasional evil act, if it stays occasional and they also do good deeds.I just think "good cop/bad cop" and "tie a guy to a chair and leave him somewhere for a while" are things that a neutral character should be able to get away with.
I mean, I've had good parties abduct people and leave them locked in rooms, or tied to furniture for periods of time to prevent them from malfeasance because it was a humane alternative to "killing them."
Well, that's what I was going for. There's a line here, and where that line lies is fuzzy.
If my lawful good inquisitor wants to tie a captive to a chair, leave him in a dark room for an hour, then come back and ask him some questions I would say that's more or less above board unless there were some serious extenuating circumstances.
If you tie that same guy to the same chair and leave him in the same room for a week, he'll probably die if he doesn't escape, but if he's still alive somehow when the inquisitor comes back to ask questions that was pretty darn cruel and I would judge that an "Evil Act" of the sort that gets you in some trouble with your deity.
I just think there's some means of coercive force and threat of force open to good inquisitors that is not, per se, torture. It's when you cross the nebulous line somewhere that you should get smacked by the hand of your god, but we could probably hash out some guidelines for things that, while not nice, are permissible for good characters to do to their captives. Things like "no permanent damage", "respect for basic human (et al.) dignity", "provides for the basic needs at or above a minimum level (e.g. you have to feed your prisoners enough that they don't starve.)", etc.
|
|
Clear beam of understanding in my dark jungle of attempted communicationThanks, I probably shouldn't think too hard about this stuff anyway, I play in home games where alignment hardly plays a role anyway, this isn't really my place to talk.
I'm flattered. :)
And I dunno if not using Alignment matters all that much, honestly.
What would you suggest, if, purely hypothetically of course, some debate partner on the Internet were to wonder what is the better way?
Well...torture, if you're going to do it, you should probably have some sort of Heal or Intimidate check to do it properly...which should result in the victim having to make repeated Will Saves based on some sort of to avoid talking at all (probably at escalating difficulty...but only slowly). If they succeed, they can Bluff as normal, maybe with a circumstance bonus. If they fail, they say whatever they think their torturer wants to hear (a Sense Motive check might be useful to determine how well they know what that is). They might need to make a Bluff check if that happens to be untrue (definitely with a large circumstance bonus if they make the Sense Motive check since it's what the torturer wants to hear).
That'd really basically be it. Not nearly as useful as using Intimidate or Diplomacy in most circumstances.
That's off the top of my head and probably not ideal.
@deadmanwalking: I can c that you are a man who has strongly held views of right and wrong and you defend them on the forums. But this limits your seeing #2s view.
No it doesn't. I understand his position entirely and in many ways intimately. I just also disagree with it.
He isn't the monster who does t see a monster, or evil guy, etc but is a professional who wa tw results. That's all he cares for. He then hands the info off to someone else to use it however they want and the heck with the rest.
Right. And I find that attitude utterly reprehensible if it ignores all moral codes. I understand it thoroughly, as a big believer in efficiency and effectiveness myself, but that doesn't make it good or right.
Despite any amount of ethics, morals, convictions this has never gone away and will never go away. No amount of talk or moral convinction stops it for more than a generation in a limited area.
Perfection is not possible...but improvement is, and the reduction of such attitudes is an important and laudable goal.
And the paladin is screwed with RAW. Bob the paladin goes to Sparta, Greece and finds a young man attempting to rape a young woman in the street, what does he do? If he turns the man over to law they will release him instantly because its fair game. If he kills the man then Bob committed a crime under Spartan law and is going to be killed unless be fights his way to escape (killing how many?). If he lets it happen he did nothing and he loses his power. In the same place he sees a young man who attempts or does kill a slave as is expected of his culture as a right of passage into being accepted as a man. Is Bob going to kill the Spartan? Will be do nothing? Is he going to slay the city? If he told the citizens of Sparta that the Spartan killed the slave but was seen doing it, then the Spartan would be publicly beaten severely and often to death for it. And not because of morality but because he failed to kill stealthily.
The Paladin would stop and probably kill the guy, then try and sneak out of town (actually, given the spartan respect for warriors, sneaking might not even be necessary). He's not forced to obey laws he doesn't consider legitimate, after all. Or, if he knew the local law in detail, he might just stop the guy and turn him in...he's not required to respect their laws, but they result in the guy being appropriately punished, even if for the wrong reason, so why not?
In any case, there's lots of stuff he can do without breaking his Code.
Sparta is just one example of a real world case where there is grey. Try adding worshipping demons who protect defenseless people from hordes of orcs because once a month you offer them a child sacrafice. Townsfolk are killing their children so is the paladin just going to let them live? I think I made the case.
Well, clearly the Paladin must form an army, conquer these people, and protect them from the Orcs. What could be simpler? Note that I said 'simple', not 'easy'.
Or rescue the children then organize an army to drive off the Orcs. Or rescue the children and set up something to make the Orcs think the Demons are still protecting them. Or find a Good aligned divine protector, or...
In any case, lots of options. Doing nothing just isn't one of them. Paladins don't stand idle in the face of Evil...but they have pretty wide latitude in how they oppose it.
It's really necessary to torture in a game in which there are a lot of magical means to gain information from a person?
Charm person, even Domante, Zone of Truth and others come to my mind. The're not nice, but it's still betther than physical harm for the slight chance to pry some information.
Y'all are still on this?
I think Paizo has this answered..
Answer truthfully or be in massive pain
So yea.. the very definition of torture all wrapped up in a spell. Oh yea, the spell is not evil.
|
|
Or you could look at Interrogation. That's also the definition of torture...and Evil. As are basically all other spells that do this.
The spell you cite (Confess) also lacks the [Pain] descriptor...meaning either it's not particularly painful, or someone screwed up the tags on that spell. I think the latter quite a bit more likely...
I am betting that 5d6 damage and 2d4 rounds being sickened is rather painful. Of course so is a 10d6 fireball, does a fireball have the [Pain] descriptor?
Most likely the designers decided that a class called 'Inquisitor' should have some inquisition spells that did not require evil alignment to be useful.
|
|
You have no actual evidence of that. Many spells deal damage without much in the way of pain, and it's mind-effecting, so the sickened is much more likely to be wooziness or confusion than pain. Fireball has the [Fire] tag to indicate how painful it is...all Confess has is [Language Dependent, Mind Effecting].
Look at it this way: A creature immune to pain is effected in exactly the same way by that spell.
Which I admit, makes little sense, so...I'm betting they just left off some descriptors. Which is a thing that happens sometimes.
|
|
First of all I'm very disturbed by all the people justifying torture, and fear for my nation :(I feel that way, too, at least sometimes.
Then again Pathfinder tends to surprise me with neutral alignments where I see evil, and I believe in the Korvosa book, torture was common punishment in the neutral city. Those who think players place too much of the modern world into the fantasy setting may want to take note of that.Neutral societies are sorta defined by being a mix of Good and Evil stuff. That'd be some of the Evil stuff in Korvosa...and is pretty much only for treason, murder, and rape, anyway. I'm not sure I'd call that common...
Also accidental death. You get branded and imprisoned for trying to unionize. They are a pretty harsh society.
That's off the top of my head and probably not ideal.
Yeah, it sounds excessively complicated and fade-to-black unfriendly.
|
|
Also accidental death. You get branded and imprisoned for trying to unionize. They are a pretty harsh society.
True. Like I said...one of the Evil things about the society. Which is on the shadier side of LN anyway.
That's off the top of my head and probably not ideal.Yeah, it sounds excessively complicated and fade-to-black unfriendly.
Yeah, definitely just a top of the head sorta thing. Honestly, I probably wouldn't add such a system at all...seems way too niche.
@deadmanwalking: final comments on paladin... even if by some miracle you were right a out you killing a boy(because he isn't a man in their eyes yet) you have forgotten the most basic thing of all. The entire city state is filled with EVERY male of a certain age having committed murder. Murder is evil right? Paladins slay evil right? We have problems RAW here.
Nope. Nothing obligates Paladins to get killed trying to punish everyone who's ever done something wrong. They'd definitely try to do something about the city if they could (conquer or reform it, for example), or avoid it barring that, but if they're there on some sort of important mission, well, there is a Greater Good exemption for working with Evil people, never mind just not harming them. And killing one innocent doesn't necessarily make you Evil, either...especially somewhere like Sparta where you're forced to do it. It's an Evil act, but many people who performed it might not be Evil.
Assuming your right, and you may be, Then the inquisitor can torture someone for the greater good even if his deity doesn't like it. Problem solved for the OP.
Well to give a fuller context.
Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good.
So for a paladin not only must evil partnerships be to defeat the greater evil, they also need the atonement spell, and if it's more harm then good it should be stopped.
I'd say others have already shown torture is rarely for the greater good and ineffective to boot. Inquisitors aren't paladins though, so doing it once or twice in the heat of the moment won't change their alignment, but prolonged use should.
Also if the deity doesn't like it they can easily strip you of your powers. Inquisitors are not immune from this.
|
|
Assuming your right, and you may be, Then the inquisitor can torture someone for the greater good even if his deity doesn't like it. Problem solved for the OP.
That doesn't follow at all. Allying with Evil people is not inherently an Evil act. Torture is. Doing distasteful but non-Evil things is not equivalent to doing Evil ones.
Now, as Sub_Zero notes, Inquisitors are bound by rules a bit less stringent than those that bind a Paladin, so they might be able to get way with it a few times...but they never get a pass and it always makes them a tad bit closer to falling out of their deity's regard (assuming a Good aligned deity, of course).
Also as noted by Sub_Zero, torture is basically never 'for the greater good' since it doesn't work very well at all.
Can't... Stand... This thread... Any longer.... *glass breaking on 3rd page out of 4*
Can we all agree that the subject of torture is something to be worked out between the DM and the table, and stop trying to dump our own worldviews and moral compasses on people? Fact of the matter is, everyone has their own sense of these things, and while there may be overlap, I highly doubt you will find many people who agree on every moral and ethical quandary or topic down to the last letter.
Also, perhaps we can all accept that such things do not translate very well to an ultra-strict alignment system like d20's? Give a bit of advice, but for the sake of everyone involved, treat it like the 2 don'ts of polite conversation. Politics and religion are extremely advised to be avoided in polite conversation, because tempers get high, and people start crowing their own views on it while most of these folk decry everyone else's viewpoints as 'wrong'.
Pathfinder is meant to be a fun filled game people! Keep your luggage at the door! Advice on it is fine, but keep it in the context at hand!
That said, to the OP: LG torture would need some extreme reasons to get a pass on it without need of atonement if done more than a few times. Hera seems to have a bit more leeway with this, in her fluff.
In fact, it depends on the Deity, IMO. Sarenrae has this whole "Redeem, or PURIFY IT AND EVERYTHING IT STANDS FOR WITH FIRE!" kind of thing going on. I can see her allowing her inquisitors more wiggle room than even Hera.
Cayden Calien would be squeamish about it, and if you go too far with it might need an atonement, but if you need to filet the cultist to save the souls of an orphanage, I'm sure he'd have no problem with it.
Seriously. Because there is no definitive statement in the rules on how torture affects alignment, it's left up to fluff to determine. The alignment descriptions are horrifically vague, in any case.
And you all can keep your freaking "But Artemis! It doesn't actually work in real life!" arguments to yourselves! It's a bloody fantasy game! If dragons are burning down villages and wizards are warping reality on a whim, then there's no problem with the DM stating that enhanced interrogation actually gives interrogators the truth!
STOP APPLYING REAL WORLD IDEOLOGIES AND BELIEFS TO A GAME WHERE I CAN WAVE MY HAND AND UNMAKE YOUR EXISTENCE!
Edit: Reply if you want, whatever. I'm done with this thread. I can't take the BS involved.
Last I'm going to say on it, though, is, yeah, torture is a squicky subject. You're appalled by it, I get it. Regardless! Keep your own viewpoints on it and it's real world applications out of the game. The only time you can do this, is if you're the DM. If you've got a problem with it at the table, make it clear, but don't try to force your mentality on everyone else, you're not going to convince anyone over the age of 16.
Worldviews are built upon experience. Personal morals and ethics develop from these experiences. Until people experience something, they're not going to change their mind about something as intangible as morality just by you telling them they're wrong and it works like "this".
Sorry if I sound annoyed, but I really, really am. Insulting, yeah, sure, perhaps I am, perhaps feelings got hurt because I'm sick and bloody tired of everyone trying to force their personal opinions on other people. It's all a dominance game, like the rest of so called 'civilized' society. It's also how religious wars get sparked, more often than not.
Naturally, I'm not dumb enough to believe that arguing about torture is going to make this guy jihad that guy, but come on. This kind of closed off attitude does not help anybody.
/rant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am utterly amazed that someone would be offended by the idea that torture is bad. That shocks me far more than people trying to defend the idea of torture.
A closed-off attitude to torture is the only thing that might get the powers that be to stop trying to justify it. Torture is a macho fantasy that taints the entire society that allows it. If you are going to declare jihad against me for thinking so, Artemis, feel free.
Yeah, torture is evil. I am disgusted with the people that try to defend it. :-/
Stopped reading halfway through Artemis 'a reply. When you state your not interested in continuing discussion I'm not interested in any points you have to make.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm responding to Artemis's post. Not because I think he or she will necessarily care or respond back, but simply because it warrants a response.
Can we all agree that the subject of torture is something to be worked out between the DM and the table, and stop trying to dump our own worldviews and moral compasses on people? Fact of the matter is, everyone has their own sense of these things, and while there may be overlap, I highly doubt you will find many people who agree on every moral and ethical quandary or topic down to the last letter.
There are absolutely grey areas and points where people's morality is gonna differ. But some s+#! is just unacceptable. The sexual abuse of children is unacceptable, genocide is unacceptable, rape is unacceptable, and torture is unacceptable.
And if you argue that they are, in fact, acceptable you are wrong. And either don't understand what you're advocating (the one I suspect is true of most of the people in this thread), or are a bad person...because all of those things are awful, permanently traumatizing, and morally wrong by any reasonable moral code.
Also, perhaps we can all accept that such things do not translate very well to an ultra-strict alignment system like d20's?
Sure they do. They're one of the few things that do, being so objectively awful by any reasonable real world definition that they're very clearly Evil. There's a lot of 'grey area' stuff that doesn't fit in nearly as well, but torture? That fits under 'Evil' like it was designed to be there.
Give a bit of advice, but for the sake of everyone involved, treat it like the 2 don'ts of polite conversation. Politics and religion are extremely advised to be avoided in polite conversation, because tempers get high, and people start crowing their own views on it while most of these folk decry everyone else's viewpoints as 'wrong'.
I discuss religion and politics with my friends all the time. That includes the seriously socialist ones, and I'm a libertarian. And the atheist ones, while I'm highly religious. Never been a problem for me. Y'know why? Because I'm a pretty chill guy and absolutely willing to listen to viewpoints other than my own on most issues.
Brutally violating people's personhood the way torture does is not an issue that people can or should be easygoing about and maintain any integrity as a decent human being.
In short, what you're saying may be good advice for many people on many subjects. It is not however some absolute rule of reality, nor is it the least bit appropriate when applied to this particular topic. You don't tolerate torture the same way you don't tolerate rape or genocide. You fight the very idea that such behavior is okay with your last f$~$ing breath.
Pathfinder is meant to be a fun filled game people! Keep your luggage at the door! Advice on it is fine, but keep it in the context at hand!
Pathfinder is absolutely supposed to be fun. And such content isn't inappropriate to that. But y'know what? Acting like it's okay is.
Acting like torture is okay is a pervasive and awful social problem, and blatantly unacceptable in a variety of ways. Arguing it's okay in a game by making Torture a Good or Neutral act is like arguing that the guy who had a Paladin fall for not allowing slave catchers to grab an escaping (black) slave because of his own OOC racism was totally justified in doing so (yes, that was apparently a thing...it's from the worst GM thread). It's not true and frankly rather toxic to the game and the fun of a whole lot of participants.
And you all can keep your freaking "But Artemis! It doesn't actually work in real life!" arguments to yourselves! It's a bloody fantasy game! If dragons are burning down villages and wizards are warping reality on a whim, then there's no problem with the DM stating that enhanced interrogation actually gives interrogators the truth!
STOP APPLYING REAL WORLD IDEOLOGIES AND BELIEFS TO A GAME WHERE I CAN WAVE MY HAND AND UNMAKE YOUR EXISTENCE!
I posted a response to this idea already.
Edit: Reply if you want, whatever. I'm done with this thread. I can't take the BS involved.
Last I'm going to say on it, though, is, yeah, torture is a squicky subject. You're appalled by it, I get it. Regardless! Keep your own viewpoints on it and it's real world applications out of the game. The only time you can do this, is if you're the DM. If you've got a problem with it at the table, make it clear, but don't try to force your mentality on everyone else, you're not going to convince anyone over the age of 16.
Should I also keep my attitude about real world gender equality to myself when the GM gives women a -4 Int and Str penalty in the name of 'realism' or states that female characters 'like it' when they're raped? Because, frankly, that's right on par with what you're suggesting.
Worldviews are built upon experience. Personal morals and ethics develop from these experiences. Until people experience something, they're not going to change their mind about something as intangible as morality just by you telling them they're wrong and it works like "this".
Sure, world views are built on experience, but a reasoned discussion is an experience. You act like talking doesn't mater but that's not true at all, the way people speak intimately effets the way they think, and vice versa obviously. And so do the opinions of others, especially people they like and respect. And so does a well put together argument. We're not, as a species, wired to develop ideas in isolation, but to reach group consensuses.
Are people gonna suddenly have an epiphany based on a single post or argument on a message board? Probably not. But it might cause them to think, explore the subject, and consider the hows and whys of their own existing attitudes.
Sorry if I sound annoyed, but I really, really am. Insulting, yeah, sure, perhaps I am, perhaps feelings got hurt because I'm sick and bloody tired of everyone trying to force their personal opinions on other people. It's all a dominance game, like the rest of so called 'civilized' society. It's also how religious wars get sparked, more often than not.
Well firstly, nobody's attempting to use anything but words to impose their viewpoint on others. So...much as words have power, nobodys really doing what you're complaining about here.
Secondly, to reiterate, I'm a libertarian. I'm about the biggest advocate for personal freedom and not pushing attitudes on others you're gonna find. But that advocacy is not to give people the freedom to deny the freedom or personhood of other people. The right to swing your fist ends where the other man's face begins...and advocating torture as a potentially good thing is hitting someone real hard in the face metaphorically.
It's not doing so literally, of course. And I would literally defend to the death someone's legal right to say that torture is great without suffering some sort of real-world harm. But on the battlefield of ideas, I'm gonna oppose that idea with everything I've got, because it advocates taking away the freedom of another.
Naturally, I'm not dumb enough to believe that arguing about torture is going to make this guy jihad that guy, but come on. This kind of closed off attitude does not help anybody.
Some attitudes are unacceptable. You don't tolerate intolerance. You're not free to take other people's freedom. If everyone's to have an 'open attitude' people need to not be doing things or advocating things that violate that openness.
Having a 'closed attitude' to certain behavior (rape, torture, 'honor' killings) is necessary in order for anything resembling an open society to function.
DMW made his point in response to yet another reply that torture is okay. It is not. Kudos to DMW.
I discuss religion and politics with my friends all the time. That includes the seriously socialist ones, and I'm a libertarian. And the atheist ones, while I'm highly religious. Never been a problem for me. Y'know why? Because I'm a pretty chill guy and absolutely willing to listen to viewpoints other than my own on most issues.
Considering I sound exactly like one of your friends, I'm happy that there are times that we come to agreement on some issues.
I do think this is my favorite point that I'd like to expand on a bit, on my view of this.
There are absolutely grey areas and points where people's morality is gonna differ. But some s~!+ is just unacceptable. The sexual abuse of children is unacceptable, genocide is unacceptable, rape is unacceptable, and torture is unacceptable.
I think the point that might be getting lost in translation, is that Atemis can think of situations where torture is the most moral thing that can solve a situation. Depending on how you define morality (for me it is about well being), every situation has a limited number of options and some of those are more moral then others.
If you twist reality you can create a situation where torture is the most moral action you can take (now hear me out, because this statement needs alot of clarification). In the TV show 24, they perform a number of actions to make torture the best option, #1. Torture works in that world, and it apparently works reliably) #2 There isn't enough time for other options #3. there aren't equally fast other options. This isn't to say that I agree with it, but to point out that if you can twist reality to make morally reprehensible acts moral in a twisted world. Even then, it's still evil, it's just the happens to be better then any other option that you could take.
Heck, we can do this with genocide. If we existed in a universe where alien life invaded earth and captured you and put you in a chair in front of two buttons. If you hit button 1, the entire people of Europe would be instantly killed, if you hit button 2, the entire world would be instantly killed. If you don't choose either, then the entire world would be slowly and painfully killed. Assuming that we have certainty that they can back up these claims, and will carry out there plan without interference, which option do you choose? Personally, I'd say option 1 is the most moral choice. It's still evil, it's just the most moral choice of 3 horrible options. But once again, we've had to twist the world around pretty significantly to make it so.
With all of this said, you have to really warp reality to make these scenarios work, and I think this is what Artemis is trying to say he wants the right to do. To that, sure go ahead and say your character is not evil for torturing people. I'll still point out it's evil.
Finally, I'll point out this statement:
Can we all agree that the subject of torture is something to be worked out between the DM and the table, and stop trying to dump our own worldviews and moral compasses on people? Fact of the matter is, everyone has their own sense of these things, and while there may be overlap, I highly doubt you will find many people who agree on every moral and ethical quandary or topic down to the last letter.
you can use this to validate every morally reprehensible thing you do in game.
|
|
@renegadeshepherd:
I hadn't really posted an exhaustive explanation of why I'm so opposed to torture being brought up as non-Evil. This seemed the time. I doubt I'll post any exhaustive lists like that again.
@Sub_Zero:
Oh, I understand that you can make torture the right thing to do by twisting the law of reality. I just don't consider doing so with torture to be very much more appropriate than the 'giving women -4 Int' thing. Which can also be justified by twisting the laws of reality after all ("These aren't really humans, they're another species that just looks exactly the same and has stupider women. And happen to be called humans for convenience's sake...").
Making certain things true in-game both implies and fosters extremely unfortunate attitudes in the real world. I believe making torture a good thing is one of those things.
I believe making torture a good thing is one of those things.
I wouldn't consider all uses of torture to be good. But could torture be used to progress the greater good? Just like summoning a demon(An undoubtedly evil act) to build an orphanage or save a village wouldn't exactly be painted black or white.
In game, I've never seen torture as anything more than an elaborate intimidate check with a bonus to the check based on how brutal or cunning it is. A percentile check in the event of particularly excessive interrogation to determine risk of death. A will save for mental trauma?
It's interesting how there are already spells built for effective torture. In Golarion, torture has methods of getting results. Real life it isn't so easy and verily, it is in fact less effective than other means.
|
|
I wouldn't consider all uses of torture to be good. But could torture be used to progress the greater good? Just like summoning a demon(An undoubtedly evil act) to build an orphanage or save a village wouldn't exactly be painted black or white.
But that's still an Evil act. Which is the whole point I'm arguing.
Can I see heroic characters using torture? Sure, if they're upset or desperate enough. But it's an awful thing, the kind of thing that does make Paladins fall and can lose a Good Cleric or Inquisitor the favor of their deity, and should be avoided if possible.
In game, I've never seen torture as anything more than an elaborate intimidate check with a bonus to the check based on how brutal or cunning it is. A percentile check in the event of particularly excessive interrogation to determine risk of death. A will save for mental trauma?
That's far more effective than it would be in real life. To the point I'd consider it a serious problem of verisimilitude on par with, to quote myself, nobody in the world knowing fear or nobody ever experiencing sexual attraction. It's such a departure from how real people work psychologically as to be seriously jarring.
And the message a game sends by torture being effective is likewise highly unpleasant, as I note above.
It's interesting how there are already spells built for effective torture. In Golarion, torture has methods of getting results. Real life it isn't so easy and verily, it is in fact less effective than other means.
Sure, and with one exception, they have the Evil tag. And other spells are still better ways of getting info. Geas is a perfect way, for example, and even Charm Person is better than the torture spells.
I wouldn't consider all uses of torture to be good. But could torture be used to progress the greater good? Just like summoning a demon(An undoubtedly evil act) to build an orphanage or save a village wouldn't exactly be painted black or white.But that's still an Evil act. Which is the whole point I'm arguing.
If it is the whole point you're arguing, what have we been debating exactly? I though we were agreed on that point and were mostly disagreeing about whether it has any place as an evil action that might conceivably be worthwhile for a villain (or for a hero to be tempted by).
That's far more effective than it would be in real life. To the point I'd consider it a serious problem of verisimilitude on par with, to quote myself, nobody in the world knowing fear or nobody ever experiencing sexual attraction.
Though I wasn't aware of this earlier, it turns out that "straight bonus to Intimidate check" is what Pathfinder went with as well. Smaller than the BovD bonuses, but lacking the double edged sword by way of Sense Motive penalty that the BovD inflicted. It's hidden in the downtime rules in UCam.
And the message a game sends by torture being effective is likewise highly unpleasant, as I note above.
Along with other forms of torture and violence, interrogation by torture is iconic villainy and has a place in the game as such.
|
|
If it is the whole point you're arguing, what have we been debating exactly? I though we were agreed on that point and were mostly disagreeing about whether it has any place as an evil action that might conceivably be worthwhile for a villain (or for a hero to be tempted by).
Not everyone agreed to that. I agree to that, but it wasn't a universal agreement at all.
Though I wasn't aware of this earlier, it turns out that "straight bonus to Intimidate check" is what Pathfinder went with as well. Smaller than the BovD bonuses, but lacking the double edged sword by way of Sense Motive penalty that the BovD inflicted. It's hidden in the downtime rules in UCam.
Actually...that's a Torture Chamber, not the act of Torture. A torture chamber is intimidating, and showing people torture implements and threatening them is potentially a very effective method of extracting info. Even the friendly kind of interrogation benefits a lot from an "I'm your friend, I'm keeping you out of places like this." sort of relationship with such a place.
In short, even if you never torture anyone, the room providing +3 to Intimidate makes sense.
Along with other forms of torture and violence, interrogation by torture is iconic villainy and has a place in the game as such.
Sure. I agree entirely. But...not everything villains do is the most effective way to do things. Frankly, if they just want wealth and power, 'movie villain Evil' is simply inefficient.
Evil people choose torture as an information extraction methodology because they're the kind of people who enjoy doing that stuff...and with magic, it's even potentially effective (less effective than the alternatives, but vaguely workable).
Additionally, a lot of Evil people who use torture aren't using it for information retrieval, but to either brake people down or get confessions...both of which torture is actually excellent for.
Sure, and with one exception, they have the Evil tag. And other spells are still better ways of getting info. Geas is a perfect way, for example, and even Charm Person is better than the torture spells.
Confess is a pretty big testament to the opposite.
Charm Person has it's faults as well. I guess mind control is a better alternative to torture in your book eh?
|
|
Confess is a pretty big testament to the opposite.
Or a mistake. Or not that painful. What with lacking the Pain descriptor it almost has to be one or the other.
Charm Person has it's faults as well. I guess mind control is a better alternative to torture in your book eh?
Uh...Charm Person isn't mind control. Not high-impact mind control anyway, it just makes them think you're their friend. Do I prefer that to torture? Yes, absolutely. If truth drugs actually worked (and lacked long-term side effects), I'd feel the same about those in real life.
Neither of those are profoundly traumatic, damaging, or a denial of personhood in the way that torture is. They're violations of those people's freedom...but so's holding them captive in the first place, and that's necessary for any serious interrogation.
Confess is a pretty big testament to the opposite.Or a mistake. Or not that painful. What with lacking the Pain descriptor it almost has to be one or the other.
Charm Person has it's faults as well. I guess mind control is a better alternative to torture in your book eh?Uh...Charm Person isn't mind control. Not high-impact mind control anyway, it just makes them think you're their friend. Do I prefer that to torture? Yes, absolutely. If truth drugs actually worked (and lacked long-term side effects), I'd feel the same about those in real life.
Neither of those are profoundly traumatic, damaging, or a denial of personhood in the way that torture is. They're violations of those people's freedom...but so's holding them captive in the first place, and that's necessary for any serious interrogation.
Your hypocrisy is maddening. Whose to say that magic isn't traumatic, damaging or a denial of personhood(Really? You're saying while being controlled by magic they're still "them?").
It's quite the double standard. On one hand you decry torture for being "traumatic, damaging, and a denial of personhood", but laud completely stripping away someone's free will.
Nice. Well played. +1 Evil all around.
I'm actually currently rolling up an Inquisitor (a spellbreaker, naturally) who believes that all spells of the Enchantment school (i.e. anything that takes people's will away) to be unforgivable, but that character believes that "threats" and "punching them until they do what you want" to be acceptable means of coercing people to do what you want (in cases when the wholly mundane charm offensive will not suffice.)
Can this character be LN, or does he have to be LE? If he's LE, wouldn't the whole "Enchantment spells are evil" thing be hard to justify from the perspective of an evil character?
|
|
Your hypocrisy is maddening. Whose to say that magic isn't traumatic, damaging or a denial of personhood(Really? You're saying while being controlled by magic they're still "them?").
Under Charm Person? Absolutely. They won't do anything for you they wouldn't normally do for a friend. It doesn't force them to perform any acts, or actually take away their ability to choose. It impairs their judgement...but probably no more than getting them seriously drunk. Or than casting an illusion of their friend on yourself and accurately impersonating them.
Getting people seriously drunk against their will, or impersonating their friends to get them to do things, is generally not a nice thing to do...but it's not on par with torturing them.
It's quite the double standard. On one hand you decry torture for being "traumatic, damaging, and a denial of personhood", but laud completely stripping away someone's free will.
That's not a double standard, it's a hierarchy of badness. Torture is worse than drugging somebody. The first is bad enough that it's not justifiable to do to people, well, ever. The second is normally morally wrong, but can be justified by extenuating circumstances
Nice. Well played. +1 Evil all around.
Only if you see all potentially wrong acts as precisely morally equal. Which they aren't. Drugging someone, kidnapping, assault, even killing are things that are normally not okay to do to people, but which circumstances can make justifiable (the police are debatably kidnapping someone when they arrest them, killing is fine in self defense or defense of another, etc.). Torture is worse than that...or at least a lot less justifiable.
I have to agree. No matter what you say or the alternative you offer the man he says its "evil but less so" at most. Truth drugs are not cool, torture isn't cool, etc etc etc. I wonder how deadman ever coerces information from unwilling hosts in his games. That is a legit question btw. If your a good aligned character how do get info?
Actually...I said truth drugs were fine. Ditto Charm Person. As is threatening or persuading people. It's really not that hard.