A question on the effects of torture and alignment


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 232 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

With all the out-right murder many PC's commit on a regular basis that does not affect their alignment, at what point and what type of actions would you consider torture of the alignment shifting type?

I had a full example written up, but deceided it might have been a bit intense to post. But, Ithis is the jist. I have an inquistor and do things that real inquisitors did in order to get the answers I want from evil creatures. The more evil or horrible their crime, the more potent my methods become.

Use the heroes in as in Tarantino's "inglorious Basterds" as an example of good characters doing questionable things when seeking answers and you have one of my characters. Alignment is currently NG, but may switch starting alignment depending on the outcome of this little discussion. Have fun, but keep it professional please.


Hi, I once asked a very similar question, but not involving tortue specificly.

The main consensus was that you can't stay good, about 50% argued that it was plain evil.
Even on the lawful/chaotic axis, it's not that clear.

I would say that the "real" inquisitors were mainly LE, with some LN (those who were a little more humane). Some might stray from lawfulness, those were more renegades.

In inglorious basterds, they often didn't torture people, they only said they would. That would be LN. The problem is that really torturing someone, inflicting more pain than is necessary, and by not killing him immediatly, when you know that the outcome will be his death, is EVIL.

The question is, will there be an alignment change. It's mainly up to the GM, if you do enough good, perhaps he will stay Neutral. Other GMs might think that torture is so evil, you would have to kill several evil gods just to stay neutral, well that's up to them.

Have fun, I like to play inquisitors like that too.


As you rely at "Inglorious Bastards" a good saying comes to my mind:

"Not our goals define if we are good or evil, they way we choose to accomplish them, defines ourself."

None of the "Bastards" are good, not one of them.

Torture, even in the name of greater good and even if the victim is pure evil is always an evil act; especially if there is another way (who's only more difficult then the torture).

Sometimes staying good demands a sacrifice from the character, even if he could avoid it by doing a evil thing. That's what all tradegys are above and because we know this, this is why we love tradegic heros...

Inquisitors are very special here, because from the rules they have to stay one step to their deity, but are allowed to break the rules sometimes.
I think "Breaking" means expand them. A LG Inquisitor of Sarenrae would never ever torture someone to get information, but simply "playing" with the knife and trick him to belive she would, is ok.

Silver Crusade

Bilbo Bang-Bang wrote:
I have an inquistor and do things that real inquisitors did in order to get the answers I want from evil creatures.

Evil.

The real inquisitors could hardly be called good. Anyone that would design something like the Iron Maiden or the Pear and put it to use shouldn't be all that inspiring to good characters.

(there's a reason why Witchfinder General is the only movie where audiences actually HATED the Vincent Price character)

Also, seconding the statement on Inglorious Basterds. The team was made up entirely of bloodthirsty sociopaths who only look good because of who they're fighting, and even then the ugliness shines through. Even if Hugo Stiglitz had an awesome leitmotif.

This isn't to say torture is something a good character can never do(extreme circumstance might drive a good character into Jack Bauer territory), but it always leaves a stain on their character and it's not something they can regularly do and still be good.

IMO


I still have to say, that it is a little unfair that evil people can so easily stay evil and good people have to fight hard to stay good.

I guess that's because everyone likes Star Wars where Evil is the easy path.

My suggestion is: Do what you think is right, torture evil people if it leads to good goals. If you become evil, well, that's how it is. The goal might be more important to you than what other people think of you. You might just need a god that understands you.
The important thing is, that you know your boundaries. Even tough "detect alignement" and that doesn't see a difference between torturing innocents for the fun of it and torturing murderers to maybe find their last victim alife, you know where to stop.

Just hope that your party isn't a bunch of simple do-gooders with their kill-what's-evil-attitude.

Silver Crusade

Richard Leonhart wrote:
You might just need a god that understands you.

Anyone else hear chains jangling?


On a sidenote:

The historical inquisition did neither use torture regularly nor extensively in medieval times, actually torture didn't belong to an inquisitional trial at all.
Torture being used during inquisitional trials was a characteristic of the early modern era (especially in the Holy Roman Empire and later in Spain) and was most of the time not realized through the inquisition itself, but through the landlord, reeve or other offcials (though exception proves the role).


Mikaze wrote: wrote:
Anyone else hear chains jangling?

Well yes, I play an Inquisitor of Zon-Kuthon. But he gains the power because Zon-Kuthon wants to pervert his belief system, but he constantly fights it.

He doesn't see himself as a "true believer" and fights some other clerics if he has to. He mainly inflicts pain on himself to share the experience, because he is sorry that he has to torture others to help the innocent, but he does in nonetheless.

He believes that murderers would be tortured in the afterlife anyway, so why not do it before that, and help people?


Alignment is not a straight-jacket. It is the character's general world view.

A good character can commit an evil act and not change alignment. And an evil character can do good without the same effect.

That said, if torture is routine for the character, yep, that character would probably be evil.

Don't look to real life for examples of what each alignment is. Alignment doesn't exist, and is colored by our twentieth (twenty-first) century morals and mores. However, as a general world view, torture is seen as evil. Pretend you're Google: Don't be evil. But if you have to deal with China, you have to deal with China.


Real world... true.

Alignment does not matter because you do not know which face your looking at.. Real, Historical, Win write the history, Lossier did not write the history, Rumor, Here Say, What people want to believe (whether true or not), What people do Not want to believe (whether true or not), What is hidden from us, What is Propaganda feed to us, etc,etc,etc.

Vs Alignment D&D

Detect Alignment, Know Alignment, Sword is good... burns bad people, Sword is evil... burns good people. You have to be Lawful Good or you lose all your class ability's....... except DM is afraid to enforce it, because them you will complain about Lossing all your class ability's. Demons are evil.... because they just have to be. Celestial are good, because they just have to be. etc. etc. etc.


There are ways of torture which don´t injure the subject physically. For example: You can tickle someones bare feet with a feather while he is chained. Could this possibly be an evil act? I don´t think so.

I think it is the intetion and reason of the torture which determines good and evil. Simply breaking someones will for the cause can or must be considered evil. It is a misunderstanding that torture leads to truth. It just breaks the will depending on how far the torturer goes.
As a GM I will never lead my players to a situation where torture is the only option to go ahead. If they on the other hand conclude to torture someone I will let them. Depending on their actions and their reason for the torture I will judge how far from good they went.
We have a saying in Germany that states: The way to hell is floored with good intetions.

Silver Crusade

Aurelianus wrote:

It is a misunderstanding that torture leads to truth. It just breaks the will depending on how far the torturer goes.

"You don't even get good information that way. Eventually they'll just say anything to get the pain to stop."


Mikaze wrote:


"You don't even get good information that way. Eventually they'll just say anything to get the pain to stop."

True. Most of my good alligned pc consider torture as waist of time.


True

... is Sleep depriving a person torture.

Depends on who you ask.... some copes are allowed to keep people awake for days questioning them.

But the whole problem with torture, is that end the end. If you can get someone to confess to anything to get you to stop. Then does there confession really mean anything in the first place, or was it just to get you to stop hurting them ( or just to let them sleep).

..

To me Torture is evil.

If you are using a feather, and giving pleasure...and they want more, or if they say stop, and you stop.. then that is not torture.

If you are using a feather, and giving pain, by never stopping even after the person has asking you to stop. If the person has to lie to you, just to get your to stop hurting them. If the person has to confess to stuff he did not do, just to get you to stop, because they can not take the tickling sensation anymore... then ya that is torture.


Torture has always been defined as Evil by genre. Good characters are not allowed to torture people. This is where the use of trickery, guile, and good spell selections come into play. You can get the answers you need by using Bluff, Intimidate, and Sense Motive. Also with spells at your disposal such as Detect Thoughts, Seek Thoughts, Discern Lies, and Zone of Truth it makes getting answers much easier. Throw in some compulsion and mind effecting spells such as Charm Person, Enthrall, and whatnot you can trick most enemies into thinking you're their friend and they will disclose information as such. This is a good place to start if you want to stay good. Get creative and its a good alternative to the thumbscrews.

Now if your wanting to model your character after true inquisitors who didn't have these abilities then your looking at some alignment shifting. So depending on your methods, I would either start shifting towards LN (signified by the ideal that I'm doing whats good for my faith at the cost of my soul) then spiraling down towards NE then eventually to LE. This can be stalled through good uses of the Atonement spell but it does get expensive because your willingly doing these acts. While this is a great character story arc it does mean that he will eventually come into odds against truly good characters.

All and all I would take the first option because the Inquisitor class is so geared towards this. In short Torture=Evil and their really isn't a good way around that.


While it is true, there is no penalty on sense motive checks for torture victims.

Thus you can instantly know if what he tells is the truth.

And by the way, tickling can kill him by rupturing that skin under the lungs that let's you breathe. (sorry forgot the english name)


Costal Pleura?

How'd you know the victim's telling the truth?

Silver Crusade

Zyren Zemerys wrote:

Costal Pleura?

How'd you know the victim's telling the truth?

Becomes even more complicated when the torture victim will believe whatever he's spilling to make it stop.

Even Picard believed he saw five lights in the end.


Torture is wrongbadfun, however it is also a fairly short process in general. Even fairly hardened people are likely to capitulate on simply being SHOWN the apparatus.

When you consider the pretty much NON LETHAL process of water boarding usually cracks the subject in under 16 SECONDS (without any physical harm) you get the message that most 'Torturers' as depicted in our medieval nasties were actually torturing for the lulz, and to punish and hurt their victims rather than to get info.

Wrong in our day and age, but quite likely an accepted practice in a darker age lacking our genteel nature, political correctness, and delicate sensibilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding


Bilbo Bang-Bang wrote:
With all the out-right murder many PC's commit on a regular basis that does not affect their alignment

This might spark a huge debate about morality in general (not just make-belief games), but this statement is only true for certain definitions of murder.

Not every killing is murder, and since murder has such a strong negative connotation, I think it's necessary to define what is murder and what is simply killing.

After all, depending on whom you ask, a whole lot of things are considered "murder": Eating meat, not watching whether you step on an ant, being a soldier, and so on.

The general definition of murder, one used in laws, requires the following things

  • The victim has to die
  • The victim is human
  • The killing was unlawful
  • The deed was done with malice aforethought.

    The dying part can be a fun one to define in a world where you can dig up a corpse, cast the right spell, and have him walk around in no time (not to mention creatures that have the return mechanism built in). I think when the creature is dead according to the PF rules and won't get back up without magical help, we can let it count. Let's ignore things like "undead aren't alive, you don't really kill them" for this.

    Limiting it to humans in a fantasy world with many sentient species would be extreme racism, so we'll amend this to "the victim is a sentient being". Just as it isn't "murder" to kill a pig (to, say, eat it), killing things with an intelligence score of 2 or less (or without score at all), should not count as murder at all (of course, if the creature usually has a higher score and is just hexed, like with a feeblemind spell, it is still considered a sentient being).

    The unlawful part is probably one of the most important parts. After all, lawful executions aren't considered murder by law (or the executioner would have to step right up and be next in line, and then his executioner, and so on), and soldiers aren't brought on charges for killing enemy soldiers. And then there's self-defence. Sure, since there are certifiably LE nations and the like in PF, using "lawful" might not be quite clear-cut.

    Finally, there's the malice aforethought. That's really important. If you don't have that, you have manslaughter at best.

    Anyway, a lot of what adventurers do is not really murder: Their quests are often missions to protect the weak, like when they go and slay a dangerous monster that preys on villagers, or wipe out a bunch of orc that wander around, pillaging and looting. I wouldn't call that murder.

    Same for entering the temple of an evil god and putting a stop to their evil rituals.

    If we're talking about a bunch of adventurers breaking into some dungeon to steal all the treasure and just killing everything that moves, I could see murder, though I'd also say that if they're discerning on who they talk with, who they seek to merely repell, and who they kill on sight, I would ease up on that, too.

    Bilbo Bang-Bang wrote:


    at what point and what type of actions would you consider torture of the alignment shifting type?

    I'd say that if we're talking about torture, we're talking about evil. If it's already called torture, there is not really much wriggling room.

    Of course, it has to be "proper" torture. "Gnomish tickle torture" does not really count. But if you inflict physical or mental pain to get the victim to talk, you're committing evil. There is no question about that.

    Bilbo Bang-Bang wrote:


    I have an inquistor and do things that real inquisitors did

    And what real inquisitors did was purest, blackest evil. They might have thought they're doing the guy a favour, but that doesn't change anything.

    Bilbo Bang-Bang wrote:
    Alignment is currently NG, but may switch starting alignment depending on the outcome of this little discussion. Have fun, but keep it professional please.

    If the inquisitor tortures people, he's doing evil. That should be a pretty fast method of getting rid of NG alignment.

    I might be persuaded to let such a character remain neutral, if they only do that stuff on certifiably evil creatures and try to serve the greater good, but you better be real persuasive.

    There are other ways to achieve your goals. If you need information, use intimidation. Use diplomacy. Use magic!

    If you want to punish an evil-doer the way a good character does it, get him behind bars, try to redeem him or, in the heat of battle, kill him, but make it a clean kill. Inflicting pain on an evil creature might be something the bastard deserves, but it's not an act of good. A good character should focus on improving the situation for those who are good. That means, in this instance, that they should make sure that the evildoer cannot commit more evil acts.

    I could see an argument for "Using punishments for crimes as a means to scare people into not committing crimes, and really going through with the punishments to show them you're not kidding", but that's not a Good point of view.


  • I agree that torture in the classic sense is not a good way to go for quality information or for the soul. Heroes are supposed to be above these low lying tactics. I am just curious how far a character might go before running afoul of their god. I appreciate your opinions on this and the keeping it civil. I am more curious as to how people feel on this one than anything. Probably best to leave the less wholesome stuff to the baddies, lol.


    Bilbo Bang-Bang wrote:
    With all the out-right murder many PC's commit on a regular basis that does not affect their alignment, at what point and what type of actions would you consider torture of the alignment shifting type?
    I disagree with your claim that PCs commit murder on a regular basis. The term, even the concept, "murder" does not include:
    • lawful killing
    • killing non-sentient beings (PETA notwithstanding)
    • killing as an act of war
    • killing as an act of self defense
    • killing in the defense of others (e.g. saving the village by killing the attackers)
    In the fantasy world of D&D/Pathfinder there has always been an addition to this list of "killing but not murder" to include metaphysically evil beings like demons, devils, and other inherently evil monsters. So, generally speaking, good characters don't commit murder. In the case that good characters do commit murder, their alignment should certainly be effected.

    .

    Bilbo Bang-Bang wrote:
    I have an inquisitor and do things that real inquisitors did in order to get the answers I want from evil creatures.

    Interesting turn of phrase, "to get the answers I want." That's exactly what torture is best for, getting the subject to give you the answer you want, whether it is true or not.

    .

    Bilbo Bang-Bang wrote:
    Use the heroes in as in Tarantino's "inglorious Basterds" as an example of good characters doing questionable things when seeking answers and you have one of my characters.

    The heroes in Inglorious Basterds (I assume you mean the team of Americans, rather than Shosanna Dreyfus, who I would consider the only potential hero in the film.) were certainly not good. They were chosen specifically for their lack of moral compunction! They are best described as Lawful Evil, in a couple cases possibly Neutral Evil, and in one case Lawful Neutral.

    .

    Bilbo Bang-Bang wrote:
    Alignment is currently NG, but may switch starting alignment depending on the outcome of this little discussion. Have fun, but keep it professional please.

    While there is some room for debate about the moral value of torture, in most moral systems it is considered evil, bad, undesirable, harmful, negative, unworthy, etc, depending on the language of the philosophical or religious system speaking.

    If you were playing in a game I run, and you used torture once, you might get away with no alignment change. Depending on the circumstances, I would take "good" away from you on a second offense. If at any time it became clear that your characters modus operandi included torture, you would be forced to choose an alignment that includes "evil".


    Bilbo Bang-Bang wrote:
    I am just curious how far a character might go before running afoul of their god.

    Depends on that character's god, of course.


    Bilbo Bang-Bang wrote:
    I agree that torture in the classic sense is not a good way to go for quality information or for the soul. Heroes are supposed to be above these low lying tactics. I am just curious how far a character might go before running afoul of their god. I appreciate your opinions on this and the keeping it civil. I am more curious as to how people feel on this one than anything. Probably best to leave the less wholesome stuff to the baddies, lol.

    It also depends on the GM. For most characters, there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to changing alignment. Some may draw a hard line, others not so much.

    And no amount of messageboard support one way or the other will change a GM's mind.


    Killing is an evil act that is sometimes justified, for example in defence of oneself or others. When justified, it isn't really an evil act, but it never becomes a good one.

    Torture is likewise an evil act that is much harder to justify. I won't say it's not justifiable, but it's very hard to justify it.

    Contributor

    Orville Flibblegribble wrote:
    You can get the answers you need by using Bluff, Intimidate, and Sense Motive. Also with spells at your disposal such as Detect Thoughts, Seek Thoughts, Discern Lies, and Zone of Truth it makes getting answers much easier. Throw in some compulsion and mind effecting spells such as Charm Person, Enthrall, and whatnot you can trick most enemies into thinking you're their friend and they will disclose information as such. This is a good place to start if you want to stay good. Get creative and its a good alternative to the thumbscrews.

    Yeah, this is why I tend to go hardline with the "torture makes you evil" view as a GM. A PC who really wants to maintain a Good alignment can find creative alternatives -- roleplaying a terrifying bluff (works great when combined with illusions and/or a horrific fellow party member), using skills and spells to get the info they want, tricking the target into revealing more than s/he intended, etc.

    In a world that has so many alternatives, magical and otherwise, for getting more accurate information more efficiently, you're evil if you resort to torture.

    That said, I'd be inclined to excuse a one-off if it were used for good roleplaying development. An inquisitor who witnesses or participates in a particularly gruesome torture believing it was necessary, and then finds out that the information was wrong (or, better yet, that the torture precluded his party from getting the right information because they unknowingly tortured the correct source's brother to death so he refused to come forward with what he knew, or somesuch along those lines) and resolves never to use such methods again would be an interesting development, and I'd give that character a pass for remaining/becoming Good. It's all in how the player justifies it and deals with the consequences.


    Like most things, it depends a fair bit on the GM.

    It's possible, as the GM, to set up a very convoluted/contrived situation in which torture is not only effective but is about the only action morally defensible. (24's writers did this to Jack Bauer constantly.)

    I'd argue, at the least, that a GM who does that to a player who needs to maintain a good alignment is a dick.


    Dire Mongoose wrote:
    Like most things, it depends a fair bit on the GM.

    Yep. Also depends on how they view beliefs vs. actions.


    Bilbo Bang-Bang wrote:


    Alignment is currently NG, but may switch starting alignment depending on the outcome of this little discussion. Have fun, but keep it professional please.

    Well first of all a NG character would NEVER torture even a little bit. They might threaten or use a little extra force to subdue someone, but not actually torture. I would change your alignment asap.

    Bilbo Bang-Bang wrote:
    With all the out-right murder many PC's commit on a regular basis that does not affect their alignment

    What do you mean by this? I don't think most PC's commit murder. I think most PC's, in standard high fantasy, have a goal and there are many creatures/individuals that threaten their lives to stop the heroes from obtaining that goal. Most times it is a case of self-defense or survival. Most PC's do not go wipe out a village of Bugbears that is peacefully living on a riverbank harming no one, just because their Bestiary entry says 'evil". They do not embark upon quests with the intention of murdering people along the way. They kill because they have no other choice. They only kill when their lives or others are threatened.

    I would honestly say that if someone is playing a game in which good aligned PC's are simply slaughtering every 'obstacle' rather than look for other options- then this is a poor representation of a high fantasy game.

    Murder is something altogether different and evil.
    From Wikipedia- Murder is the unlawful killing of another being with "malice aforethought", and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).

    Suggesting that this is what most players do is actually rather offensive.

    By your logic U.S. soldiers would also be murderers. Think carefully before you throw this word around please.


    juanpsantiagoXIV wrote:
    Dire Mongoose wrote:
    Like most things, it depends a fair bit on the GM.
    Yep. Also depends on how they view beliefs vs. actions.

    If all alignment depended only on beliefs, 99% of villains would be good-aligned.


    Oh this thread again?

    Isn't trying to enforce a simplistic 9-box system of easily grasped absolutes in morality to adhere to real world philosophy and ethics kinda missing the point of the game?

    To me it is like speculating that not being able to go to the left in Super Mario Bros on the NES reflects determinism, robbing the player of free will, punishing a failure to adhere to a preset solution, and that the game is not only flawed on an existential level due to this limitation, it even instills obedient subjugation to traditional values, as adherence to said limitations is rewarded with music and advancement.

    But then people would get mad at me for suggesting that Italian plumbers adheres to behaviorism, a school of thinking embracing Pavlov and harboring an agenda to stomp on the obviously marxist goombas with their slow uniform trodding. Oh the implications!


    Dabbler wrote:


    If all alignment depended only on beliefs, 99% of villains would be good-aligned.

    Not "beliefs" as in "I believe this is good", but more of a faith kind of thing - if you worship a evil god, you are evil and will likely stay that way.

    Contributor

    I think "torture is evil" is a pretty easy stance to take, especially in a universe where Charm spells exist along with Zone of Truth, meaning extracting a confession should be pretty simple and untraumatic and not even leave any needle marks.

    That said, that's torture as a method of interrogation. Torture as a method of punishment? Well, if one kingdom says that all horse thieves must be hanged, and the next kingdom has the same sentence but allows the judge to commute the sentence to 50 lashes if he feels that's more just, I'd argue that the second kingdom is more good or at least less evil.


    I always thought alignment was what your character thought they were portraying them self as. I get annoyed when my DM says otherwise.

    I played a slaver once, (recently actually) he was LG. How was he lawful good you ask? Well because he acted that way, his slaves were like cattle. He was asked by a city guard to release his slaves or die and he responded as if he was being robbed. Why is it okay to keep those cows in a pen and slaughter them at your whim but my having two half-orcs was punishable by death?

    I am not arguing slavery is okay I am just saying when brought up to view the world in a certain way some things evil to one culture isn't evil to another. Why does one culture get to decide the morals for the rest of them? (that character was killed by the way)

    You might say that would make most villains good but then again most are psycho, which excludes you from moral alignment and just gives you either evil (needs to be stopped) or good (needs to be watched or cared for), crazy people can't help it so you can't give them moral bounds. The rest know what they are doing is evil and freely admit it, they just believe it is also right.

    Sovereign Court

    Shadow_of_death wrote:

    I always thought alignment was what your character thought they were portraying them self as. I get annoyed when my DM says otherwise.

    I played a slaver once, (recently actually) he was LG. How was he lawful good you ask? Well because he acted that way, his slaves were like cattle. He was asked by a city guard to release his slaves or die and he responded as if he was being robbed. Why is it okay to keep those cows in a pen and slaughter them at your whim but my having two half-orcs was punishable by death?

    I am not arguing slavery is okay I am just saying when brought up to view the world in a certain way some things evil to one culture isn't evil to another. Why does one culture get to decide the morals for the rest of them? (that character was killed by the way)

    You might say that would make most villains good but then again most are psycho, which excludes you from moral alignment and just gives you either evil (needs to be stopped) or good (needs to be watched or cared for), crazy people can't help it so you can't give them moral bounds. The rest know what they are doing is evil and freely admit it, they just believe it is also right.

    You may not realize it, but the Pathfinder alignment system doesn't account for moral relativism and cultural differences; it is for absolutes. In a world where there are most definitely supernatural forces of good and evil and a spell's effect on you can be determined by your alignment, alignment must be absolute the whole multiverse over. This isn't to say that cultures can't have different values; one can consider slavery legal, and another can ban it. However, the alignment system judges on an absolute scale and is tied in with how the world functions, and doesn't bend to cultural differences. After all, a Holy Smite spell isn't going to treat a slaver of a culture that outlaws slavery and a slaver of a culture that encourages it differently; it'll hit them both very hard.

    In the real world, you can ask the perfectly valid philosophical question "who decides what's right and what's wrong?" and not have a valid answer. In a fantasy setting like one in Pathfinder, if you ask the same question, someone can just point at the angels, agathions, azata, archons, good-aligned deites, etc, and just say "They do." End of argument. If the extraplanar forces of innate good declare something is evil, it's evil. End of story.


    Quote:

    You may not realize it, but the Pathfinder alignment system doesn't account for moral relativism and cultural differences; it is for absolutes. In a world where there are most definitely supernatural forces of good and evil and a spell's effect on you can be determined by your alignment, alignment must be absolute the whole multiverse over. This isn't to say that cultures can't have different values; one can consider slavery legal, and another can ban it. However, the alignment system judges on an absolute scale and is tied in with how the world functions, and doesn't bend to cultural differences. After all, a Holy Smite spell isn't going to treat a slaver of a culture that outlaws slavery and a slaver of a culture that encourages it differently; it'll hit them both very hard.

    In the real world, you can ask the perfectly valid philosophical question "who decides what's right and what's wrong?" and not have a valid answer. In a fantasy setting like one in Pathfinder, if you ask the same question, someone can just point at the angels, agathions, azata, archons, good-aligned deites, etc, and just say "They do." End of argument. If the extraplanar forces of innate good declare something is evil, it's evil. End of story.

    True, but the morals of said angels can change every campaign, in a medieval fantasy setting one would think slaves would be a common thing (it really was) but in this instance it was the worst of evils. So unless your DM explains what ALL is good or evil before every campaign your character is bound to have slip ups when you didn't intend them too. It seems like a flawed system to me.

    Sovereign Court

    Shadow_of_death wrote:

    True, but the morals of said angels can change every campaign, in a medieval fantasy setting one would think slaves would be a common thing (it really was) but in this instance it was the worst of evils. So unless your DM explains what ALL is good or evil before every campaign your character is bound to have slip ups when you didn't intend them too. It seems like a flawed system to me.

    First off, the settings in most campaigns are hardly medieval. They may be medieval in terms of technology and such, but culturally, they seem to borrow far more from ancient or renaissance society. Furthermore, slavery was not really common at all in medieval Europe; serfdom and peasantry certainly was, but slavery was basically nonexistent in Europe until the discovery of the New World, with a few notable exceptions earlier on, such as the Vikings.

    As to the system being flawed, assume the campaign has the standard moral guidelines unless the DM says otherwise. Generally, slavery is an evil act; you can't really get annoyed at your DM for not allowing a Lawful Good character to own slaves. You can't make an LG slaver in the same way you can't make a CG serial killer. I don't really know the circumstances of your experience with the slaver character, but based on the information you presented here, your DM is acting reasonably. Slavery is considered evil in most settings; why would you assume that your DM's setting would be otherwise? The system isn't flawed if you work within its assumptions.


    To me:

    Cruel actions are evil.
    Kind actions are good.

    So unless you can come up with a torture that's not cruel, it's evil.


    hogarth wrote:

    To me:

    Cruel actions are evil.
    Kind actions are good.

    So unless you can come up with a torture that's not cruel, it's evil.

    Oh! I know this one! the good form of torture is to do nothing, sit quietly in the room with them until they decide they have had enough. It isn't evil to keep a prisoner ;)

    @Squidmasher: My DM said I could do it, and I don't have an example of a CG serial killer but your stereotypical paladin is a LG one so standard moral guidelines don't really make sense. It's even debated today whether or not the death sentence is an evil act, no standard there.

    And I agree on the cultural/technological time period difference. I can never remember when to switch between the two periods though. Best I have got is medieval when swords drawn and renaissance when sheathed.


    This is of course how I would rule in my games, everyone has their own ideas.

    @ original poster I would say torture is an evil act. Depending on player justification/rationalization, it may or may not change allignment the first time. By using it, I would warn the player that it is considered an evil act. Repeated using and I would change the character's alignment to evil.

    @shadow_of_death Interesting concept for a character, and it is nice your DM allowed it to be LG. But not all campaigns use the format of what the character beliefs of his actions determining alignment. If one were to try and give "alignments" in real world, I would say it works this way. There is no absolute good or evil... too many can argue either way. But in many of our games, there IS absolute good and evil, and for my games, the gods of Golarion represent those ideals. So if a god of GOOD is okay with slavery, then slavery is not evil. My grey areas come about when the society sometimes doesn't fully adhere to the code of a god of GOOD. Oh, and as a DM, I expect to chat with my players about alignment before we play. Not so much an issue, since we have played together for nearly 30 years, but we still discuss any contriversial ideas we may have.

    Greg

    A definition of torture:
    World English Dictionary
    torture

    — vb
    1. to cause extreme physical pain to, esp in order to extract information, break resistance, etc: to torture prisoners
    2. to give mental anguish to
    3. to twist into a grotesque form

    — n
    4. physical or mental anguish
    5. the practice of torturing a person
    6. a cause of mental agony or worry

    [C16: from Late Latin tort&#363;ra a twisting, from torqu&#275;re to twist]

    usage The adjective torturous is sometimes confused with tortuous. One speaks of a torturous experience, i.e. one that involves pain or suffering, but of a tortuous road, i.e. one that winds or twists

    PS Oh, I do not really see a stereotypical paladin as a serial killer. I would say Paksenarrion from the Elizabeth Moon novels represents a stereotypical pally. But then again, maybe paladins are different in your games. Maybe they are serial killing slavers. :P


    I am kind of offended that US soldiers are being compared to anything that may or may not be happening to, with, on, or even around a half-orc. It's sort of insulting to the troops to lump them in with anything that happens in Pathfinder. It's a cheap way of saying "Well you are just unAmerican if you don't agree!"
    And before anyone goes there, I am a conservative non christian patriot and I support our troops. Even the gay ones.

    That being said, torture is evil. Absolutely.


    Death to alignment

    Dark Archive

    ProfessorCirno wrote:
    Death to alignment

    Viva la' Revolution!


    hogarth wrote:

    To me:

    Cruel actions are evil.
    Kind actions are good.

    But what if...

    You have to be cruel to be kind?


    Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
    hogarth wrote:

    To me:

    Cruel actions are evil.
    Kind actions are good.

    But what if...

    You have to be cruel to be kind?

    That statement is usually used to illustrate that it is better to to cause someone brief, but passing pain than to draw it out over a long period.

    Liberty's Edge

    Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
    hogarth wrote:

    To me:

    Cruel actions are evil.
    Kind actions are good.

    But what if...

    You have to be cruel to be kind?

    Had to be done...

    For those who prefer female vocals.

    Dark Archive

    Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
    I think "torture is evil" is a pretty easy stance to take, especially in a universe where Charm spells exist along with Zone of Truth, meaning extracting a confession should be pretty simple and untraumatic and not even leave any needle marks.

    I'm not sure if a compulsion spell would leave more or less psychological damage behind than fifty lashes, honestly.

    Zone of truth and discern lies seem more benign, 'though.

    And this is also a fantasy world in which a 1st level Expert with Skill Focus (sense motive) could be pretty darn effective at truth-telling without any magical backing at all, particularly in a longer-term research / exploration phase that allows for Take 10 or Take 20 options, or Aid Other from assistant lawyers or experts or advisors (or a dozen jurors, which, if only half of them make their DC 10 checks, could provide a +12 to the final Sense Motive roll to uncover the truth).

    Add in some magical backing, such as an Adept spell that allows for a bonus to a skill check, or a cheap skill-boosting magical item that enhances Sense Motive checks (a crystal that darkens when the holder fibs, or a monacle through which liars seem distorted, or a candle that gutters in the presence of a lie, or a torch that produces only illusory flame as long as the person whose hand is in it remains truthful, but burns for 1 to 1d3 fire damage if they lie, etc.), and the larger city courts should be able to weed out the truth from the lie very quickly, *if both sides agree to the use of such magic.*

    I could see many municipalities either outright forbidding such techniques (because of corruption at the higher levels, or because they've proven susceptible to tampering, with criminal organizations splashing out money for a concealable ring of lie shielding, that they loan to any higher level operative taken to the stand, and reclaim afterwards for use the next time a bigwig gets called to testify before magical divination), or restricting them to only be used if both defense and prosecution agree to them (meaning that the liar is always gonna say 'no' and claim that it's unreliable or whatever, so that their guilt must be determined by mundane means).

    Ignoring completely the real-world uselessness of the practice, since D&D / PF doesn't have much in the way of rules for torture being effective, any more or less so than a sense motive, intimidation or diplomacy check, it's egregious lulzery to even use it in-game. I mean, how much farther into the cesspool does one have to go before the game degenerates into rape fantasies (which, like torture, is yet another domination fetish / power fantasy for those with low self-esteem)?

    Mechanically useless. Morally repugnant. Historically ineffective. Spiritually polluting (if you're a believer). There's not much going for it.


    Kamelguru wrote:

    Oh this thread again?

    Isn't trying to enforce a simplistic 9-box system of easily grasped absolutes in morality to adhere to real world philosophy and ethics kinda missing the point of the game?

    To me it is like speculating that not being able to go to the left in Super Mario Bros on the NES reflects determinism, robbing the player of free will, punishing a failure to adhere to a preset solution, and that the game is not only flawed on an existential level due to this limitation, it even instills obedient subjugation to traditional values, as adherence to said limitations is rewarded with music and advancement.

    But then people would get mad at me for suggesting that Italian plumbers adheres to behaviorism, a school of thinking embracing Pavlov and harboring an agenda to stomp on the obviously marxist goombas with their slow uniform trodding. Oh the implications!

    It was worth posting this thread just for this response, lol. Bravo, lol.


    It is sad but all too common that people, even in fantasy roleplaying games, vehemently deny that there are consequences for their personal actions while condemning others in the same breath.

    Moral ambiguity might be amusing to play, but it is certainly not heroic in the classical sense.


    Shadow_of_death wrote:
    I always thought alignment was what your character thought they were portraying them self as. I get annoyed when my DM says otherwise.

    And I get annoyed when players want to make their own rules. Sure, we can always talk about rules you would like, but the GM does have the last word. And, more importantly, there should be discussion before. While it is not nice for GMs to just shove his interpretations and house rules down the players' throats, it's even worse if a player thinks he can dictate rules.

    Alignment is not just what your character thinks he is. That might have some impact, but like in real life, good and evil aren't things you get to decide for yourself. The culture you live in at least has a say about it, and in Pathfinder (or D&D), there are some purely objective guidelines that apply to every being in the game world.

    A whole lot of really, really evil persons (at least, the way our culture sees evil, and honestly in many cases the way most cultures see evil) thought they were good, doing the right thing. They were Evil regardless.

    Shadow_of_death wrote:


    I played a slaver once, (recently actually) he was LG. How was he lawful good you ask? Well because he acted that way, his slaves were like cattle. He was asked by a city guard to release his slaves or die and he responded as if he was being robbed.

    That's what you said. I'd be interested to know whether the GM agreed.

    Personally, in my game (and I think in most games that make the standard assumptions about alignment), you would have been neither lawful nor good.

    Slavery is evil. Maybe neutral, but never good. Slavers very rarely get to be good and remain slavers. And someone who thinks of sentient beings as cattle has no chance to remain good whatsoever.

    And someone who attacks representatives of law when they go about their job enforcing the laws is definitely not lawful. That is a clear act of rebellion.

    Since LG means "you follow laws because you think they're the best way for the majority of people", you cannot be a slaver who oppresses minorities for his own gain and disrespects their rights and claim to be LG

    Shadow_of_death wrote:
    Why is it okay to keep those cows in a pen and slaughter them at your whim but my having two half-orcs was punishable by death?

    Cows are not sentient. That makes a huge difference, despite everything those madmen at PETA think.

    It's not as if treating man and beast differently in regards to laws and customs is something Gygax pulled out of his sleeve. In most countries and cultures, slavery is a term applied to humans, not to animals. Same for murder. The laws make a huge difference, too. Try to lock up some guy in your basement and then tell the authorities that it's no different from owning cattle.

    Shadow_of_death wrote:


    I am not arguing slavery is okay I am just saying when brought up to view the world in a certain way some things evil to one culture isn't evil to another.

    First of all, Pathfinder disagrees. The game has some basic assumptions about goodness, evil, order, chaos. These are independent from personal and cultural leanings.

    For example: Slavery is tolerated and even encouraged in Cheliax. They think it's "right". But that doesn't mean that when you're in Cheliax, or from Cheliax, that you're good when you are a slaver. It means that Cheliax the country/culture is Evil.

    Alignments don't note what is "right", "wrong", "allowed" or "forbidden".

    Shadow_of_death wrote:
    Why does one culture get to decide the morals for the rest of them? (that character was killed by the way)

    Because it can.

    Shadow_of_death wrote:


    You might say that would make most villains good but then again most are psycho, which excludes you from moral alignment and just gives you either evil (needs to be stopped) or good (needs to be watched or cared for), crazy people can't help it so you can't give them moral bounds. The rest know what they are doing is evil and freely admit it, they just believe it is also right.

    That's a rather narrow definition of "psycho". You equate "psycho" with "is evil but thinks is good". Well, that character you played was psycho. He did evil but considered himself good.

    1 to 50 of 232 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / A question on the effects of torture and alignment All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.