well, it's certainly evil. But it doesn't really sound chaotic to me.
It sounds methodical and well thought out to further his gains.
so yea, I'd say neutral evil.
sounds fine to me. if somebody threw me in an arena I would murder all in sight once you are a slave all the rules are off. you are legally obligated to scream "no man is my master" and kill every one who tries to buy you....
I wouldn't even call it evil - this is self-defence. A Neutral, methodical character could do these things too.
The PC is doing what gives him the best chance of escaping alive and intact.
I wouldn't even call it evil - this is self-defence. A Neutral, methodical character could do these things too.
The PC is doing what gives him the best chance of escaping alive and intact.
I agree; the PC is being fairly ruthless and vindictive, but I think a bit of merciless vengeance against people who try to enslave a person and force them into gladiatorial combat is pretty reasonable, all things told. The guy's really just pulling a Spartacus.
|
Two comments:
For a new player, he sure is creative.
As for alignment... when players are put in a prison or confinement situation... their survival instinct clicks on. Typical behavior for someone fighting for their life.
If this spree of wanton murders randomly continues after he is free, then you have a problem. For now, I think he deserves to get out scott-free. And neutral sometimes looks chaotic, depending on their motivations, but again, one green leaf does not make it spring, nor can we judge a character on one adventure segment.
Pax
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering he is freeing himself from evil creatures, and ensuring they are unable to harm others in the future, his acts are actually something any good-aligned character could do--except the torture. That's evil.
Since he could have fled and killed only a few, but instead stayed and murdered as many as possible, I call it evil.
I could color it undoubtedly chaotic evil if he broke INTO the prison and killed the guards, but that's not the case.
This could be any evil alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It stopped being self-defense when he tortured someone which is an evil act, but Torture is only evil. Lawful, neutral and chaotic can all torture someone. Seems on the up and up to me, although I prefer my Red Wizards of Thay in all alignments so bring on the torture.I wouldn't even call it evil - this is self-defence. A Neutral, methodical character could do these things too.
The PC is doing what gives him the best chance of escaping alive and intact.
Even the torture falls into territory most could argue as being justifiable, since the PC probably wouldn't have been able to pull off his prison break without all the information he got out of that guard (according to the OP, "a detailed map of local defenses, traps and an explanation of where his personal effects are").
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Raving Dork - a good character could do all this except the torture.
I'd say the torture is an evil act. However, it is not like he did it for fun. If I were one to give "points" to a character based on their actions, this would certainly merit fewer "evil" points and definitely not a sudden change of alignment if they weren't already evil.
Law vs. chaos - just because the rogue is causing major death and destruction doesn't make him chaotic. It just makes him effective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is awesome not evil. Five gold stars.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nice work on the player's part! If you have any questions regarding CE behavior, you have only to look at 'what would an ogre do?'. It doesn't sound like he crossed those lines, which is a Good Thing.
he instead methodically tortures one of them
Evil
The player then made a disguise check and proceeded to the guard barracks, where he murders another few in their sleep by stabbing them in the neck.
Depends on why he's in prison. If he was captured as a slave fodder or for mattress tag removal in the third then no. If he legitimately (not legally) belongs on death row for murder and mayhem then no.
NG/NE vs any of the other Goods/evils is hard to place.Neutral by definition will sometimes prefer order or chaos as its convenient to them. Either a chaotic or neutral Evil person would do the same thing here , since going against the law benefits them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Raving Dork - a good character could do all this except the torture.
I'd say the torture is an evil act. However, it is not like he did it for fun. If I were one to give "points" to a character based on their actions, this would certainly merit fewer "evil" points and definitely not a sudden change of alignment if they weren't already evil.
Have to agree when it comes to the torture issue; using torture to get information that's vital to your character's survival isn't the sort of outright vileness that merits an instant alignment change. It's an evil act, but I could certainly see any good-aligned PC (other than a Paladin, obviously) justify it as a case of committing a necessary evil in the name of survival.
Personally, I would never shift alignment over a single act unless it was something really big, like sacrificing innocents to a demon for power willingly giving up something of value for purely altruistic reasons.
Law vs. chaos - just because the rogue is causing major death and destruction doesn't make him chaotic. It just makes him effective.
Now there's a quotable line.
It's a very good point though. Crushing your enemies and hearing the lamentations of their women is fairly universal to all alignments.
|
Hello willhob,
If it's okay I'd like to go over this on an item-by-item basis to offer my thoughts.
He made a Rogue and ended up breaking out of a prison.
Chaotic but whether it's Good/Evil/Neutral varies wildly by the situation, location he's at, etc. It is definitely Chaotic though if this is an organized 'authority of the plane' (insofar as can exist on a CE plane) group holding him.
he instead methodically tortures one of them in order to obtain a detailed map of local defenses, traps and an explanation of where his personal effects are.
Possibly Chaotic (depends on whether one considers taboos against torture a part of a 'lawful society', though there are several LE societies where it is used, so...)
Most likely Evil, as Torture mechanics through various spells (such as Interrogate) are explicitly labeled as Evil. It's just one of those things that is almost always an awful thing by default.
I would also not imagine torture produces good intel to share with the PC, most of the time. There have been some interesting studies on it, and generally it seems someone being tortured will just make up something they think their captor wishes to hear in order to make the pain stop. If they can make up a convincing lie so the torture stops and the interrogator gets nothing useful, this suits them well. More subtle means and social engineering have generally been found to get better information.
So it might be CE (though on its own not enough to show a true commitment to CE), and is almost certainly E of some kind.
(Stuff about disguising, stabbing in sleep, setting the area on fire)
As others have mentioned, a lot of this stuff is borderline reasonable for multiple alignments to do. If the character felt these actions were necessary to either A> Ensure his escape, or B> Ensure he isn't pursued in the future... then I would say this is surprisingly methodical of him, but shows no particular social ethos. Even its moral (good/evil) ethos can be interpreted several ways.
He looked around for clues to who owned the prison and set off to assassinate the prison warden and rob his estate blind.
Very thorough fellow, I see. Impressive. Would need more information as to whether the warden is innocent or not. If not, this would be one hell of a fine way to exact restitution for the warden's actions. Based on what we currently know in this thread, I could make good cases for this action being any of several alignments.
The player contends this is all within the bounds of a Neutral Evil character ensuring his own survival,
Player's explanation sits well with me. Nothing within this situation suggests his NE character is out to either destroy all order (malevolent anarchy) or establish an order of 'might makes right' (as one might see in various CE-aligned 'orc barbarian tribes' throughout fantasy. He did what he had to within the scope of the situation, and on its own this does not reveal any specific interests regarding social order.
I have absolutely no problem with the player claiming his PC is NE based on this excerpt, and similarly fine with him saying the PC is still NE.
...One hell of a story of escalating vengeance, though! Thank you for sharing.
|
|
Fernius, that's an interesting view regarding the burning vs. knifing. Can I offer a possible argument against it, though? I would suggest a PC could feel silent knifings would draw less attention than a burning building would, and used fire as 'Plan B' only once discovered already.
That would make it a tactical or strategical choice, rather than a specific 'delights in killing' one. I am, admittedly, tossing it up as a theoretical since I can't speak for the exact PC in question.
I don't see that torture is always evil.
There has been a case where a kidnaper was caught by police. Then the following happened:
Police officer: Where is the girl?
Bad guy: I woun't tell you. And in some hours she will be deat *laughs*
Police officer: Tell me or I will very much hurt you!
Bad guy: No, you will not, you're a cop.
Police officer hurts bad guy, bad guy tells where little girl is. She is rescued and indeed some hours later she would have been dead.
I would never ever call the police officer evil for saving the little girl like that. He's a hero and a martyr, because he lost his job for doing it. But he is not evil.
Sometimes the goal really justifies the deeds.
I don't see that torture is always evil.
There has been a case where a kidnaper was caught by police. Then the following happened:
Police officer: Where is the girl?
Bad guy: I woun't tell you. And in some hours she will be deat *laughs*
Police officer: Tell me or I will very much hurt you!
Bad guy: No, you will not, you're a cop.
Police officer hurts bad guy, bad guy tells where little girl is. She is rescued and indeed some hours later she would have been dead.I would never ever call the police officer evil for saving the little girl like that. He's a hero and a martyr, because he lost his job for doing it. But he is not evil.
Sometimes the goal really justifies the deeds.
Even in that case, the act of torture itself is still evil. It's just a case of doing a little evil in order to accomplish a greater good.
I agree; the PC is being fairly ruthless and vindictive, but I think a bit of merciless vengeance against people who try to enslave a person and force them into gladiatorial combat is pretty reasonable, all things told. The guy's really just pulling a Spartacus.I wouldn't even call it evil - this is self-defence. A Neutral, methodical character could do these things too.
The PC is doing what gives him the best chance of escaping alive and intact.
Hell, if you put a full party into the same situation, I doubt even a Paladin would have any problems with alignment over killing these people for what they're doing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Police officer hurts bad guy, bad guy tells where little girl is. She is rescued and indeed some hours later she would have been dead.
I would never ever call the police officer evil for saving the little girl like that. He's a hero and a martyr, because he lost his job for doing it. But he is not evil.
Sometimes the goal really justifies the deeds.
I could see a case for this if torture had much history of yielding good intel. Most of the studies I've read (admittedly these are edited ones released to the public under U.S. FOIA requests, including ones where they blatantly edit it to pander to public sentiment) suggest it just causes them to lie, especially if they only need to stall for enough time for their intended goal to happen. Especially since real world interrogators generally don't have dice rolls and spells to ensure they got the truth.
It's apparently good at producing coerced 'confessions', but I'm not immediately familiar with torture producing actionable, accurate info in the short-term. Even in the long term, it's my understanding you're better off employing confidence tricks to get them to tell you what you need to know. Things like turning off the recorder and saying it's all 'off the record' (when there are other cameras around they can't see), or having one interrogator act cruel so the kindly interrogator can be the 'friend' of the person being questioned and get them to open up, etc.
Granted, in D&D one can use the Interrogation spell which is a form of torture, and has a codified bonus to help you tell when they're lying. You could even use it in conjunction with truth-determining spells to get the proper result, I imagine. It would still, in the vast majority of cases, be a notably evil act. And chances are that in 'ticking time bomb' situations, they'll just try to keep silent anyway. You'd need other spell effects to coax the truth out of them, by which time you may as well use Charm Person to help with the questioning.
I agree with Raving Dork - a good character could do all this except the torture.
I'd say the torture is an evil act. However, it is not like he did it for fun. If I were one to give "points" to a character based on their actions, this would certainly merit fewer "evil" points and definitely not a sudden change of alignment if they weren't already evil.
Law vs. chaos - just because the rogue is causing major death and destruction doesn't make him chaotic. It just makes him effective.
No good character would burn guards to death after having already locked them in their own barracks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can easily see cases where a G-align character would do precisely that. It's certainly a frightening way to kill someone, but if he's on some CE-aligned plane of CE-ness where people are abducted for use as gladiator slaves... it's not much of a leap to imagine most (all?) of these guards are CE-align slavers who embody CE in some way or another, and getting rid of them isn't exactly a bad thing.
Which of course leads us to a funny thing; here I am saying torture is almost always evil (and probably useless in getting reliable intel/info), while offering a justification for burning enemies alive. Then again, Fireball isn't Evil and it basically does just that.
Isn't Alignment grand, folks?
I can easily see cases where a G-align character would do precisely that. It's certainly a frightening way to kill someone, but if he's on some CE-aligned plane of CE-ness where people are abducted for use as gladiator slaves... it's not much of a leap to imagine most (all?) of these guards are CE-align slavers who embody CE in some way or another, and getting rid of them isn't exactly a bad thing.
Exactly. Killing evil-aligned slavers is very consistent with good alignment. Locking them in a building and setting it on fire got the job done.
Good-alignment isn't always about riding on a unicorn barfing up sunshine and shooting rainbows out of your butt. Sometimes, it's about killing the hell out of the bad guys in the most effective manner possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No good character would burn guards to death after having already locked them in their own barracks.
Locking them in a room is not going to stop them from kidnapping, torturing, and killing others in their arenas later. They will eventually get out, possibly even early enough to put a stop to the good-aligned character's escape plans.
Preferably a good character would turn them over to the authorities to stop that from happening, rather than killing them, but when time is limited (trying to escape with one's own life for example) killing them works as an excellent stop gap measure--it also ensure they won't stop you from escaping, and will create an worthwhile distraction for anyone else in the facility (who might stop trying to find you, and work towards saving their allies).
Remember, using good tactics and considering the best options does not make you evil, just smart.
Chaotic doesn't always mean crazy and disorganized or acting on whims.
It just means you don't really think laws are important, especially if they get in the way of what you want. With Chaotic Good characters this is sort of tilted towards crusading against unjust laws, with Chaotic Neutral characters this can go either against injustice or for personal gain and with Chaotic Evil it's always about personal gain and gratification.
What would make the planning believable or unbelievable for a character is their intelligence and wisdom scores.
Low INT characters aren't going to be smart enough to think about jamming doors, setting people on fire and setting up kill zones to sniper fleeing guards.
Low WIS characters aren't going to be patient enough to delay their escape or some other part of planning that delays the ultimate goal, such as waiting to kill guards.
The actions described at the top of this thread are plenty evil, with torture and burning people alive.
They are a blatant disrespect for whatever laws got the rogue imprisoned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They enslaved him and were going to force him to fight in the arena for their amusement. Until he is no longer under their power, that justifies anything he needs to do in order to escape-- even the cold-blooded torture.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neutral Awesome, +500 exp.(Don't lose that player he's golden)
Attempting to fight guards that are not threatening him, then burning the building down, setting the alarm, all brought risk of death. Yes, he's in a prison, but so far none of these tactics have any logical reason to make him believe it will bring him any closer to escaping to safety. Even when setting the alarm, he didn't do so as a distraction to escape, he's distracting everyone to... not escape??? In doing these actions, a non-CE character needs to be able to express how the event is worth risking their lives. If he did these actions without expressing how risking his life was worth the risk, then he can't possibly be CE. In your descriptions, his chaotic and erratic actions (I'm assuming) were not followed by sound reasoning for ones own life.
You're assuming escape and survival should be the only goal of a non-chaotic non-evil character.
There are plenty of valid reasons to kill the hell out of the guards in the scenario the OP described, ranging from good-aligned (stop the evil slavers from being able to hurt anyone else) to neutral (prevent any pursuit of the PC after he escapes) to evil (vengeance on the fools who dared to enslave the PC).
|
|
As far as 'justified' anything goes... it should be remembered that the GM and player are debating which brand of evil this is. Not whether the character is evil, just which social-ethos version, between NE or CE. Neither form overly much cares about whether the Evil act (torture) was justified.
This is a rare case where the question isn't whether some actions and character opinions are Evil, just what type of evil. I find the question amusingly refreshing.
Police officer hurts bad guy, bad guy tells where little girl is. She is rescued and indeed some hours later she would have been dead.
I would never ever call the police officer evil for saving the little girl like that. He's a hero and a martyr, because he lost his job for doing it. But he is not evil.
Sometimes the goal really justifies the deeds.
I could see a case for this if torture had much history of yielding good intel. Most of the studies I've read (admittedly these are edited ones released to the public under U.S. FOIA requests, including ones where they blatantly edit it to pander to public sentiment) suggest it just causes them to lie, especially if they only need to stall for enough time for their intended goal to happen. Especially since real world interrogators generally don't have dice rolls and spells to ensure they got the truth.
It's apparently good at producing coerced 'confessions', but I'm not immediately familiar with torture producing actionable, accurate info in the short-term. Even in the long term, it's my understanding you're better off employing confidence tricks to get them to tell you what you need to know. Things like turning off the recorder and saying it's all 'off the record' (when there are other cameras around they can't see), or having one interrogator act cruel so the kindly interrogator can be the 'friend' of the person being questioned and get them to open up, etc.
Granted, in D&D one can use the Interrogation spell which is a form of torture, and has a codified bonus to help you tell when they're lying. You could even use it in conjunction with truth-determining spells to get the proper result, I imagine. It would still, in the vast majority of cases, be a notably evil act. And chances are that in 'ticking time bomb' situations, they'll just try to keep silent anyway. You'd need other spell effects to coax the truth out of them, by which time you may as well use Charm Person to help with the questioning.
1st time poster, but as a Psycho-politics Major, I can answer this;
The research actually indicates that an effective way of torture is quickly escalating the pain. Ask your question, and if they don't start automatically talking, use increased force.
You can't think up a lie when you are being tortured. The CIA mess up because of the delays in setting up 'safe' torture apparatus, time which a captive can use to create a 'believable' lie.
|
|
Chdmann: I'm willing to believe you might know more than I do about it, and I would be curious as to your further thoughts. I've done some passing study in the topic myself, but the vast majority of my knowledge comes from a clearly scrubbed/edited intelligence agency's manual on interrogations... wish I could find the exact one and cite/link to it, but it was hilarious in an oddly dark way, with lengthy paragraphs on how to torture someone hastily scribbled over and the editor writing nearby in pencil, "is unethical, illegal, and must not be used." Riiight.
The manual seemed to date to around the 1970s or 80s, and included various advice such as (all paraphrased) the following, which I would be interested as to your thoughts on:
"Death threats are ineffective in interrogation because they immediately make the subject defensive and fear you'll simply kill them anyway after they answer your questions; why outlive their usefulness?" - Strikes me as plausible. Your thoughts?
"Don't make direct threats of any kind unless you are prepared to immediately back them up. If you threaten to beat them or take food away or so on, then don't do it, they will stop being afraid of you and become more set in resisting your questions." - Seems obvious; interrogator loses their 'aura of menace' if this happens. Correct?
Broadly it also seemed to assert they preferred to use softer methods in the first place, or even starting with a hostile interrogator and then quickly switching to a friendly one in the hopes of not just getting good intel, but also having a newly converted 'ally' to return to their previous location and let them subvert other enemies. It was noted this can't always be done, but is considered a highly desired outcome when it can be arranged.
The other thing I would want an opinion on is the effectiveness (not the morality, just effectiveness) of torture in the 'ticking time bomb' scenarios that have come up. What if the person just doesn't feel like talking? What if they need only hold out for X amount of time for their goal (the missing person dies/vanishes from society's purview/etc.) to happen? I would imagine the lack of 'lies' wouldn't matter there, that one could just grit and bear it until the time limit is up? Or that doing so would give them the time to make up a lie?
Text carries tone poorly, so please understand... this is genuine inquiry, not going to snark at you or make a huff over it. I have studied a little on the topic and feel I know a bit more than the completely uninitiated, but am genuinely curious what formal study and education on the matter has turned up. You mentioned some of the failings I cite are directly due to intelligence agencies wasting time on safety measures... does it become notably more effective when they're directly brutal and immediately efficient in going about it? Are there circumstances where even 'effective torture' is likely to fail?
This is perhaps a grim topic, but given how often interrogations come up in D&D... it seems to be worth covering. In any case, thank you for chiming in, Chdmann.
Chdmann: I'm willing to believe you might know more than I do about it, and I would be curious as to your further thoughts. I've done some passing study in the topic myself, but the vast majority of my knowledge comes from a clearly scrubbed/edited intelligence agency's manual on interrogations... wish I could find the exact one and cite/link to it, but it was hilarious in an oddly dark way, with lengthy paragraphs on how to torture someone hastily scribbled over and the editor writing nearby in pencil, "is unethical, illegal, and must not be used." Riiight.
The manual seemed to date to around the 1970s or 80s, and included various advice such as (all paraphrased) the following, which I would be interested as to your thoughts on:
"Death threats are ineffective in interrogation because they immediately make the subject defensive and fear you'll simply kill them anyway after they answer your questions; why outlive their usefulness?" - Strikes me as plausible. Your thoughts?
"Don't make direct threats of any kind unless you are prepared to immediately back them up. If you threaten to beat them or take food away or so on, then don't do it, they will stop being afraid of you and become more set in resisting your questions." - Seems obvious; interrogator loses their 'aura of menace' if this happens. Correct?
Broadly it also seemed to assert they preferred to use softer methods in the first place, or even starting with a hostile interrogator and then quickly switching to a friendly one in the hopes of not just getting good intel, but also having a newly converted 'ally' to return to their previous location and let them subvert other enemies. It was noted this can't always be done, but is considered a highly desired outcome when it can be arranged.
The other thing I would want an opinion on is the effectiveness (not the morality, just effectiveness) of torture in the 'ticking time bomb' scenarios that have come up. What if the person just doesn't feel like talking? What if they need...
Celestial Pegasus:
No worries mate, I learned not to take life too seriously, so just feel free to call a spade a spade with me.
One of the RL perks of the degree/class I've chosen gives me access to current and experimental methods.
Modern methods contradicts the cold-war 'soft start then escalate' approach, actually state "Force the subject to the brink (of death) through physical injury." (We also tell the subject that we will revive them if they try and die on us, and we often have several bags of plasma and adrenaline injections to do it).
Average time required to break a subject: 2 minutes 19 seconds.
Seems fast enough, though I'd like to see it improved to be faster still.
A party would have to have a magic-user whom can raise a dead without healing them in order to do it, and probably someone who can deliver a a non-lethal but high Damage strike.
1st time poster, but as a Psycho-politics Major, I can answer this;
The research actually indicates that an effective way of torture is quickly escalating the pain. Ask your question, and if they don't start automatically talking, use increased force.
You can't think up a lie when you are being tortured. The CIA mess up because of the delays in setting up 'safe' torture apparatus, time which a captive can use to create a 'believable' lie.
So are you saying the CIA messed up because they didn't start the torture quickly enough? And what do you mean by "safe torture apparatus"? Safe in the sense of the victim not being hurt, not being permanently hurt or that the torturers themselves were "safe" from legal sanction for committing what is illegal under a whole range of national and international legal conventions?
The "mess up" was the use of torture irrespective of how quickly they got around to doing what they did. Using terms like coercive questioning and other linguistic gymnastics to try and make what you're doing not be classed as "torture" doesn't hide the fact that torture was being used.
Resistance to interrogation training includes coming up with a cover story to protect/hide/obfuscate the truth. So increased pain does not automatically mean you will not lie - there are many shades of truth and falsehood.
But getting back to the OP, the torture was evil. Who cares whether it was NE, CE or LE. If he could escape without killing the guards then killing them was particularly evil. How did he know they were all evil? Perhaps some were coerced or threatened into becoming guards. If he was skilled enough to disarm a fire trap and then McGyver it to work as some kind of grenade then he is probably skilled enough to get out of the prison without needing to cause additional mayhem.
I've never seen the attraction in playing evil characters. Do people get their kicks out of being cruel and vicious? Admittedly the few players I've seen try and play an evil character have actually been more CN than evil. But if we had someone in our group who wanted to play evil with a capital E - well they'd be out the door before they could blink.
In previous careers I have both been trained in some military interrogation skills (learning how to interrogate involves being on the receiving end so at during the theory part of the training I decided that was not an avenue of professional development I wanted to pursue further!). I've also dealt with situations where torture has been used. It's not pretty and it's not something that should be trivialised.
One of the RL perks of the degree/class I've chosen gives me access to current and experimental methods.
Modern methods contradicts the cold-war 'soft start then escalate' approach, actually state "Force the subject to the brink (of death) through physical injury." (For when we are pressed for time, we also tell the subject that we will revive them if they try and die on us)
Average time required to break a subject: 2 minutes 19 seconds.
So are you trying to justify the use of "take them to the brink of death" or are you just taking an abstract observational approach to the issue?
Who did this research that states 2min 19 sec is the average time? Was it an experiment in a psych lab or was it the results of real life torture/interrogation? If so who was doing it and if they were actually "forcing the subject to the brink of death through physical injury" how many laws were they breaking and how many moral boundaries were they blithely leaping over?
And this method is based on the assumption by the "interrogator" that the subject has knowledge which has only short term value, i.e. actionable intelligence? If the guy doesn't actually know what you think he knows then all the sadism in the world isn't going to get you useful intelligence. Progressively building up a relationship with the subject is going to yield much better long term results.
If you want to read up on historical application of effective interrogation then read up on some of the WW2 German interrogators dealing with allied pilots rather than some heavily edited US government document that is more about pretending that what was done was not torture than anything else.
He already is evil, so it's not worth much discussing if his actions were ( the torture: definitely, the burning of living guards: probably ).
As far as I can see, he wasn't behaving chaotically, so he is off the hook there. His alignment shouldn't be impinged at all.
1st time poster, but as a Psycho-politics Major, I can answer this;
The research actually indicates that an effective way of torture is quickly escalating the pain. Ask your question, and if they don't start automatically talking, use increased force.
You can't think up a lie when you are being tortured. The CIA mess up because of the delays in setting up 'safe' torture apparatus, time which a captive can use to create a 'believable' lie.
So are you saying the CIA messed up because they didn't start the torture quickly enough? And what do you mean by "safe torture apparatus"? Safe in the sense of the victim not being hurt, not being permanently hurt or that the torturers themselves were "safe" from legal sanction for committing what is illegal under a whole range of national and international legal conventions?
The "mess up" was the use of torture irrespective of how quickly they got around to doing what they did. Using terms like coercive questioning and other linguistic gymnastics to try and make what you're doing not be classed as "torture" doesn't hide the fact that torture was being used.
Resistance to interrogation training includes coming up with a cover story to protect/hide/obfuscate the truth. So increased pain does not automatically mean you will not lie - there are many shades of truth and falsehood.
But getting back to the OP, the torture was evil. Who cares whether it was NE, CE or LE. If he could escape without killing the guards then killing them was particularly evil. How did he know they were all evil? Perhaps some were coerced or threatened into becoming guards. If he was skilled enough to disarm a fire trap and then McGyver it to work as some kind of grenade then he is probably skilled enough to get out of the prison without needing to cause additional mayhem.
I've never seen the attraction in playing evil characters. Do people get their kicks out of being cruel and vicious? Admittedly the few players I've seen try and play an evil character...
Gallo, I never meant to Trivialize the matter, but I will answer all your questions:
1. Yes, the CIA messed up because they delay the torture because of all the set-up required for "safe torture". ("Safe Torture" covers all the above.)
2. Your Quote of "Resistance to interrogation training includes coming up with a cover story to protect/hide/obfuscate the truth. So increased pain does not automatically mean you will not lie - there are many shades of truth and falsehood." Is very different to the reality.
We only use Interrogation as a means to get concrete data (Whom/Where/Pretense of What).
Still, humans are fallible, which is why we do it on multiple captives.
So are you trying to justify the use of "take them to the brink of death" or are you just taking an abstract observational approach to the issue?Who did this research that states 2min 19 sec is the average time? Was it an experiment in a psych lab or was it the results of real life torture/interrogation? If so who was doing it and if they were actually "forcing the subject to the brink of death through physical injury" how many laws were they breaking and how many moral boundaries were they blithely leaping over?
And this method is based on the assumption by the "interrogator" that the subject has knowledge which has only short term value, i.e. actionable intelligence? If the guy doesn't actually know what you think he knows then all the sadism in the world isn't going to get you useful intelligence. Progressively building up a relationship with the subject is going to yield much better long term results.
If you want to read up on historical application of effective interrogation then read up on some of the WW2 German interrogators dealing with allied pilots rather than some heavily edited US government document that is more about pretending that what was done was not torture than anything else.
The Research was done as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The methods are only against UN conventions if they aren't done in international waters and a subject survives to tell of it.
Please actually read my posts, I have said that the methods really used don't fit in an Idyllic world-view (Paladins are either repulsed by this discussion, or them using this is the 'Knight Templar' trope.)
The 'torture' incidents that the Media report are done by armature Jar-heads and Guards, I am however, talking about effective methods.
You say "Progressively building up a relationship with the subject is going to yield much better long term results" True, but time is a luxury that can rarely be afforded.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Last I checked good-alignment didn't require being a pacifist, so why are so many people under the impression that it does? If good alignment required actively avoiding conflict with evil, Paladins would be screwed.
The Research was done as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The methods are only against UN conventions if they aren't done in international waters and a subject survives to tell of it.
Please actually read my posts, I have said that the methods really used don't fit in an Idyllic world-view (Paladins are either repulsed by this discussion, or them using this is the 'Knight Templar' trope.)
The 'torture' incidents that the Media report are done by armature Jar-heads and Guards, I am however, talking about effective methods.
You say "Progressively building up a relationship with the subject is going to yield much better long term results" True, but time is a luxury that can rarely be afforded.
You know, funnily enough I did read your posts. That's kind of why I responded.
So it the person dies it's ok to torture them? If the torture is done in "international waters" then it is ok? I'm having trouble getting my head around what you mean with your double negative in that statement. So how does torture committed in places like Guantanamo Bay fit into your view of what is and what isn't torture?
International law doesn't end at a nation's maritime boundaries.
Somali pirate on trial: Well your honour, we were in international waters when we attacked that oil tanker and held the crew to ransom.
Defence lawyer: Bugger
Judge: Bugger
Shipping company: Bugger
International community: Hmm, we didn't think that one through very well did we guys.
As for "effective methods", you were talking about using physical injury. That is torture. Tying in your point about time not being a luxury, you were specifically talking about using physical injury to get quick results. There are effective methods to get information through interrogation but they tend not to be quick but they also don't breach a whole range of domestic and international law.
As for "amateurs" - the methods approved by the Bush administration did include causing physical injury. So we aren't just talking about a bunch of poorly led and poorly trained soldiers at Abu Ghraib. Waterboarding - that simulates drowning. That's a physical injury. Need more examples?
Gallo, I never meant to Trivialize the matter, but I will answer all your questions:
1. Yes, the CIA messed up because they delay the torture because of all the set-up required for "safe torture". ("Safe Torture" covers all the above.)
2. Your Quote of "Resistance to interrogation training includes coming up with a cover story to protect/hide/obfuscate the truth. So increased pain does not automatically mean you will not lie - there are many shades of truth and falsehood." Is very different to the reality.
We only use Interrogation as a means to get concrete data (Whom/Where/Pretense of What).
Still, humans are fallible, which is why we do it on multiple captives.
Safe torture is something out of George Orwell's 1984. What do you categorise as safe torture? Needing plasma and adrenaline on hand in case the subject dies does not sound very safe.
Point 2: Whose reality? A Tom Clancy novel perhaps. I agree it's not my reality, because mine doesn't include torture as being acceptable in any form.
"We use" - so are you a trained interrogator or a Psych-poltiics major? Or both.
What you actually want to get out of an interrogation is intelligence.
Last I checked good-alignment didn't require being a pacifist, so why are so many people under the impression that it does? If good alignment required actively avoiding conflict with evil, Paladins would be screwed.
TY!
Consider me weird if you will, but I play an Unaligned Half-Orc Druid Ooze-bound.
I rarely have such ethical problems, merely the desire to consume!
Safe torture is something out of George Orwell's 1984. What do you categorise as safe torture? Needing plasma and adrenaline on hand in case the subject dies does not sound very safe.Point 2: Whose reality? A Tom Clancy novel perhaps. I agree it's not my reality, because mine doesn't include torture as being acceptable in any form.
"We use" - so are you a trained interrogator or a Psych-poltiics major? Or both.
Let's use George Orwell's 1984 as a point of reference, both Newspeak and Doublethink. "Safe Torture" is indeed 'Doublethink'.
A "Psycho-Political Agent", is another name for black ops intelligence.
I will disappear, have a new forged ID, and be set to work.