Would these acts be chaotic evil?

[Chdmann]

Gallo wrote:

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...

You assume that the legal system isn't a show trial?!

Don't get me started on Guantanamo Bay and Water-Boarding. The US military and their 'torture methods' are illegal, and are a red-herring.

What a better way to show the world population that "We R Winnin' da War!" then forcing someone to sign a false admission for whatever they want to pin on a prisoner? (Create a sacrificial lamb.)

What I am talking about, is it's use in Intelligence. (AKA a monitored target that we have real reason for them to have the info we need.)

Why risk the forcibly extraction, interrogation and disposal of someone who'd know nothing? An absence could alert the hierarchy.

2minutes, 19 seconds is a long time, but we are working on it.

[LazarX]

Chengar Qordath wrote:

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 way I would describe alignment in as far as the good/evil access is much along the way White Wolf used in it's replacement for Alignment, the Humanity score.

In White Wolf your Humanity score is ideintified by the line you draw in the sand as far as your own actions, in other words where do you set your mark and beyond that, define actions you will not perform.

The spoilered section below is from a fan based White Wolf wiki. Familliar with the system myself I'd say it's pretty spot on.

Spoiler:

10

A living saint, this person genuinely understands what it means to do and be good and achievs it without conscious thought. This is a level most people find unattainable without actively refusing to engage in most of the day to day compromises which life presents. Attainable only by people committed to serving God or the powers of goodness and abandoning the temptations of everyday life.

Honesty: Does not lie.
Compassion: Always kind and supportive of others, always gentle. Will stop to help injured person, will risk own life to save another. Will give away all his meager possessions if he sees a reason.
Greed: Never steals, will do all he can to return a found wallet or purse. Will not accept a reward.
Selfishness: Loves spouse, friends and relatives, and even strangers. Volunteers to help sick, poor or disadvantaged.
Violence: Will refuse to fight, even in self defense, Does not seek out confrontation. Will die rather than kill. Repelled by thought of rape or torture.

9

This person genuinely understands what it means to do and be good -- that goodness and morality are active choices which are made in every thought and deed -- and generally succeeds in achieving it. This is a level most people find unattainable without actively refusing to engage in most of the day to day compromises which life presents. Sometimes attainable by people committed to serving God or the powers of goodness. Usually this lifestyle precludes material wealth.

Honesty: Does not lie.
Compassion: Always kind and supportive of others, always gentle, will stop to help injured person, will risk own life to save another, often gives money to panhandlers, donates to charity regularly.
Greed: Never steals, will try hard to return a found wallet or purse. Will not accept a reward.
Selfishness: Loves spouse, friends and relatives, and cares for strangers. Volunteers to help sick, poor or disadvantaged.
Violence: Will avoid fighting, even in self defense. Avoids confrontation. Not willing to kill. Repelled by thought of rape or torture.

8

This person has thought about good and evil and has actively chosen to try to be good. He knows that sometimes he will fail to live up to his ideals, but doing so only makes him want to try harder. This is about the best most people can achieve in a normal human life in which the responsibilities and compromises of everyday living get in the way of doing better.

Honesty: Avoids lying unless doing so would serve a greater good or unless the truth might hurt another's feelings when a "white lie" will do.
Compassion: Generally kind and supportive of others, will stop to help injured person, will risk own life to save another, often gives money to panhandlers, donates to charity regularly.
Greed: Never steals, will try hard to return a found wallet or purse. Will not accept a reward.
Selfishness: Loves spouse and immediate family, cares for friends and relatives, nice to strangers. Volunteers to help sick, poor or disadvantaged.
Violence: Will fight in self defense or defense of weak or helpless, actively avoids confrontation. Will always try to negotiate or find another solution to conflict. If forced to fight will always offer "quarter." Not wiling to kill except to save a life. Repelled by thought of torture.

7

This person thinks of themselves as a good person, but has not put a lot of thought into it. He is casually selfish and often resolves to "do better," but usually fails to do so. This is the default setting for most people. They are often too busy with work or family or other activities to give much thought to morality, except to despise those their society defines as "bad."

Honesty: Tells self-serving, but generally non-malicious lies. "I batted .322 in college ball, You are so gorgeous, Of course I sent the check!" If a hunter, may lie to protect masquerade. Has internalized need to keep society ignorant or the evil that surrounds them. "for their own good."
Compassion: Tries not to hurt people's feelings, will stop to help injured person, sometimes gives money to panhandlers, donates to charity on occasion.
Greed: Steals minor office supplies, will try to return a found wallet or purse. Hopes for a reward.
Selfishness: Loves spouse and immediate family, cares for friends and relatives, generally nice to strangers.
Violence: Will fight in self defense and, possibly, in defense of another. Does not seek out confrontation. Not wiling to kill except to save a life. Repelled by thought of torture.

6

This person is almost entirely self-centered. He thinks of himself as good by defining people he disagrees with as bad. Doesn't think much about good and evil except to presume that he is, by definition, good. This person often thinks of himself as a "realist" who "looks out for number one." He may be (or consider himself) a sharp businessman, often says things like, "Hey, it's just business," when he is cheating or lying to someone. He excuses his actions by claiming that "Everyone does it, or at least wants to. At least I'm 'honest' about it."

Honesty: Casually lies for selfish reasons. "No, I didn't see any money on the table, This is really worth $100 but you can have it for $25, No I don't have the clap."
Compassion: Largely indifferent to other people's feelings, never gives money to lazy bums, may ostentatiously give to charity if he sees an advantage in it for him (gives him social status or gains him business clients).
Greed: Will keep a found wallet or purse, casually shoplifts, cheats on taxes or in business if he thinks he can get away with it. Not likely to engage in large-scale theft or fraud (but might, if he feels he won't get caught).
Selfishness: Cheats on spouse, expects loyalty from friends (but may take advantage), indifferent or abusive to strangers.
Violence: May use non-lethal violence or threat thereof to enforce will (I don't get angry, I have people to do that for me), may beat wife and/or kids, etc. Will hesitate to kill. Finds torture acceptable as long as he's not the victim and someone else is doing it for reasons he agrees with. Thinks rape is okay if "she's a slut."

5

This person is probably an active criminal, a member of a gang, the mafia or other organized crime group. He uses violence and the threat of violence to obtain and hold his personal power. He may be a "businessman" in a place where social restraints are weak. He probably uses various rationales to excuse his actions: if he didn't do it, someone else would. Life is dog eat dog, I'm just a "businessman," etc.

Honesty: Cannot be trusted unless he is afraid of the consequences or has been well paid.
Compassion: Likes to be the "big dog." Cares little about other people's feelings. Casually cruel. A bully.
Greed: Engages in theft on a regular basis, wiling to commit fraud, extortion.
Selfishness: Cheats on spouse, demands loyalty but does not return it. Contemptuous or abusive to strangers. Will frame others to escape prosecution.
Violence: Uses violence or threat as a first resort, beats up wife, kids, sometimes business associates on regular basis. Will beat victims severely if they resist. Willing to kill or torture. Thinks rape is okay if she's "asking for it."

4

This person has abandoned even trying to be or do good (perhaps unconsciously). His behavior borders on the criminally pathological. This is generally rock bottom for humans who are not clinically insane. Such a person is likely to be an active criminal.

Honesty: Cannot be trusted, even if well paid, unless he is afraid of the consequences.
Compassion: Actively cruel, likes to see other people suffer or squirm. Often taunts or shames victims.
Greed: Engages in large scale theft, fraud, extortion, etc.
Selfishness: Uses other people to achieve own ends, often with total disregard for their safety. Will frame even "friends" to escape prosecution.
Violence: Willing to kill, maim or torture to enforce will. Casual rapist, sees most women as "sluts."

3

This person is a sociopath, plain and simple. He is incapable of understanding the difference between right and wrong. He is entirely self-centered and indulges his desires and impulses with abandon. He may be clever enough to avoid capture for some time and even to control his violent actions for months or years at a time thus throwing the authorities off his trail.

Honesty: Cannot be trusted unless he is very afraid of the consequences.
Compassion: Actively, sadistically cruel. Derives pleasure from other's pain and suffering or is utterly indifferent to it.
Greed: Large scale theft, fraud, extortion, arson, etc.
Selfishness: Uses other people to achieve own ends, without regard for their safety. Will frame even "friends" or loved ones to escape prosecution.
Violence: Casual killer if he feels it will serve his ends. Sometimes likes to torture victims before he rapes and/or kills them.

2

This person is clinically insane. He is entirely a creature of his own id, incapable of genuinely rational behavior. He may be able to mimic civilized behavior but, when given a chance, will almost always act out with dire consequences. He may be clever enough to avoid capture for some time and even to control his violent actions for a few days or weeks, but always returns to his pathological behaviors relatively soon.

Honesty: Cannot be trusted unless he is in dire fear of the consequences -- and even then he may still lie or cheat.
Compassion: Actively, sadistically cruel. Derives extreme pleasure or emotional or sexual release from other's pain and suffering.
Greed: Large scale theft, fraud, extortion, etc. Often a kleptomaniac, his insanity keeps him from rational theft: he is as likely to steal a 39-cent nicknack as a Ferrari.
Selfishness: Uses other people to achieve own ends often intending to get them killed. Capable of serial murder and/or brutal rape. Often employs elaborate rituals when committing his crimes.
Violence: Casual, emotionless killer. Sometimes likes to torture victims before he rapes and/or kills them.

1

Beyond the pale of most human behavior, this person might do almost anything. He is completely insane, but often sly or devious. He may be able to avoid capture for some time.

Honesty: Pathological liar. Cannot be trusted regardless of consequences.
Compassion: Actively, sadistically cruel. Derives pleasure from other's pain and suffering or is utterly indifferent to it -- he just finds it "interesting," possibly even amusing. Maybe it's just an uncontrollable compulsion.
Greed: Generally not emotionally equipped to engage in organized theft, he may simply kill, injure or maim to take whatever it is that he wants.
Selfishness: Complete sociopath. Not really capable of the planning needed to use other people to achieve goals. Takes whatever he wants, food, possessions, sex. Will kill or maim to get it. Capable of mass murder or serial rape.
Violence: Active serial killer. Often likes to severely torture victims before he rapes and/or kills and/or eats them.

0

A being so utterly bestial that the word "human" cannot reasonably be applied to his actions. A mind so broken that even comprehensible speech may not be possible for him. Usually a person this psychologically crippled is easy to capture as planning escape or covering his tracks is beyond his capacity.

Honesty: Pathological liar. Cannot be trusted regardless of consequences.
Compassion: Actively, sadistically cruel. Derives extreme emotional or sexual pleasure from other's pain and suffering or is utterly indifferent to it. Will dismember a person just for "fun," or "curiosity."
Greed: No crime of property is beyond him. Not really capable of anything that requires actual planning.
Selfishness: Complete sociopath. Other people are just toys to him, used for whatever crosses his mind. Capable of any atrocity with no thought given to effects upon his victims.
Violence: Psycho killer. Likely to kill anyone at any time without apparent reason. Usually severely tortures victims before he rapes and/or kills and/or eats them. Not necessarily in that order.

Example 1

Vito Bassoprofundo is the head of a New Jersey crime family. He generally rates a somewhere between a five and a six on the Morality Scale. Specifically his positions are:

Honesty: 6
Compassion: 5
Greed: 5
Selfishness: 6
Violence: 5-6

Vito isn't the nastiest crime boss you're likely to find, but he's no angel. In fact he teeters between a five and a six on the table, being just about equal overall. One day, the FBI is closing in and Vito, with no immediate options he can see, betrays his best friend Pauly, framing him for a major crime. This counts as a Four on the table in the area of Selfishness. It might also affect his Honesty since he's going to have to lie about the crime to his crew and family (and the FBI). Vito has violated even his own loose morals in a big way. The Storyteller rules that he must roll four dice against his Morality, with a minus two due to the fact that he actually dropped two steps from his base Selfishness of six, to an act the would earn him a four and affected his Honesty as well. Vito rolls and gets no successes. He decides it was just "Business." Besides, Pauly was getting a little too big for his own good, a little time in prison will do him some good. Vito's Selfishness and Honesty both drop to a solid five, making a pretty solid five overall. In such a case, he must roll for a derangement. He does so and fails. Vito picks up a little paranoia, starting to think his crew can no no longer be trusted. His rating would be changed to this:

Honesty: 5
Compassion: 5
Greed: 5
Selfishness: 5
Violence: 5-6

Had Vito killed Pauly, leaving his body at the scene, hoping his friend would be blamed for the crime, (an action closer to a three than a four) he'd have been in real trouble. His Humanity roll might have been lowered to only one die and the possible derangement would have been more severe. In such a case, Vito would have ended up with ratings more like this:

Honesty: 5
Compassion: 5
Greed: 5
Selfishness: 5
Violence: 4

Vito went all the way from an ambiguous 5-6 to a solid 5 with leanings toward a 4, all in one night. As with anything, the final adjudication is up to the Storyteller.
Example 2

Honesty: 6
Compassion: 6
Greed: 4
Selfishness: 6-5
Violence: 5

Don Ravioli is a great man. Known widely by all for his compassion and humanitarian acts, he can be found every Saturday and Sunday evening in the local soup kitchen/shelter, fixing sandwiches, spooning out bowlfulls of soup, doing loads of laundry and ever willing to lend an ear to someone's problems. During the weak, the company that Don Ravioli is CEO of, "Cookies, Inc." supplies 67% of all the cookies sold by Girl Scouts of America. Cookies, Inc. funnels fully 12% of its profits into kitchens, shelters and libraries across America.

Don Ravioli is known far and wide for his honesty. He rarely gives interviews and doesn't say much. As such, his statement that he will not answer particular questions raise no eyebrows -- unlike a regular person who only pleads the 5th when he has something to hide, Don Ravioli pleads to be excused from questioning even when the questions are completely innocuous. This practice even extends to his private life. His wife and children know as much about what he does at the office as the average man on the street.

What an exceedingly small number know, however, is that Cookies, Inc. also funnels a great percentage of its profits directly into Don Ravioli's pockets. Operating on a regular scale of embezzlement that would put Enron to shame, only the greatest sales force in the country (more than 3 1/2 million strong, most of whom range in age from 7 to 17) keeps the company from going under each year.

A reporter once uncovered the monstrous fraud that Cookies, Inc. is based upon. When Don Ravioli found that the reporter was too honest and stubborn to be bribed or scared away from the story, he actually wept openly and his voice cracked when he ordered that the reporter receive a permanent print cancelation notice.

Chester O'Cheesy, the CTO of Cookies, Inc., thought that this meant that Don Ravioli was soft and could be toppled from his lofty perch. Chester found out the hard way that although Don Ravioli sheds many tears for each such crime that must be committed, Don Ravioli has no problem shedding another tear when there is no other option. Especially when it is his company (the hand that feeds him) which is being threatened.

Due to his greed and willingness to kill and exploit others (girls scouts) to maintain his position, Don Ravioli comes in at around a loose 5 morality with a slight edge toward six. Another killing, starting another corrupt business, etc. will certaily drop him to a solid 5.

[Celestial Pegasus]

Chdmann: Thank you for your replies. It sounds like the intel field has changed significantly since the report I read. That's no surprise; it was from the 70s or 80s and clearly edited in response to a US FOIA inquiry and I'm willing to believe contemporary intel-gathering has evolved since then. I'm also willing to concede the sum of my knowledge on it is very, very small; I've idly read a few items available to the public, but that's what browsing Wikipedia and its linked sources/citations on a slow day at work will do for you.

I'd like to ask a little more if it's okay. Your estimate of 2m19s before the subject starts talking... we're assuming they provide accurate, actionable information as opposed to simply responding "okay okay, I'll talk" and making stuff up? I'm guessing "yes, otherwise what's the point", but have to ask as a framework for these next points.

- What sort of person are we talking about in the 2:19 estimate/average? Are these laypersons... support staff, civilians, and others who generally do not expect to come into direct conflict with another person in their typical day or week? For the sake of the question, we'll assume they have the useful information the interrogator needs and are targeted for torture to swiftly reveal it.

- If the subjects in that estimate are indeed 'softer' people (to use an admittedly odd term), how does this estimate relate to those who do work in 'conflict oriented fields' such as soldiers, meaningful security at a company, enemy combatants, etc.; people who have given at least a passing thought to interrogations. Do they give similarly useful info within roughly that same time frame? If not, does it take notably longer? Do they tend to provide bad information?

- Is this still the case even when they have specific reasons to not answer their interrogator at all or lie? For example, the information being sought will be irrelevant once X amount of time passes. These would be the 'ticking time bomb' scenarios some of us have cited earlier. This would be in contrast to someone who knows that when they answer truthfully is mostly irrelevant; the information would still be useful to their interrogator some hours, days, or maybe even weeks from now.

Granted, exact time measures may not be all that helpful. If we're establishing that successful (e.g. "got a useful, accurate answer") torture takes roughly 2 minutes and 19 seconds... that's well past the sort of thing that matters in Pathfinder combat (where the average encounter lasts about 5-12 rounds, each round being roughly 6 seconds) and probably goes into something Pathfinder rules-writers might not even want to mess with at all; it's very out of place in a game about cooperative high-fantasy storytelling.

To the others reading this: As some people are taking this topic rather strongly (and understandably so), I agree; it's not something I'm comfortable with. Still, "torture for information" comes up as a possibility in D&D/Pathfinder very often. Seems like it's worth finding out whether this is a plausible way to get information on very short notice, or if it's primarily a flight of fancy for fiction like "24" and "The Punisher." Then we can worry about times where it's justified for a Good creature to do it in those very limited circumstances.

[Quori]

LazarX wrote:

Chengar Qordath wrote:

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 way I would describe alignment in as far as the good/evil access is much along the way White Wolf used in it's replacement for Alignment, the Humanity score.

In White Wolf your Humanity score is ideintified by the line you draw in the sand as far as your own actions, in other words where do you set your mark and beyond that, define actions you will not perform.

The spoilered section below is from a fan based White Wolf wiki. Familliar with the system myself I'd say it's pretty spot on.

** spoiler omitted **...

I also like to look at Ravenloft's Dark Powers checks. If it's evil in Ravenloft, it's evil everywhere ;)

I like this, and I'll tell you why. I find that the more 'evil' you become, and the more 'chaotic' you become, the less rational you are.

Even the earliest editions stated CE couldn't be led in a group, would always assasinate the leader, and eventually get themselves killed (that's what happens when you attack your own party). I simply don't see how a CE can 'behave' long enough in a group to last longer than one session. It's not possible.

We don't have enough information on this persons 'decisions', but I think it's been touched on earlier about the 'rationale' of the player. We need more information on specific scenario's and choices. If they are being reckless, and putting their life at risk for whimsical choices of personal satisfaction, then it's CE. If they are acting more towards being evil for personal advantage/gain, and no chaotic whimsy, then it's NE.

Your choice really.

[Chengar Qordath]

LazarX wrote:

The way I would describe alignment in as far as the good/evil access is much along the way White Wolf used in it's replacement for Alignment, the Humanity score.

In White Wolf your Humanity score is ideintified by the line you draw in the sand as far as your own actions, in other words where do you set your mark and beyond that, define actions you will not perform.

The spoilered section below is from a fan based White Wolf wiki. Familliar with the system myself I'd say it's pretty spot on.

** spoiler omitted **...

White Wolf's Humanity is a completely different system made for a completely different campaign setting, and really can't be applied to Pathfinder. Pretty much any Pathfinder PC would be stuck at Humanity 5 at best, on account of regularly engaging in violent to-the-death combat.

Also worth mentioning that in White Wolf Humanity is not so much an alignment system as it is a measure of whether or not the Vampire has degenerated a blood-crazed beast (which is why violence is so restricted).

Once again, someone explain how a Paladin is supposed to function if pacifism is a requirement of good alignment.

[The Drunken Dragon]

Hm, a tough one...

he's on a chaotic evil plane, so those guys obviously had it coming...but I'm not sure it was a good idea on his part to descend to their level. Assassinating them: fine. Slitting their throats while they slept: fine. Freeing himself while killing them: morally dubious in normal circumstances, but in this case easily justified to ensure survival. However, the torture and the burning alive business might have been overmuch, as well as the robbing them blind afterwards. None of those seemed in any way necessary to his survival (i mean, if he had no other choice? Couldn't have have just locked the guards in the room and left? If they weren't motivated enough by a fire trap to bust that door down, it wasn't going to come down), and that starts to seem a little...weird.

But is it outright evil? Hard to say. Is it chaotic? Maybe. The thing is, he did deliberate heavily, so a touch of lawful there, but his motivation was entirely the "save my own skin" kind, so perhaps a bit more neutral, though he was methodical. The reason why I say Chaotic is a possibility is because some of those deaths seemed entirely on a whim, and some of them seemed to be done out of no reason other than spite...oh wait, sorry, that's evil, not chaotic. Statement withdrawn. Not chaotic. Probably evil, but barely.

[Jason S]

willhob wrote:

Stuff

I'm not sure he sounds evil, he sounds smart. The real question is why he was in prison in the first place. There's nothing evil about wanting to break out of a prison created by an evil society.

[Gallo]

Celestial Pegasus wrote:

Chdmann: Thank you for your replies. It sounds like the intel field has changed significantly since the report I read. That's no surprise; it was from the 70s or 80s and clearly edited in response to a US FOIA inquiry and I'm willing to believe contemporary intel-gathering has evolved since then. I'm also willing to concede the sum of my knowledge on it is very, very small; I've idly read a few items available to the public, but that's what browsing Wikipedia and its linked sources/citations on a slow day at work will do for you.

Contemporary intel-gathering has advanced. Civilised countries don't use torture. Civilised countries don't come up with nonsensical euphemisms like "safe torture".

Celestial Pegasus wrote:

I'd like to ask a little more if it's okay. Your estimate of 2m19s before the subject starts talking... we're assuming they provide accurate, actionable information as opposed to simply responding "okay okay, I'll talk" and making stuff up? I'm guessing "yes, otherwise what's the point", but have to ask as a framework for these next points.

There is more to obtaining intelligence out of an interrogation (or torture) than just forcing some guy to tell you things - 2.19 or not. Anything that comes out of the guy's mouth is just information. What turns it into intelligence is analysis, corroboration and the like. It isn't like the drive thru at McDonalds. It takes preparation, research, skill, time etc

Celestial Pegasus wrote:

- What sort of person are we talking about in the 2:19 estimate/average? Are these laypersons... support staff, civilians, and others who generally do not expect to come into direct conflict with another person in their typical day or week? For the sake of the question, we'll assume they have the useful information the interrogator needs and are targeted for torture to swiftly reveal it.

Does it really matter? Hand wave it, make it up, use a spell. While we all like a degree of "reality" in our fantasy simulations, trying to get the exact time it takes to "break" someone through torture is just more than a little morbid.

Celestial Pegasus wrote:

- If the subjects in that estimate are indeed 'softer' people (to use an admittedly odd term), how does this estimate relate to those who do work in 'conflict oriented fields' such as soldiers, meaningful security at a company, enemy combatants, etc.; people who have given at least a passing thought to interrogations. Do they give similarly useful info within roughly that same time frame? If not, does it take notably longer? Do they tend to provide bad information?

They may well give up information quicker but until you can analyse or verify the information in some way it isn't much use. How do you know when that particular piece of information they have just given up while screaming in agony is more accurate or truthful than the other pieces of information they gave up while screaming in agony?

Celestial Pegasus wrote:

- Is this still the case even when they have specific reasons to not answer their interrogator at all or lie? For example, the information being sought will be irrelevant once X amount of time passes. These would be the 'ticking time bomb' scenarios some of us have cited earlier. This would be in contrast to someone who knows that when they answer truthfully is mostly irrelevant; the information would still be useful to their interrogator some hours, days, or maybe even weeks from now.

People can quite willingly give up information during interrogation. Others have to have it coaxed and cajoled out of them. How does the interrogator know the subject knows information or do they just treat everyone the same and hook straight in? A person who has resistance to interrogation training has been given the tools to prolong matters. They can try and make themselves appear to be a "mook" to not be selected for intensive interrogation (or by the time someone works out they are more important it is too late) or if they do end up being interrogated they can resist the techniques the interrogators use, including a degree of physical coercion, to prolong things.

Celestial Pegasus wrote:

Granted, exact time measures may not be all that helpful. If we're establishing that successful (e.g. "got a useful, accurate answer") torture takes roughly 2 minutes and 19 seconds... that's well past the sort of thing that matters in Pathfinder combat (where the average encounter lasts about 5-12 rounds, each round being roughly 6 seconds) and probably goes into something Pathfinder rules-writers might not even want to mess with at all; it's very out of place in a game about cooperative high-fantasy storytelling.

Again, just hand wave it or make it up. The exact time is not important. If someone is trying to escape a prison the longer they hang around the greater the risk of being recaptured.

Celestial Pegasus wrote:

To the others reading this: As some people are taking this topic rather strongly (and understandably so), I agree; it's not something I'm comfortable with. Still, "torture for information" comes up as a possibility in D&D/Pathfinder very often. Seems like it's worth finding out whether this is a plausible way to get information on very short notice, or if it's primarily a flight of fancy for fiction like "24" and "The Punisher." Then we can worry about times where it's justified for a Good creature to do it in those very limited circumstances.

I've been playing D&D/Pathfinder for 33 years. The concept of players torturing someone has come up exactly zero times.

While I have not personally conducted interrogations, I have been the interpreter in one. And you know what, it is an unpleasant, disturbing process. On one side you have the detainee - nervous, disorientated and scared. On the other side you have a hard-arsed, focussed interrogator working to very strict guidelines about what can and cannot be done. In the detention centre there were military lawyers closely following events. The detainee is terrified of what is going to happen to him. One minute he is in a cell the next minute he is being taken out - is he being released, is he just being moved to a different cell or is it something worse? Even if he "knows" he isn't going to be beaten up, deep down he is not sure. The interrogator puts him under a lot of pressure both emotional and psychological. By the end of the process when the interrogator had obtained as much information as he could from that session, the detainee was a wreck. It was probably the most unpleasant and demanding hour or so of the 20+ years I spent in the military and Defence. I still have unpleasant dreams about it 12 years on.

So seriously Celestial, don't take this line of inquiry any further. Torture, interrogation, it's all unpleasant. Pathfinder is meant to be a fun pastime - don't try to get into the minutae of the conduct of it. It is really, really unnecessary. And if you think it is necessary for your game, then I'd be asking myself some serious questions about what kind of Pathfinder game you are involved in.

[Celestial Pegasus]

Gallo: Clearly I've hit a very personal nerve, and I'm sorry. I will remedy that before I say anything more. I'm willing to move my conversation with Chdmann to private messages to avoid upsetting you further. That said. please understand, this isn't me gleefully dancing and saying "this sounds great! Tell me more about breaking another person's psyche to get information!" No! I have many of the same objections you do! And it's possible this line of inquiry won't turn up anything useful for Pathfinder. On the other hand, it might provide some useful context as to what people expect to plausibly gain from this 'tactic' in play. Chdmann is offering insight on that, so I want to understand why it keeps coming up at tables I play at.

You mentioned it hasn't come up once in about three decades for you, and I envy that. It seems we're having very different experiences. I can play in completely different groups (as in, wholly different GM and players) and torture seems to come up roughly half the time anyway. Some of the enemy NPCs survive or are cornered, and one or more of the PCs get the idea in their head to start using death threats, infliction of pain, or actionable threats of pain to get information. As their first recourse. Often these PCs are labeled as one of the three Good alignments; I find myself scratching my head over that and asking "How in the hell is that Good?" Usually there is no ticking time bomb situation to even begin justifying it, furthering my confusion.

Moral objections don't seem to matter to these 'Good-align' PCs. My characters can be shocked and voice such objections; the torturing PCs keep at it. Logic about how this likely won't work doesn't sway them either, the action continues. The only way I've seen such PCs deterred is by force or threats of force. I've had to walk away from tables at organized play events run at conventions because my PCs were going to violate the ban on PVP for lack of any other recourse. Granted, this was mostly at D&D 3.5 'living campaign' play at conventions, which isn't exactly Pathfinder but I think it remains relevant.

Now, it doesn't happen every time I play. Nonetheless I've had it happen in enough groups that I'm left wondering what they stand to gain from it, and if I'm going to keep having to leave D&D/PF sessions over my objections to the topic then I'd at least like to know why. Are they all just misguided by the exploits of Jack Bauer and Frank 'The Punisher' Castle? Is there something these players know about it that I don't, that really does yield useful info in a hurry in the aforementioned 'ticking time bomb' scenario? I doubt it, but I have to ask given how bizarrely different my experiences are from yours. Chdmann is offering some insight on it, so I'm asking questions.

Chdmann is the first person I've spoken with on the topic that could articulate in any meaningful way how they expect such actions to succeed, and to what degree. Chances are nothing he says will sway me and I'm going to continue getting ejected from tables when some PC starts the torture routine, but at least I'll have a wider perspective on the topic.

Again, I'm sorry this has upset you. You have good reasons to feel that way, ones I agree with! Just please understand I'm seeking knowledge, not endorsing the practice.

Chdmann: If you could, please direct any further replies to my PM inbox.

[Chdmann]

Celestial Pegasus wrote:

Chdmann: Thank you for your replies. It sounds like the intel field has changed significantly since the report I read. That's no surprise; it was from the 70s or 80s and clearly edited in response to a US FOIA inquiry and I'm willing to believe contemporary intel-gathering has evolved since then. I'm also willing to concede the sum of my knowledge on it is very, very small; I've idly read a few items available to the public, but that's what browsing Wikipedia and its linked sources/citations on a slow day at work will do for you.

I'd like to ask a little more if it's okay. Your estimate of 2m19s before the subject starts talking... we're assuming they provide accurate, actionable information as opposed to simply responding "okay okay, I'll talk" and making stuff up? I'm guessing "yes, otherwise what's the point", but have to ask as a framework for these next points.

- What sort of person are we talking about in the 2:19 estimate/average? Are these laypersons... support staff, civilians, and others who generally do not expect to come into direct conflict with another person in their typical day or week? For the sake of the question, we'll assume they have the useful information the interrogator needs and are targeted for torture to swiftly reveal it.

- If the subjects in that estimate are indeed 'softer' people (to use an admittedly odd term), how does this estimate relate to those who do work in 'conflict oriented fields' such as soldiers, meaningful security at a company, enemy combatants, etc.; people who have given at least a passing thought to interrogations. Do they give similarly useful info within roughly that same time frame? If not, does it take notably longer? Do they tend to provide bad information?

- Is this still the case even when they have specific reasons to not answer their interrogator at all or lie? For example, the information being sought will be irrelevant once X amount of time passes. These would be the 'ticking time bomb' scenarios some of us have cited...

I'll give you the basics;

Humans, (and all humanoids according to the fantasy game group I'm playing with,) share a reptilian brain structure that can only be overridden by brain damage.

A near-death experience causes adrenaline to overload the conscious mind and enhance suggestibility/induce "Entrancement".

Then repeatedly tell them about how when they try and die, you revive them, and then "You are eager to answer our questions, to relieve the pain" in a more soothing voice.

These methods are so effective, their teaching is restricted. I still can talk about them because so many refuse to believe how simple it is to override 'free will'.

There is no true free will, merely the optimal course of in/action in response to both physical and mental stimuli.

[Celestial Pegasus]

Chdmann: Thank you, but if it's all the same I'd rather not continue the discussion here. We're upsetting Gallo, and understandably so. In most cases I'd carry on because I think you can learn important things from discussing even morbid topics like this... but he has a personal connection to it.

"He can leave if he doesn't like it" isn't applicable either, since this thread is not primarily about torture; it was about the Alignment sum of various recent in-game actions and I brought it up as a side topic. I'm not comfortable continuing the discussion in this thread when it's clearly upsetting someone who has a reasonable objection.

Edit: Actually I think we're done with the topic regardless, or at least I am. I've learned what I meaningfully can and have no further questions. Thank you again for your insight. I remain... rather unnerved by it and think it remains indefensible, but at least you've been able to reasonably articulate what you think someone stands to gain from the practice. That's more than most of the 'Bauer wannabes' I come across can do.

[Brox RedGloves]

Chengar Qordath wrote:

Celestial Pegasus wrote:

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.

So I guess for someone like you there is no middle ground. Either you burn people alive or you barf rainbows? I can understand executing an opponent, or just fighting to the death, but there is no way you are ever going to rationalize burning someone to death is not an evil act.

Lay off the hyperbole man, it's skewing your judgement.

[Chdmann]

Brox RedGloves wrote:

So I guess for someone like you there is no middle ground. Either you burn people alive or you barf rainbows? I can understand executing an opponent, or just fighting to the death, but there is no way you are ever going to rationalize burning someone to death is not an evil act.

Lay off the hyperbole man, it's skewing your judgement.

Nice Strawman!

I see any killing as an evil act IMHO, but as long as the good done adds up to more then the 'evil' done to bring the good.

Still, YMMV.

Celestial Pegasus wrote:

Edit: Actually I think we're done with the topic regardless, or at least I am. I've learned what I meaningfully can and have no further questions. Thank you again for your insight. I remain... rather unnerved by it and think it remains indefensible, but at least you've been able to reasonably articulate what you think someone stands to gain from the practice. That's more than most of the 'Bauer wannabes' I come across can do.

Cheers, I never said it was for everyone, but I see it as the difference between a thug and a surgeon using a knife/scalpel on someone. Both cause physical injury, but one does it merely to harm, while the other does it to treat a greater problem.

Relating back to the topic, and revealing my own Bias here:

I'd call the Thief's Action, Neutral Unaligned, mostly because no-one would know about it, therefore it can't affect his social standing.)

[LazarX]

Chengar Qordath wrote:

Once again, someone explain how a Paladin is supposed to function if pacifism is a requirement of good alignment.

A person of good alignment avoids killing when possible, and when he or she must kill, does so without succumbing to the lusts, cruelties, and base emotions of those she is consecrated to fight. A Paladin avoids the traps of the "easy way out", avoids reveling in the pain of her enemies.

And above all, never closes out the possibility of tempering justice with mercy.

Also keep in mind that in my opinion, the Paladin is not the pure good of the Neutral Good ideal.

[Quori]

Jason S wrote:

willhob wrote:

Stuff

I'm not sure he sounds evil, he sounds smart. The real question is why he was in prison in the first place. There's nothing evil about wanting to break out of a prison created by an evil society.

We're not arguing if he's evil. His character is evil (by his choice of alignment). The question is whether or not he is acting neutral, or chaotic.

[Jason S]

Quori wrote:

We're not arguing if he's evil. His character is evil (by his choice of alignment). The question is whether or not he is acting neutral, or chaotic.

It's impossible to tell from your brief description.

Chaotic doesn't mean insane and random. I'm chaotic in real life, yet I still plan, I (try to) follow schedules, work every day, and I'm a good team player. I just don't follow all of the rules, I'm independent, and I won't necessarily follow the crowd or agree with everyone.

I'm not sure you're going to get any agreement, people have their own notions about alignment, even though it's in black and white in the CRB. Too many holdovers and incorrect definitions from past editions.

[Chengar Qordath]

Brox RedGloves wrote:

So I guess for someone like you there is no middle ground. Either you burn people alive or you barf rainbows? I can understand executing an opponent, or just fighting to the death, but there is no way you are ever going to rationalize burning someone to death is not an evil act.

So what makes burning people alive so much worse than, well, every other method of killing them? Would that mean that only evil wizards can use the fireball spell?

I could see the argument if the fire were being used specifically to cause a lingering death for the PCs sadistic pleasure, but in this case it seems like a case of simple efficiency. The guards are a threat, and direct confrontation isn't practical, but fire will get the job done.

[Chengar Qordath]

LazarX wrote:

Chengar Qordath wrote:

Once again, someone explain how a Paladin is supposed to function if pacifism is a requirement of good alignment.

A person of good alignment avoids killing when possible, and when he or she must kill, does so without succumbing to the lusts, cruelties, and base emotions of those she is consecrated to fight. A Paladin avoids the traps of the "easy way out", avoids reveling in the pain of her enemies.

And above all, never closes out the possibility of tempering justice with mercy.

Also keep in mind that in my opinion, the Paladin is not the pure good of the Neutral Good ideal.

The only part I'd take issue with in that is that I think the nature of the PF universe and existence of objective evil makes killing a frequent necessity. Often, butt-kicking for goodness is the only solution to the problem.

Mercy and avoiding conflict are very good in a more realistic shades-of-grey situation, but the PF universe is chock-full of things and people that are pure evil and will never change their ways.

[Gallo]

Celestial Pegasus wrote:

Gallo: Clearly I've hit a very personal nerve, and I'm sorry. I will remedy that before I say anything more. I'm willing to move my conversation with Chdmann to private messages to avoid upsetting you further. That said. please understand, this isn't me gleefully dancing and saying "this sounds great! Tell me more about breaking another person's psyche to get information!" No! I have many of the same objections you do! And it's possible this line of inquiry won't turn up anything useful for Pathfinder. On the other hand, it might provide some useful context as to what people expect to plausibly gain from this 'tactic' in play. Chdmann is offering insight on that, so I want to understand why it keeps coming up at tables I play at.

I'm not upset at all. I'm more bemused by some of the morally flexible positions being outlined in this thread.

Ultimately I just think players who want to apply torture in game need to have a long hard look at themselves. There are so many enjoyable avenues to take playing this game that there is no need to go anywhere near torture. If I were to DM a group that even considered it I'd make it pretty clear that it's not on. Plus I never have and never will play in a group that wants to play evil characters so I would imagine the torture issue will continue to not come up.

[Chdmann]

Gallo wrote:

Ultimately I just think players who want to apply torture in game need to have a long hard look at themselves. There are so many enjoyable avenues to take playing this game that there is no need to go anywhere near torture. If I were to DM a group that even considered it I'd make it pretty clear that it's not on. Plus I never have and never will play in a group that wants to play evil characters so I would imagine the torture issue will continue to not come up.

Fair enough Gallo, that's how you like your games of PF.

The Group I'm playing enjoys more 'shades of grey', (We have my Ooze-Master/Ooze-Bound Mage (was half-orc), a famous Dwarf bard, a Elven 'Working Girl' turned Assassin, and a Paranoid Paladin.)

That's the brilliance of pf: We can play the game we want based on the rules. May not be your bowl of Black Pudding, but our group enjoys systematically killing regional Lords and stealing their fortunes/starting rebellion against the Holy Empire by Uniting Dwarf, Elf, Goblin and Humans/(think like the show 'Revenge' in high fantasy.)

[LazarX]

Chdmann wrote:

I see any killing as an evil act IMHO, but as long as the good done adds up to more then the 'evil' done to bring the good.

That's pretty much reduces down to an "Ends Justify the Means" argument. On the other hand, I don't see Good/Evil as a relative summ quotient. I think that there are means whch irretreivably taint whatever ends that are sought, no matter how noble. I take Owlman's positon as opposed to Oxymandias. That there are acts which are irretreiably wrong, unconscionably evil no matter how much good you stack against them.

[Chdmann]

LazarX wrote:

That's pretty much reduces down to an "Ends Justify the Means" argument. On the other hand, I don't see Good/Evil as a relative summ quotient. I think that there are means whch irretreivably taint whatever ends that are sought, no matter how noble. I take Owlman's positon as opposed to Oxymandias. That there are acts which are irretreiably wrong, unconscionably evil no matter how much good you stack against them.

So a Character is irredeemable is someone crosses your 'Line in the Sand'? Where do you draw that line? For example, those Orc Warriors that you kill are another's Husband, Father, or Brother. How is killing them any less evil then killing the Tyranical Lord in his castle?

NPC's will never forget any wrongs done against them, however if the greater good is achieved, then their alignment should reflect that.

[Quori]

Jason S wrote:

Quori wrote:

We're not arguing if he's evil. His character is evil (by his choice of alignment). The question is whether or not he is acting neutral, or chaotic.

It's impossible to tell from your brief description.

Chaotic doesn't mean insane and random. I'm chaotic in real life, yet I still plan, I (try to) follow schedules, work every day, and I'm a good team player. I just don't follow all of the rules, I'm independent, and I won't necessarily follow the crowd or agree with everyone.

I'm not sure you're going to get any agreement, people have their own notions about alignment, even though it's in black and white in the CRB. Too many holdovers and incorrect definitions from past editions.

I'm not looking for agreement. I'm just quoting the concept developed and described as Chaotic Evil from alignment descriptions of 2E D&D and on. They specifically describe the classical CE individual as unable to work well in groups, constantly trying assassinate any leader in a party and always at risk of getting themselves killed because they don't work well with others and eventually expose themselves a evil and ruthless.

3E: PHB, p.90 "A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable... The demented sorcerer pursuing mad schemes of vengeance and havoc is chaotic evil."

2E: PHB, p. "Chaotic evil characters are motivated by the desire for personal gain and pleasure... Such a group can be held together only by a strong leader, capable of bullying his underlings into obedience. Since leadership is based on raw power, a leader is likely to be replaced at the first sign of weakness by anyone who can take his position away from him by any method."

Pathfinder: "A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him."

The editions seem to agree on a great many points. They can't possibly use all the same words, however it should be noted that Pathfinder chose to also take the 3/3.5E version of the alignment word-for-word. You can argue about the little things, but they did invent the alignments for a reason, we might want to use them as the basis for our understanding of them. Considering that without them creating the alignments, we wouldn't even be talking about CE. In essence, what you're saying is everyone who refuses to accept CE, generally, as a haphazard, vicious, arbitrarily violent and unpredictable individual that is seemingly mad and driven by pleasure and desire is literally re-writing the alignment.

I am of course fine with this. To each his own, but you are making up your own alignments.

[Chengar Qordath]

When it comes to CE and working in groups, I'd say that a lot depends on the character. After all, alignment is supposed to be a fairly broad-strokes kind of thing, not a strict roleplaying restriction.

I could see a Chaotic Evil character deciding that the rest of the people in their group were pretty OK overall, so they wouldn't go out of their way to stir up any trouble as long as nobody in the group gave them a hard time, tried to boss them around, etc.