Is torturing intelligent undead an evil action?

[willhob]

The way I see this, it's a rules question and not a personal morality question.

Alignment wrote:

Torturing that prisoner for information might be in the forbidden area for a given good character.

This word in Alignment to me implies its a moral gray area that depends on the circumstances.

Code of Conduct wrote:

..if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she... act with honor... and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Unlike how the rules manual defines good, Evil seems to be defined as an active activity. Standing by while an evil undead is tortured, then, is technically not evil. Torturing the undead might be evil, but it is the goal of some Paladins to exterminate undead for the sake of exterminating undead.

Not because they are evil, but because they are an abomination to the concept of good and order and life itself. In that sense, undead are not considered sentient and like a form of Hitler-esque racism, it is OK to engage in the wholesale slaughter and torture and dismemberment of undead as written in

Undead Scourge wrote:

Undead are an abomination in the eyes of the just and righteous. It is no surprise then that there are some paladins that dedicate themselves to wiping these unholy terrors from the world.

While I don't like the conclusion, RAW seem to suggest that it is perfectly within an Undead Scourge's Paladin Code to treat undead, intelligent or not, like monsters and to not value their existence in any fashion.

[Lanassa]

I was under the impression that undead just don't feel any pain. Their bodies are dead, including their nerves. Besides, even RAW, they should be immune to pain effects, since they are immune to effects that require a Fortitude save (an pain effects are such).

So, strictly, torturing undead has no basis and the players shouldn't have gained anything from this :p

[wraithstrike]

There are no rules that say undead don't feel pain. If they felt no pain it would be hard to register how hurt they were, and knowing when to heal would be an issue. Fortitude has nothing to do with pain with the way you describe it. Cure spells hurt them and they are will save based, as an example. Most fortitude affect affect physiology, and that is a much more likely reason as to why undead are normally immune to them.

Horrid Wilting is an AoE that hurts living creatures, and it is will saved based.

edit:If torture was purely pain based, and undead were immune to pain then they would not be getting tortured, at least not physically anyway. :)

[Skullking]

Rather than say whether it is good or evil I will just say that it is the knind of thing my cleric of Orcus PC would do - mind you he starves ghoul minions for fun.

[Lanassa]

That was more in response to describing torture as 'inflicting pain', which is what most people here assume. Torture is also about causing fear -and undead are clearly immune to that. I was also thinking of spells like pain strike (and a few others) that require a Fort save.

Ok, it's a bit of a stretching of the rules saying that undead don't feel pain, but they are masses of dead flesh (or bone) and one could assume that they have other ways of determining when to heal, just as they obviously have other ways os seeing without eyes -and with darkvision at that! So, I don't think I would feel cheated if a GM ruled that you can't cause pain to undead.

[Shifty]

willhob wrote:

Undead Scourge wrote:

Undead are an abomination in the eyes of the just and righteous. It is no surprise then that there are some paladins that dedicate themselves to wiping these unholy terrors from the world.

While I don't like the conclusion, RAW seem to suggest that it is perfectly within an Undead Scourge's Paladin Code to treat undead, intelligent or not, like monsters and to not value their existence in any fashion.

Yeah this sort of paladin activity has come under fire in the 'good guys ideas' thread. We don't like it, and are of the opinion there has been a bit of a genocidal shark-jump with this kinda RAW.

[LazarX]

chaoseffect wrote:

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

it's not evil, it's pragmatic and a smart tactic. nothing in the paladins code forbids torture. and torture isn't an even an evil act. intellegent undead are assumed to be evil and a good paladin wants to see the undead follower suffer.

It's also hypocrisy like that, that causes no one to feel bad at all when a Paladin bites the dust.

Tropes wise it's a road that heraleded the fall of not a few Paladins. When you get into the "Ends Justify The Means" mentality, you've left Paladinhood behind.

[Chemlak]

Loving the discussion. This might not be the right place for it, but here's a thought exercise regarding Objective Morality. The most important thing to remember is that a character (in all likelihood) has no idea what their alignment is (and I'm only going to examine the Good-Evil axis) - it's just a mechanic to give guidance on how a character can expect to interact with other beings.

The game sets an Objective Morality standard. There are creatures that are always Good, there are creatures that are always Evil. There are planes of existence that, by their very nature, are Good or Evil.

Under Objective Morality, there are acts that are definitively good and definitively evil. To change the focus slightly, in an attempt to be clearer, I am going to define these acts as either being Benevolent or Diabolical, respectively.

The universe (in game terms, the GM) is keeping score. The game-reality defines some acts as Evil (either by a mention in text, a descriptor, or whatever), and thus those acts are Diabolical. Likewise, some acts are defined as Good (Benevolent). Regardless of the intent of the character (who, remember, has no idea what an alignment actually is, let alone what his own alignment may be) any choice he makes to perform a Diabolical act is recognised by the universe. There is no set scale whereby the universe says "he has done many Diabolical things, therefore he is evil" - that is up to the GM to decide - but it is not open to interpretation, or justification, that "this isn't Diabolical because..." The universe says it is, so it is.

If a GM decides that torture is Diabolical, then it is, end of discussion. Even an undead-hating Paladin interrogating undead cannot justify their choice.

However, the rules are not clear and definitive, in an attempt to give freedom to the players and the GM to make up fun stories.

Speaking for myself, I would classify torture as Diabolical. Even though torture is often used as a means to extract information, it does not have to be, and doesn't need a reason. Torture is defined, by me, as "intentionally causing suffering to one or more beings". I consider doing that to be Diabolical, regardless of the reasons for it. So the universe I play in objectively views intentionally causing suffering (you'll note I don't specify "pain", since combat and injury are inherent to the genre) as an Evil act.

What is suffering? Physical or emotional pain that exists for longer than it must. Healing a dragon after defeating it, but only to get it into positive hp, is making it suffer. Doing the same because you're out of healing is not. A Benevolent act would be to heal it all the way as soon as possible.

Intent counts, definitely, but when the justification becomes "won't" instead of "can't", then that is what decides the difference between Benevolence and Diabolism. And thus, Good and Evil.

[setzer9999]

The problem with evil, is that looking at everything in terms of black and white comparisons against which evil is only held up against good oversimplifies the issue. I’m sure you have all heard the term “the lesser of two evils”. Every day, we all choose the lesser of two evils, or do things that from a different perspective might seem evil. Determining if an act is evil depends on the situation, and then further determining if a person committing such acts is “evil enough” to be considered a largely “evil aligned” person is yet another determination made of a series of these determinations.

First, I’d like to start off by saying that, yes, I think torture is always evil. However, again, looking at it from the perspective of determining the lesser of two evils, the mileage may vary in then determining if a person who tortures someone has an “evil alignment”, PF rules or real. If you have very good reason to believe that the subject of your torture has information that could stop what you truly believe is a greater amount of evil from happening by torturing, then, though the torture is also evil, it is the lesser of two evils. It would have been more evil to let the greater evil happen when you could have prevented it.

The sticky part there is: how do you gauge how “sure” you are that the subject has the information you need, that the evil that information could prevent is greater than the suffering you would inflict on the torture subject, and that the torture is going to be an effective means of getting that subject to talk? These things are not certainties. Therefore, if you take the assumption for granted that torture is the way to go about such matters, and have a regular practice of torture as a “go to” means, you are much more likely to be evil. If you are pushed into torture under extreme duress, and probably feel bad about it, but had to make a hard choice between a lesser of two evils in a particular circumstance, this may be a different story.

If you were torturing a creature because you wanted to know where some treasure was, of course is choosing the greater of two evils. If you were torturing a creature just because of its race, and due to its race you SUSPECT that it has something to do with the disappearance of that poor child you are looking for… that seems to be choosing the greater of two evils. If you, based on other investigative proof and empirical evidence, have reasonable doubt to know that the creature you are torturing is responsible for the disappearance of that child, and that in all likelihood it is going to harm or torture that child… then torturing is still evil, but the lesser of two evils.

Should people be given alignment shifts for taking the lesser of two evils? In my opinion, no. We all make decisions to take the lesser of two evils every day. At best, actions like that would never make you slide all the way to an evil alignment. However, it is reasonable that a creature that engaged in such actions, especially if frequently, would be Neutral… which is obviously a problem for a Paladin.

My long .02

[LazarX]

setzer9999 wrote:

Should people be given alignment shifts for taking the lesser of two evils? In my opinion, no. We all make decisions to take the lesser of two evils every day. At best, actions like that would never make you slide all the way to an evil alignment. However, it is reasonable that a creature that engaged in such actions, especially if frequently, would be Neutral… which is obviously a problem for a Paladin.

It's a question that has to be answered on a case by case basis. Again, I would hesitate to judge gaming characters by real world standards. Most of us, me included probably don't have what it takes to conform to the expected standards of a Paladin. Sometimes an act is a momentary lapse of faith, sometimes the exact same act is confirmation of a permanent slide, it varies case by case.

[setzer9999]

LazarX wrote:

setzer9999 wrote:

Should people be given alignment shifts for taking the lesser of two evils? In my opinion, no. We all make decisions to take the lesser of two evils every day. At best, actions like that would never make you slide all the way to an evil alignment. However, it is reasonable that a creature that engaged in such actions, especially if frequently, would be Neutral… which is obviously a problem for a Paladin.

It's a question that has to be answered on a case by case basis. Again, I would hesitate to judge gaming characters by real world standards. Most of us, me included probably don't have what it takes to conform to the expected standards of a Paladin. Sometimes an act is a momentary lapse of faith, sometimes the exact same act is confirmation of a permanent slide, it varies case by case.

Paladins are fictional, and heroic, creatures. Real people can't conform to the standards of a wizard either. I'm not saying you are wrong though, from a "you're playing the game wrong" standpoint. I have no basis for that. Determining what acts fall into a category of alignment is not defined by the game rules except for where spell descriptors are concerned... and even though spell descriptors exist, even when using those spells, the game doesn't really force any kind of strict "RAW" on when to shift alignments. As far as I'm aware, there are no "alignment points" to give out in the RAW.

So, you have to make determinations based on something. That something is the world in which you live. You are not wrong to be lenient on players, but you are no more right for doing so either. These are subjective judgement calls on how to play and GM. That being said, at the end of the day, if you DID decide to make a Paladin slide to Neutral, they would lose all of their class powers... that is RAW, its just contingent on a non-RAW determination being made prior to it happening.

[LazarX]

setzer9999 wrote:

So, you have to make determinations based on something. That something is the world in which you live. You are not wrong to be lenient on players, but you are no more right for doing so either. These are subjective judgement calls on how to play and GM. That being said, at the end of the day, if you DID decide to make a Paladin slide to Neutral, they would lose all of their class powers... that is RAW, its just contingent on a non-RAW determination being made prior to it happening.

I've NEVER decided to make a Paladin "slide to neutral" or evil. If that happened it would be the Player who made that choice by the actions they commit, especially if they decide to ignore the warning signs they got along the way.

Our real world doesn't operate on an alignment system, I operate on one basic guiding principle.... actions have consequences. How I elaborate on that principle will vary on a case by case basis. You are right that there are no RAW guidelines. And I think the game is better for that lack.

[Chemlak]

To me, an alignment shift is only reasonable when the character in question consistently chooses to act in a way that adheres to an alignment different to the one on their sheet. They don't always have to act that way, but if there is a demonstrable divergence, then a shift is appropriate.

[Timothy Withem]

Bigger Club wrote:

For the Paladin I would require atonement not because of the torture since in this particular case we do not have enough information on what was at stake if it can fall under neutral or on the fence of evil and neutral. Either way I personally see a very few acts that instantly makes a paladin fall and this is not one of them. But the lying bit is against the code and lying about sparing someone's "life" is about the biggest lie you could make.

+1 to this. Per the paladin's code:

"...loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents." (bolding is mine)

The paladin either lied (or silently reinforced the lie). Per the word additionally, the paladin should lose their abilities until they atone, imo. Playing a paladin should be hard to do (not unfairly so, mainly from an RP standpoint). I liken it to Superman. Because, honestly, Superman could kill pretty much every villain in the world in an afternoon. He is a boyscout though, who never allows himself to take things beyond his code of conduct, just like a paladin.

Plus, sometimes paladin atonement can make for a great side story. The important thing is not to kill the player's fun with it. 1-2 short encounters without abilities makes them appreciate those abilities even more and then think of something creative to include in the atonement (for instance, seeking out any living relatives the vampire has and returning his gear, accompanied with some sort of compensation for "sadly, having to end your loved one's suffering at the end of a blade"). Also, allow them to seek council with someone of their order to get these requirements. Don't make them guess until they get it right (again, player enjoyment).

[Evil Lincoln]

I find the advocacy of torture as a "good" act in this thread very disturbing.

Despite my moniker, I don't personally believe in objective Good and Evil, but I don't believe in vampires or dragons either (and dungeons as Pathfinder portrays them are also quite implausible).

Such that objective Good and Evil exist in the world of Pathfinder, torture is always an evil act, regardless of the victim. Two wrongs do not make a right. Good men may be tempted to resort to an evil act in desperation, but that does not forgive the affliction of pain on another person — even if the "person" is an abomination.

A great GM will make Good players consider these acts despite their evil nature, and a great player will do his utmost to avoid these acts if his character is of good alignment. If you label these acts "non-evil" due to context, then you open the door for Good that is Not Good. Instead, go the route of the atonement spell; it is way more interesting!

Now, the thought of a vampire or other undead even responding to torture is just silly and off-theme to me. I would never allow it in my game. They would respond with unsettling calm and even amusement. They are the antithesis of life, that is something that cannot be possessed of the default human concerns for comfort and well-being. Since torture is pain without mortal injury, and HP generally reflect mortal injury only, then there is no mechanical reason undead must feel pain at all — beyond the eternal pain of their very existence.

A vampire crying "owie" is just muppetty, man.

[setzer9999]

LazarX wrote:

setzer9999 wrote:

So, you have to make determinations based on something. That something is the world in which you live. You are not wrong to be lenient on players, but you are no more right for doing so either. These are subjective judgement calls on how to play and GM. That being said, at the end of the day, if you DID decide to make a Paladin slide to Neutral, they would lose all of their class powers... that is RAW, its just contingent on a non-RAW determination being made prior to it happening.

I've NEVER decided to make a Paladin "slide to neutral" or evil. If that happened it would be the Player who made that choice by the actions they commit, especially if they decide to ignore the warning signs they got along the way.

Our real world doesn't operate on an alignment system, I operate on one basic guiding principle.... actions have consequences. How I elaborate on that principle will vary on a case by case basis. You are right that there are no RAW guidelines. And I think the game is better for that lack.

prd wrote:

Changing Alignments

Alignment is a tool, a convenient shorthand you can use to summarize the general attitude of an NPC, region, religion, organization, monster, or even magic item.

Certain character classes in Classes list repercussions for those who don't adhere to a specific alignment, and some spells and magic items have different effects on targets depending on alignment, but beyond that it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment. In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls[/b[.

It's best to let players play their characters as they want. [b]If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn't fit his alignment, let him know that he's acting out of alignment and tell him why—but do so in a friendly manner...

It is NOT up to the player to decide that what they do fits their alignment. The GM decides if what they are doing fits their alignment. The GM indeed is responsible for DENOTING alignment shifts. The player is the one who takes the actions that could lead to such an action by the GM, but the GM is the one that decides if actions are out of alignment. If you read on in the rule, yes, players can choose their alignment, and change their alignment, at the GM's discretion. It is up to the GM to decide if a creature is acting within it's stated alignment at any given time, and within the GM's rights and responsibilities to mark that character as a different alignment than its stated alignment as he sees fit, including for player characters.

How you make the determination of if an alignment shift is warranted, however, is entirely subjective... it even goes out of its way to say that there is specifically no rule or point system. You, as GM, are on your own to make those judgement calls. You can only make those judgement calls based on your own criteria. You are not wrong for running your game that way, but another GM is also not wrong for giving out alignment shifts either...

That said, yes, I do have a problem with this in terms of PFS organized play, in that if a GM decides you are evil, your character becomes unplayable, but I have lots of problems with PFS :P and steer clear. So, anyway, you aren't "wrong", but you are also not "right". There are no hard rules for this, and you have to use your own personal "real world" compass to make these decisions.

[Ascalaphus]

Torturing is evil no matter who it's done to. Torture is inimical to Mercy, and Mercy is Good. Any god who condones torture can't be Good.

If a paladin gives his word, it doesn't matter who he gave his word to. What matters is that he gave his word.

Killing unrepentant evil undead seems legitimate, because
- It prevents further harm to innocents
- It stops the undead from further damning itself

However, if an undead creature is repentant, then killing it without giving a chance to atone would be an evil act, because now it's you causing it to go to hell.

Of course, many undead have no free will and can't repent. This is particularly horrible for Good people. In a perfect world, they'd have a spell to (temporarily) lift the magics that force the creature to be evil, giving it a chance to repent and seek absolution. Then perhaps a mercy killing before it can relapse.

[setzer9999]

Ascalaphus wrote:

Torturing is evil no matter who it's done to. Torture is inimical to Mercy, and Mercy is Good. Any god who condones torture can't be Good.

If a paladin gives his word, it doesn't matter who he gave his word to. What matters is that he gave his word.

Killing unrepentant evil undead seems legitimate, because
- It prevents further harm to innocents
- It stops the undead from further damning itself

However, if an undead creature is repentant, then killing it without giving a chance to atone would be an evil act, because now it's you causing it to go to hell.

Of course, many undead have no free will and can't repent. This is particularly horrible for Good people. In a perfect world, they'd have a spell to (temporarily) lift the magics that force the creature to be evil, giving it a chance to repent and seek absolution. Then perhaps a mercy killing before it can relapse.

You are contradicting yourself a bit... but take into account the "lesser of two evils" and things get really complicated really fast. You are saying that it is OK to do something if it "prevents further harm to innocents". Killing the being and sending it to hell is OK because it prevented said undead from killing more innocents and turning them into undead. The same could be said for torturing it... if torturing the creature helped you prevent innocents from being harmed, by your logic, torture is not evil.

Its just not that black and white. Torture is evil, I agree, but we can't treat all considerations as 100% evil or 100% good... the world just doesn't work that way. Yes, in Pathfinder universe there is positive and negative energy... actual "units" of good and evil can be derived from planes like that... but where such energies are not being invoked... just mundane actions being taken by characters in roleplay, the same complexities that there are in the real world remain. Most actions are partly evil, and partly good, in reality... very little is completely altruistic and benevolent, and very little is entirely malevolent and without mercy... few, if any, real people are entirely one or the other. It's way to simplistic a view.

[Matthew Morris]

The examples of torture are what disturbs me, almost as much as the dishonour of lying*.

If the person (for it is a person) willingly became free willed undead minion #6, then he can willingly atone. Either to find peace in death, or to find a way to atone. If the person became undead unwillingly, then torturing him is just adding to the torment.

There's also the issue of heat of combat vs. afterwards. To use real life** rules of engagement cutting down the enemy in the heat of combat is fine, cutting them down after the battle is generally considered not so fine.***

As to the specific example, lying to the bad guy and killing him *afterwards* is definately fall-worthy territory. Also I'd call it an evil act under my own alignment system**** since they're self serving.

Aside, am I missing something? They could throw a metamagicked anti-magic shell but couldn't just send the guy to his afterlife and used speak with dead?

*

Spoiler:

One PFS concept I've been tinkering with is a Heretic Inquisitor of Saranae. He was branded a heretic because he offered mercy where his superiors demanded the sword. Such a character would be the kind who goes for diplomacy and honesty, then fire as a last resort. Think of how Tim Zhann wrote Jedi and you're on to my thoughts.

**

Spoiler:

Of course RL has its problems. I'll avoid the religious bashing comments here.

***

Spoiler:

torture, even to get the name of the BBEG or his layer, is greedy and self serving, and thus evil. Even the few people subject to EIT in Guantanmo didn't have their lives actually threatened.

[LazarX]

setzer9999 wrote:

That said, yes, I do have a problem with this in terms of PFS organized play, in that if a GM decides you are evil, your character becomes unplayable, but I have lots of problems with PFS :P and steer clear. So, anyway, you aren't "wrong", but you are also not "right". There are no hard rules for this, and you have to use your own personal "real world" compass to make these decisions.

It shouldn't be a problem in PFS play. Unless you're one of those Paladin players who enjoys skating on the edge of alignment. Or are silly enough to pick a faction where Paladins clearly don't belong, like the Scarzoni.

[setzer9999]

LazarX wrote:

setzer9999 wrote:

That said, yes, I do have a problem with this in terms of PFS organized play, in that if a GM decides you are evil, your character becomes unplayable, but I have lots of problems with PFS :P and steer clear. So, anyway, you aren't "wrong", but you are also not "right". There are no hard rules for this, and you have to use your own personal "real world" compass to make these decisions.

It shouldn't be a problem in PFS play. Unless you're one of those Paladin players who enjoys skating on the edge of alignment. Or are silly enough to pick a faction where Paladins clearly don't belong, like the Scarzoni.

I'm not talking about Paladins... being Evil is illegal in PFS play for any character. I'm don't want to hijack this thread with things that RAW and annoying rules can cause problems in PFS, but in the case of Evil, you cannot be Evil in PFS, and yet there are factions which are clearly evil, worshiping evil deities, and have evil goals and optional things to do for chronicles and rewards... get a GM that hates evil characters and decides they don't like you... "You're Evil for finishing that quest the developers put in as something for your faction to do *derp da derp* you're evil, goodbye."

You could say the same thing at a home game though, if a GM is being annoying about alignment, I agree, it could be difficult to play with such a person. However, there are cases where it could be totally justified to indicate alignment shift, nonetheless.

[darkwarriorkarg]

Good and evil are objective in teh Pathfinder universe.

Torturing undead? An evil act, but not one that would cause a slide unless repetitive. (ie a desperate act)

An anti-undead paladin would simply kill the undead. No torture (that would be evil)

Note that dieties are not paladins (except for certain ones), and may be permissive of things that would cause one of their loyal paladins to fall.

Although it was a FR novel (I forget the name of it), there's a wonderful scene of a paladin of Lathander calling out Lathander for being a selfish jerk.

[Ashiel]

willhob wrote:

The DM in me doesn't like to see his baddies beaten, and likes even less the idea of my Lich's servants being brutally tortured for information. The players (a N Cleric and CG sorcerer) captured an intelligent undead (9th level Magus with Advanced and custom undead templates applied) in a way that I didn't fully anticipate. The sorcerer readied an action to cast AntiMagic field as he was again going to turn into his gaseous form and retreat. Party melee moved in and disarmed him, grappled, then pinned and then totally subdued him and tied him down.

At first glance it seemed Change Shape, Gaseous Form and most of his attacks are completely nullified by this spell. The sorcerer continually recast the spell as it was running out, and each cast was good for almost 2 hours. Naturally, baddy had nothing positive to say to the PCs and was going to serve his "master" until death. That is until the party Rogue started severing his digits, plucked his right eye out of socket and made him eat it and finally they resorted to torturing him to near death with positive energy (the min-maxing PCs used Selective Spell with Antimagic Field). Eventually he disclosed the location of his master after having lost a hand, an eye and both feet and being ritualistically tortured for a few hours. The party Paladin was running undead debuffs outside the barrier to discourage his friends from coming back to save him. (which as mindless and already wounded Chaotic Evil underlings, their controller wasn't even remotely considering rescuing one pawn).

"Would you like someone to do that to you?" is a good place to begin the question. Personally I think that torture of that magnitude is pretty difficult to claim to be Neutral. I could sort of see a good guy breaking a bad guy's fingers to get him to reveal the location of hostages or something before a bomb breaks. For example...

Good Guy: "Where is the key to the factory!?"
Bad Guy: "I ain't tellin' you ****!"
Good Guy: *slams hammer on the bad guy's hand* "I'll ask again, where is the key to the factory!?"
Bad Guy: "OWWWWW! OH ****, dude you're crazy! ****!"
Good Guy: "Don't make me ask again." *holds up hammer*
Bad Guy: "It's under the statue of the damned!"
Good Guy: "Thank you for your cooperation." *heals his hand and ties him up* "You sit tight now..." *runs to rescue the hostages*

With a vampire I could kind of see them holding out for a goofy long time and requiring a truly savage application of pain to get the same effect (what with vampires being semi-dead and possessing fast healing), but some of those tortures were just depraved (what use was there in forcing the vampire to eat its own eye, except to cause psychological trauma?).

Quote:

The party melee unceremoniously decapitated the magus the same way they had his vampiric predecessor. (The players lied and said they would spare him if he sold his master out) For the Paladin's part, he virulently hates undead and has no interest in "redeeming" them, as his deity regards undead as abominations that are to be slaughtered on sight.

That definitely sounds pretty evil to me. Genocide without mercy or remorse based solely upon race is pretty much grade A evil, no matter who you are. The lying bit is bad etiquette for good guys and law enforcers, and is actually forbidden by the Paladin's code regardless of morality.

[LazarX]

setzer9999 wrote:

LazarX wrote:

setzer9999 wrote:

That said, yes, I do have a problem with this in terms of PFS organized play, in that if a GM decides you are evil, your character becomes unplayable, but I have lots of problems with PFS :P and steer clear. So, anyway, you aren't "wrong", but you are also not "right". There are no hard rules for this, and you have to use your own personal "real world" compass to make these decisions.

It shouldn't be a problem in PFS play. Unless you're one of those Paladin players who enjoys skating on the edge of alignment. Or are silly enough to pick a faction where Paladins clearly don't belong, like the Scarzoni.

I'm not talking about Paladins... being Evil is illegal in PFS play for any character. I'm don't want to hijack this thread with things that RAW and annoying rules can cause problems in PFS, but in the case of Evil, you cannot be Evil in PFS, and yet there are factions which are clearly evil, worshiping evil deities, and have evil goals and optional things to do for chronicles and rewards... get a GM that hates evil characters and decides they don't like you... "You're Evil for finishing that quest the developers put in as something for your faction to do *derp da derp* you're evil, goodbye."

You could say the same thing at a home game though, if a GM is being annoying about alignment, I agree, it could be difficult to play with such a person. However, there are cases where it could be totally justified to indicate alignment shift, nonetheless.

IF a PFS GM gives your character an evil tag for completing a faction mission, report the GM. Fulfilling the faction missions should require at most an atonement for those classes, mainly clerics and paladins which need to keep their alignments in balance. The only exception would be if your PC used extremely evil means in accomplishing those missions. And again that's only an issue for certain Paladin/Faction combinations which are clearly spelled out.

But to be clear, just because you're a member of the Chelaxian faction, that does not mean you are necessarily Evil. My summoner is Chelaxian and I could think of perhaps one mission I would have refused outright as a Paladin and a couple I could have done with atonement. Quite a few of them in fact would have chimed quite nicely with Good ideals.

[VRMH]

I'm in the "it's not evil" camp, though characters who seem a bit too eager to resort to this tactic should be watched carefully for real infractions. Yet...

/me puts on his paladin hat.

Torturing the undead isn't evil, because torturing the undead isn't possible.
The undead aren't people. They're an abomination (not in the game-mechanical sense), a mockery of life itself. The only thing "wrong" with prodding these puppets, animated by vile powers, for information is that it doesn't end fast enough the travesty that is their very existence. They are unable to feel remorse and cannot be redeemed. They can only be ended, the flame that burns with everything that is anti-thesical to life snuffed out before it ignites a fire of unholyness. If the way in which they are destroyed yields valuable knowledge, so much the better.

This is not torture. It is not murder. It is not even killing. It is disposing of putrid garbage, lancing a festering boil on the face of this Plane. A job no less noble for it's repulsiveness.

[Chemlak]

There are as many ways to view it as there are Paladins, I suspect.

/me puts on his own Paladin hat

All life is sacred. Undeath is an abomination against life, and the soul of a free-willed undead being is suffering by the very nature of the warped magical or mystical forces chaining it. It must be freed, immediately, irrevocably, at the earliest opportunity. Prolonging the agony of the soul thus trapped is torture beyond the pale, and it is my duty to grant it mercy, swiftly, without delay caused by my own immediate needs and desires. The good of others above all else does not preclude those who are undead, whether willingly or not.

All undead must be freed. Here I stand, I can do no other.

[Buri]

chaoseffect wrote:

Evil's a matter of perspective. I'm sure the one being tortured and his friends considered it so.

Not so much in Pathfinder.

Additional Rules, CRB wrote:

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

If what you're doing is in-line with that sort of mentality then it's evil as far as alignments are concerned.

[Chovesh]

To address the OP:

Punishing Undead for non-compliance or for retribution is not evil, while causing unnecessary pain/suffering/humiliation is evil.

Here’s the general logic Path:

Is torture evil?

1. Defining Evil
The definition of evil is easily if there is a single source defining it. In a polytheistic system (Pathfinder), the number of ‘definers’ increases and complicates the issue. So this may not be the best route.

2. Defining Torture

This is where it gets interesting

Torture
a: anguish of body or mind : AGONY
b: something that causes agony or pain

Let’s start with the consensus that causing unnecessary pain/anguish/discomfort is wrong.

In your interrogation, are you talking about ‘Torture’ or about ‘Punishment?’

So let’s look at “Punishment” (and “is punishment wrong?”).

Punishment:
a: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution
b: a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure

And this leads to “Is retribution evil?”

Please note, courts that are supported by a society (and maybe courts supported by the elites based on the fact that they are the society the courts serve) provide the ‘judicial procedure’ for punishment.

The key thing here is that courts apply tests against pre-existing laws, or attempt to provide society wide solutions.

This leads me to the following conclusion:
1. If the paladin is operating within the structure of his temple, and not of his own accord, then he can mete out punishment if it fits within the confines of what his institution allows him.
2. Others who mete out punishment/retribution run a much riskier path as punishment is not necessarily evil but it is generally recognized that most punishments involve some form of “Suffering, Pain, or Loss.”

Therefore, torturing him for the purpose of causing the vampire pain in order to get him to talk would be wrong while punishing him for refusing to cooperate would not necessarily be wrong (but could be). (Punishing someone who refuses to help you gain the information needed to rob someone (instead of saving someone) might be a good example.)

The difference is literally, “do you start with applying pain, or are you clear to him that he is being ‘punished’ for non-compliance?” Is the pain being used as a tool to extract the information, or is the pain simply punishment for not supplying the information? These two things are not actually the same since using pain to extract information means ‘starting’ with the pain, while in comparison, the threat of pain (via punishment) for non-compliance is not ‘evil’ as using pain as the punishment means that no pain might ever be delivered.

The purpose of the pain/discomfort/loss is where the definition of it being evil, as a court sentencing a murder to imprisonment is not considered evil, while a victim of a robbery who prevents his robber from escaping and begins to repeatedly strike blows on the robber after each separate request for returning the stolen goods, is also not considered evil.

[Aranna]

The Paladin would fall. As this act was committed with their full knowledge and approval. The paladin also did nothing to stop this from happening.

This act is either fully Evil or Chaotic maybe both.

It is only chaotic good if the character in question is an adherent to the philosophy that the end justifies the means. As torture has always been held as an evil act, yes even if performed on an evil person.

PS: Undead in my game don't feel pain... Kinda like the undead from Pirates of the Caribbean.

[Howie23]

My take on this is:

Whether good and evil are relative is a philosophical matter. The alignment system exists, in part to put those discussions aside. Actions are inherently good or evil, in their own. Motivations can also be good or evil. It is possible to engage in an evil action with good motivation.

Torture is the willful infliction of pain. Willful infliction of pain is a hallmark of Evil. Torture is evil.

There may be a greater, and possibly offsetting good that is, in the end, accomplished by torture, but it is rarely something where this is the only course available to characters. It may be easier and faster.

Players are responsible for the actions of their characters. GMs are responsible for evaluating those actions in terms of alignment. GMs are responsible for communicating how they may view an action, particularly if it would result in a major impact, such as a class-based alignment restriction, non-playability of character, etc. Characters might still make bad choices, but players should generally make such choices on their behalf knowingly. This, incidentally, is the solution to the issue in PFS and other organized play that uses alignment based systems; players may disagree that a GM views something as evil, but if an action is going to have such repercussions on a character, the player should make the decision with full knowledge. Blindsiding a player with an alignment impact is adversarial.

[Ascalaphus]

I disagree that the ends justify the means. Not for a Paladin. If you commit a Lesser Evil to stop a Greater Evil, you Fall. Too bad. Nobody promised you that there wouldn't be a no-win scenario. There's a higher standard for Paladins.

Also, there's a difference between interrogation, even rough interrogation, and cruel and sadistic torture. Like feeding eyeballs. That's just sick and evil.

I think that as a Paladin there may be cases where you get to pick between "losing", and choosing to Fall for the Greater Good.

[Fleshgrinder]

They tortured for a valid reason.

But their techniques seemed a little over the top.

I'd say it was a mildly evil act only because the torture was zealous, and not simply an efficient gathering of information.

If you torture for pleasure, it's bad.

If you torture only because it may allow you to save others, then it is less bad. More neutral than anything.

I had a NE ranger who used acid to torture. He'd place a vial of acid in their mouth and ask yes or no questions. If he thought they were lying, he hit them in the mouth. Each strike MAY break the vile, so it was in their best interest to tell the truth. If they did tell the truth, he let them live (though often crippled them permanently).

Some of the party members started saying I should be considered CE, but the DM agreed that my method of torture was not excessively cruel. It was pragmatic. Evil, yes, but only as evil as was needed. The crippling was to ensure they would never be able to effectively fight me again.

So torture can vary greatly.

[Nicos]

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

i'm racist against undead, aberrations, evil aligned outsiders and space aliens. i believe all 4 of those groups are to be enslaved by the human race and given the worst of treatments. monstrous humanoids such as lycanthropes or gnolls might as well be aberrations.

And that is LG?

[Bad Sintax]

What always cracks me up about the people who bemoan “lawful stupid” or that paladins are dumb, is that, based on the game rules, good and evil are not subjective, they are objective. So torture is evil. Period. A paladin would not be able to follow his/her code and torture someone/something, without losing his/her paladin status or powers. No matter what the subject is, or what the end result would be. That's the "lawful" part.

However, that does not mean that a paladin wouldn’t sacrifice his or her powers for the greater good. That's the "good" part. Break the law and pay the consequences. The problem is that while a lawful good Character might do that, there are very few Players who would do that. And that is where we get the problems.

When the characters are more selfless than the players, you run into these kinds of discussions, like I want to torture something evil for the greater good but keep all my paladin powers. Doesn’t work.

Lawful good is supposed to be truly good…not subjectively good. So all the comparisons to crusaders and such do not apply. But when you have a selfish player playing a non-selfish paladin, guess what? You get a selfish paladin – which shouldn’t exist.

And if the undead are abominations and need to be ended or released, then why would you waste precious time torturing them? I can see that point, as long as you "put them down" immediately, in which case, you would not be able to torture for information. In that view, any time you spend torturing the undead for information is time that the soul of the departed is also being tortured by existing in their abomonitive state, so then in effect, you are torturing an innocent for information. At that point, because you could release them from their suffering, but choose not to, you are responsible for their pain.

[Saint Caleth]

Ascalaphus wrote:

I think that as a Paladin there may be cases where you get to pick between "losing", and choosing to Fall for the Greater Good.

The absolutely most brilliant character which has ever appeared at my table was a paladin who in the end realized just this.

The entire party was very LG, not all paladins, but in the service of the major religion which was LN with the LG faction of the church ascendant at the time. The last adventure used their LG scruples as the hook, but the paladin of all characters realized how much collateral damage would happen to the world and essentially took the out that the BBEG (and GM) were not expecting him to take at all.

He fell, then refused to take credit for saving the world and went back to his farm.

I now imagine an ancient monastery, crumbling and barely maintained, where the remains of the true saints of the church lie; paladins who gave up everything for the cause of Good, falling while defeating Evil. They are the only true martyrs, for they took the very taint of Evil upon themselves before it could harm others.

[Deadmanwalking]

I'm always disturbed by the number of people who think torture is justifiable or acceptable.

I'm going to draw a really unpleasant analogy here to highlight how messed up that is. I apologize in advance if I offend anyone. Really. I feel bad about doing this...but somebody needs to emphasize the awfulness of that position.
.
.
.
Do all of you who say torture is okay feel the same way about rape?

Because let's look at why rape is evil (and I think we can all agree that it is):

It's traumatic, painful, and done in violation of the consent and rights of the victim, it is profoundly damaging psychologically (and sometimes physically) in the long term.

I could go on, but those are enough, right?

So. What else fits all those criteria (including the unspoken ones), why, torture does. Indeed, looked at objectively, rape is just a specialized form of torture. Indeed, sexual assault of some kind is common when people are tortured in the real world, and often part of what breaks them.

So, is raping a vampire Evil? I certainly think so.
.
.
.
Now, torture is debatably slightly less Evil than rape because of the motivations behind it (ie: information rather than personal gratification)...but if we make the victim a female vampire and say the PCs raped her to get the information, then the whole thing suddenly looks a lot less okay, doesn't it? And if they enjoyed what they did in the actual scenario (as it seems they did, given their...inventiveness), there's no moral difference between the two.

The reason for the percieved difference has to do with the way our society and particularly media has shaped our views on both rape (always* a horrible, unforgivable, crime) and torture (totally justified against terrorists or the equivalent)...but looked at objectively any moral system you'd care to name should regard the two crimes as more or less equivalent.

So...think about what you're saying is justified, folks.

*

Spoiler:

At least, when it's a man raping a woman. Discussions of our society's messed up attitudes towards other forms of rape don't belong here.

[Ughbash]

willhob wrote:

At first glance it seemed Change Shape, Gaseous Form and most of his attacks are completely nullified by this spell. The sorcerer continually recast the spell as it was running out, and each cast was good for almost 2 hours. Naturally, baddy had nothing positive to say to the PCs and was going to serve his "master" until death. That is until the party Rogue started severing his digits, plucked his right eye out of socket and made him eat it and finally they resorted to torturing him to near death with positive energy (the min-maxing PCs used Selective Spell with Antimagic Field). Eventually he disclosed the location of his master after having lost a hand, an eye and both feet and being ritualistically tortured for a few hours. The party Paladin was running undead debuffs outside the barrier to discourage his friends from coming back to save him. (which as mindless and already wounded Chaotic Evil underlings, their controller wasn't even remotely considering rescuing one pawn).

Just so you are aware Selctive Spell is erratad.

http://paizo.com/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy8fo1/faq#v5748eaic9ncx

Quote:

Selective Spell: As written, this allows you to selectively ignore spells like black tentacles and antimagic field. Is that the intent of the feat?

No, it only affects instantaneous-duration spells. The APG errata will clarify this. (SKR 10/08/10)

To inflict torture like that would be an evil act. Even if it was for "good purposes". The ends do not justify the means. Not saying they should not DO those actions, but they need to be aware what they are doing is evil.

Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
Friedrich Nietzsche

[setzer9999]

Not going to quote it... but @Deadmanwalking...

I don't know for certain what everyone else in this thread thinks, but at least for my part, I say torture is evil. Just because something is evil, doesn't mean that it isn't the best option available.

In pathfinder, someone can be Evil, with a capital "E", but mostly that is based on spiritual and magical attunement to deities and planes, like the negative energy plane. Where such energies (and spell descriptors) are NOT concerned... well, there just isn't any objective, or "captial letter" good and evil, just as there isn't in real life. You can try to argue that there is objective good and evil, but in the end, that is a futile endeavor, because without subjective experience, good and evil have no meaning. If the hallmark of evil is to cause suffering, and suffering is a subjective experience, then evil cannot be objective.

This is not to say that evil doesn't exist. Subjective experiences exist. You just can't put objective labels on them as such. To go back to your example, raping someone is not the best option available. Perhaps making the vampire eat it's own eyeball was also not the best option available. Sometimes though, a lesser of two evils, a rock and a hard place, is all we are faced with.

I would argue that to allow more evil to occur because of worrying about your own morality is a worse evil act than being willing to suffer the consequences of your lesser evil act to prevent the greater. The motivation does matter, because it is subjective and the decision is being forced upon someone such that it is a lose-lose situation where they need to pick the "less lose" option as best they can.

It is not truly a lose-lose situation, or a diametrically opposed decision to say "I need to RAPE this being or I won't get the information". You could very easily come up with the scenario though where you could say "I need to incentivize this being to spill the information. Being that this being has no emotional attachments, causes, or goals, I have nothing to threaten it with except its own suffering. If I don't get that information, worse things will happen to others"... THAT is a position where it would be less evil to do the evil thing in torturing the being to stop worse evil from happening elsewhere.

It doesn't mean torture isn't evil... it just means that situations in life are not always so clean cut. I honestly can't imagine a situation where specifically rape would be required to achieve a goal... I don't want to try. Forcing the vampire to eat it's eyeball seems to be very graphic and specific also, totally unnecessary and very over the top, albeit, and this particular Paladin probably crossed the line. Splashing or threatening it with holy water while shouting at it to give you the answers might have been a little more acceptable.

[Navarion]

willhob wrote:

That is until the party Rogue started severing his digits, plucked his right eye out of socket and made him eat it and finally they resorted to torturing him to near death with positive energy (the min-maxing PCs used Selective Spell with Antimagic Field). Eventually he disclosed the location of his master after having lost a hand, an eye and both feet and being ritualistically tortured for a few hours.

Okay, first of all that's not evil anymore, that's VILE. The Book of Vile Darkness made it pretty clear that ALL torture is evil. However mutilating a sentient being and feeding its own body parts to it goes far beyond the inflicting of pain to obtain information. It's just sick and would with me as the DM lead to immediate alignment readjustment and in case of a paladin a fall that would ram him into the ground. He could become an anti-paladin right away.

willhob wrote:

The party melee unceremoniously decapitated the magus the same way they had his vampiric predecessor. (The players lied and said they would spare him if he sold his master out) For the Paladin's part, he virulently hates undead and has no interest in "redeeming" them, as his deity regards undead as abominations that are to be slaughtered on sight.

Yeah, I get the feeling he took on the wrong job. It's nice that his deity feels that way, but being a paladin is in a lot of cases about being holier than your deity. If you don't feel up to that become a cleric or an inquisitor. Paladins are not allowed to act evil at all.

[Andrew R]

estergum wrote:

Evil.

If its evil doing it to a kitten then its evil doing it to a vampire.

The nature of the act is not dependent on the target.

I gotta disagree there, killing a monster because you think it is a danger IS different than killing a baby because you think it may be a threat.

[Andrew R]

VRMH wrote:

I'm in the "it's not evil" camp, though characters who seem a bit too eager to resort to this tactic should be watched carefully for real infractions. Yet...

/me puts on his paladin hat.

Torturing the undead isn't evil, because torturing the undead isn't possible.
The undead aren't people. They're an abomination (not in the game-mechanical sense), a mockery of life itself. The only thing "wrong" with prodding these puppets, animated by vile powers, for information is that it doesn't end fast enough the travesty that is their very existence. They are unable to feel remorse and cannot be redeemed. They can only be ended, the flame that burns with everything that is anti-thesical to life snuffed out before it ignites a fire of unholyness. If the way in which they are destroyed yields valuable knowledge, so much the better.

This is not torture. It is not murder. It is not even killing. It is disposing of putrid garbage, lancing a festering boil on the face of this Plane. A job no less noble for it's repulsiveness.

Swift death yes, intentionally inflicting pain for it's own sake is still evil. Im a big ends justify the means moralist at times but torture is always beyond the scope of a pally.

[Andrew R]

Navarion wrote:

willhob wrote:

That is until the party Rogue started severing his digits, plucked his right eye out of socket and made him eat it and finally they resorted to torturing him to near death with positive energy (the min-maxing PCs used Selective Spell with Antimagic Field). Eventually he disclosed the location of his master after having lost a hand, an eye and both feet and being ritualistically tortured for a few hours.

Okay, first of all that's not evil anymore, that's VILE. The Book of Vile Darkness made it pretty clear that ALL torture is evil. However mutilating a sentient being and feeding its own body parts to it goes far beyond the inflicting of pain to obtain information. It's just sick and would with me as the DM lead to immediate alignment readjustment and in case of a paladin a fall that would ram him into the ground. He could become an anti-paladin right away.

willhob wrote:

The party melee unceremoniously decapitated the magus the same way they had his vampiric predecessor. (The players lied and said they would spare him if he sold his master out) For the Paladin's part, he virulently hates undead and has no interest in "redeeming" them, as his deity regards undead as abominations that are to be slaughtered on sight.

Yeah, I get the feeling he took on the wrong job. It's nice that his deity feels that way, but being a paladin is in a lot of cases about being holier than your deity. If you don't feel up to that become a cleric or an inquisitor. Paladins are not allowed to act evil at all.

Using those books (vile darkness and exalted deeds) to define alignment is insane. One says inflicting pain is evil, the other say using special holy poison to inflict the worst suffering possible is good.

[Ryu Kaijitsu]

A paladin could be easily a member of an Inquisition, as that the society/laws he respects are those of the Inquisition Order, and those are a bit different from the usual paladin rules

[Bad Sintax]

If by an Inquisition you mean "an official investigation, especially one of a political or religious nature, characterized by lack of regard for individual rights, prejudice on the part of the examiners, and recklessly cruel punishments," how do you think a paladin could be a member of it?

It goes against everything paladins stand for.

The Good always comes before the Lawful. That's what makes them good.

Just because a paladin grows up in a country where slavery is legal, does not mean the paladin would be okay with it. That would be LN, possibly LE. Alignment is not subjective. Read Faiths of Purity for more info.

[magnuskn]

estergum wrote:

Evil.

If its evil doing it to a kitten then its evil doing it to a vampire.

The nature of the act is not dependent on the target.

This. I will refrain from putting my own thoughts on e-paper, because it would get probably get deleted. But one thing: I'd be pretty concerned about hanging out with the OPs players, if they so lovingly detailed to him how exactly they tortured that undead.

[Ryu Kaijitsu]

Bad Sintax wrote:

If by an Inquisition you mean "an official investigation, especially one of a political or religious nature, characterized by lack of regard for individual rights, prejudice on the part of the examiners, and recklessly cruel punishments," how do you think a paladin could be a member of it?

It goes against everything paladins stand for.

The Good always comes before the Lawful. That's what makes them good.

Just because a paladin grows up in a country where slavery is legal, does not mean the paladin would be okay with it. That would be LN, possibly LE. Alignment is not subjective. Read Faiths of Purity for more info.

paladin of an anti-undead/anti-witch/anti-arcane god always fits perfectly

[Bad Sintax]

Uh...what? Doesn't matter what kind of god it is...plus, if the god endorses a lack of rights, prejudice, and recklessly cruel punishments - there wouldn't be any paladins in that religion. Those would be anti-paladins.

[gnomersy]

Ryu Kaijitsu wrote:

A paladin could be easily a member of an Inquisition, as that the society/laws he respects are those of the Inquisition Order, and those are a bit different from the usual paladin rules

A paladin's code in the rules supersedes any local law, personal code, or church law so no the rules wouldn't change and it would still be evil and would require a minimum of an atonement and possibly a permanent fall for both evil in the act of torturing someone for the sake of personal gain(making your own job of killing the lich easier) and because he lied which outright violates the code even if you want to rationalize the torture.

Therefore no dice on the whole being holy murderers thing. Fun fact you know those people who strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up with a whole bunch of other people they think they're "serving" the wishes of their god it doesn't make it any less morally reprehensible even when I can see where they could make it out as a lesser evil.

[Navarion]

Andrew R wrote:

Using those books (vile darkness and exalted deeds) to define alignment is insane. One says inflicting pain is evil, the other say using special holy poison to inflict the worst suffering possible is good.

Hey, diss the silly Book of Exalted Deer all you want (the only useful thing in the whole g!%@*$n book is the twilight armor enchantment) but the Book of Vile Darkness is exactly what it says.

[Abyssian]

I LOVE fictional evil. Demons, Devils, Daemons, the Coalition, the Sabbat, Ursala the Sea Witch, etc. Love 'em. I also love anti-heroes. You know, "heroes" who do bad stuff to bad people. The concept of a fantasy character who cruelly tortures undead (somehow...) sounds awesome.

With that all in mind, torture is ALWAYS evil. Some posters bring the Objective Morality angle to their arguments; this is unnecessary since, in REAL life, torture is ALWAYS evil.

On a final note: two wrongs do not make a right, but three lefts do.