Thats why i love the people that cry poison use is evil, but acid and fire round after round not to mentions the beating and stabbing are just fine.Torture is restraining and injuring a target over time right? They are powerless and at your mercy?
Players encircle, cut, stab, bludgeon, ride-over, trap, ambush, hold, trip, melt, set on fire/roast, knock out, disarm and keep attacking, shoot and pin-cushion enemies all the time. If they are harmed over rounds but not killed, lasting thanks to their hp and defensive skills/abilities, that is going to feel like torture for them.
Against pcs with really good defenses and tactics, but so-so damage or bad rolls, it is even more like torture. The pcs slowly take you into unconsciousness poor orc warlord, there is no escape, you feel much pain over many rounds.
Alas, they faced the players. Too bad. We should be mindful of our moral views encroaching too strongly on the beliefs of the fantasy world. A world with good against evil, where combat, killing and maiming is common and done with the intent to harm and kill. There are reasons for good to do this though, to end evil and the pain evil forces inflict on others. Harsh isn't it?
Exactly. Some agents are going to find ways of hurting others (and especially evil) to be just fine, and others will disagree. If they existed they would disagree in person, instead we are disagreeing. The lawful good lawmen may imprison someone and have them beaten and flogged, and the captured person could cry torture torture torture. The guards response could simply be, you are scum (because you are what they define as scum), this is what we do to scum. Feel lucky prisoner, that the paladins or mages from our guild didn't encounter you as an enemy, or you would be smited, blasted, roasted or ruined by magic. Then if we play heroes, we go back to playing a game where we thrash evil and kill them horribly all the time. I for one am without sympathy here, but I can see the hypocrisy.
Why is torture such a special and reprehensible form of harm?
Take someone who is surprised at police brutality coming up in a historical drama, and then you explain well, this was standard, "how it was done" by the "protectors" up until very recently, and it still has not ebbed away entirely across all of the world. The protectors, guardians of the people across states and cultures, have a history of torture, repression and abuse of those in their power.
To magnus, your point on history and people is well made, but if you study ideologies and their limited reach in medieval Europe, you will discover that the elites did not control or shape all views of history. the centres could push, but they could not push everything out. The factions of pre-modern societies and the limits of cultural power projected from city centres meant that the rural bumkins had their own histories, beliefs and allegiances. Paganism and witchcraft persisted for a very long time in the fringes, in the un-policed and un-orthodox places, no matter what the Christian courts said. Families of border areas or undeveloped regions had their own histories, because of their own existences. Discussing them in the social sciences is a fad now, especially in Anthropology, but they have always existed. The common people did not suddenly gain the capacity to have their own beliefs and histories because of the enlightenment (see the chapter Feudalism and Religion in Bryan Turner's Religion and Social Theory and Michael Mann's The Sources of Social power 1-2 for the basis of my opinion).
Many could argue incarceration is torture, where do we draw a line and who gets to decide what torture is ok?How about the Red Cross, the ACLU and the Geneva Conventions?
None of which exist in Golarion or any medieval-esque fantasy game that I know of. The Red cross, the ACLU, Geneva conventions, they don't exist in Golarion. Actors of the good often go out and kill and maim. Now you have your benevolent contemplatives and selfless providers of aid, they are around, but rare. They don't define all that is good. The game in its ideas of alignment considers killing and harming evil to be good, and some versions of harm inflicted upon evil to be evil. It is quite funny.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. Some agents are going to find ways of hurting others (and especially evil) to be just fine, and others will disagree. If they existed they would disagree in person, instead we are disagreeing. The lawful good lawmen may imprison someone and have them beaten and flogged, and the captured person could cry torture torture torture. The guards response could simply be, you are scum (because you are what they define as scum), this is what we do to scum. Feel lucky prisoner, that the paladins or mages from our guild didn't encounter you as an enemy, or you would be smited, blasted, roasted or ruined by magic. Then if we play heroes, we go back to playing a game where we thrash evil and kill them horribly all the time. I for one am without sympathy here, but I can see the...
Beyond that poeple talk about "modern standards" but look at those, to throw people into a prison to prey on each other? TELL me that is not torture. Then on the other hand we have the "police brutality" on Rodney King, a man so drug crazed they had no other way to bring him under control. I cannot say that torture is good but i cannot say it is "always Evil" either. It is more about degree. Punching the defeated bad guy because you are desperate to find their headquarters in time a-ok. Reenacting Saw on him "just in case" is in the evil territory. Same for punishment, it is about who and why, and the intended end.
|
|
None of which exist in Golarion or any medieval-esque fantasy game that I know of. The Red cross, the ACLU, Geneva conventions, they don't exist in Golarion. Actors of the good often go out and kill and maim. Now you have your benevolent contemplatives and selfless providers of aid, they are around, but rare. They don't define all that is good. The game in its ideas of alignment considers killing and harming evil to be good, and some versions of harm inflicted upon evil to be evil. It is quite funny.Many could argue incarceration is torture, where do we draw a line and who gets to decide what torture is ok?How about the Red Cross, the ACLU and the Geneva Conventions?
Cleaning up after evil leaves is nice and all but will never stop them from doing it again. That is why we need heroes to act.
Yeah, torture still exists in our Enlightened times (I'm a lot less pro-West than I used to be. I speak as a guy from a rural background, and so much of what is raised up in the cities is lies and the attempted seizure of the moral high ground). 2011 was a stellar year for police brutality and repression, even when violent crime has declined, protests seen as threats to the current governments were met with a lot of brutality. So much for us being so progressive.
For torture and the degrees, we seem to be on the same page. This is why it is good to not dump your cha stat, and take some intimidate, bluff and sense motive. Then you don't have to re-enact Saw to get some info out of those you capture.
Yep, worlds of pathfinder and dnd need heroes. Being chaotic good grants you a lot of freedom as long as your intent is good. On undead, if an evil undead has some info, and doesn't want to part with it before being ended, then they are going to have to put up with some discomfort before the players kill them, which they were probably always going to do, to prevent them preying on others again.
Thats why i love the people that cry poison use is evil, but acid and fire round after round not to mentions the beating and stabbing are just fine.
Trying to align poison use is stupid, however it's way beside the point.
Really?
You people can't tell the difference between foes locked in mortal combat and one person harming a helpless victim?
I'm wondering if it's supposed to be a strawman or if they really mean it...
Exactly. Some agents are going to find ways of hurting others (and especially evil) to be just fine, and others will disagree. If they existed they would disagree in person, instead we are disagreeing. The lawful good lawmen may imprison someone and have them beaten and flogged, and the captured person could cry torture torture torture. The guards response could simply be, you are scum (because you are what they define as scum), this is what we do to scum.
And what do you think makes that behavior lawful good? Heck, "this is what we do to scum" would even make it illegal in some lawful evil societies. They may allow gruesome torture or mutilating punishments, but could get really nasty if you do something out of turn, they may well limit what they do to "scum" to lawful investigations or public punishments. Sure, some may simply take away all the rights of prisoners, but that would still be evil, lawful or not.
Feel lucky prisoner, that the paladins or mages from our guild didn't encounter you as an enemy, or you would be smited, blasted, roasted or ruined by magic.
Paladins, welcome to Fallsville! Mages, welcome to Hell in a few decades.
Then if we play heroes, we go back to playing a game where we thrash evil and kill them horribly all the time. I for one am without sympathy here, but I can see the...
I see the problem. You are playing Diablo, I'm playing D&D/Pathfinder.
Again, I did not say you cannot commit Evil as a Chaotic Good character. Just that it would still be Evil, and not Good.
I don't think he believes his intrepid CG raiders did evil. I'm not positive, but I think he believes crossing a national border and maybe reigniting a war was not evil due to the evil actions of said Count during the prior war. I'd say crossing a border and pursuing a personal vendetta was chaotic and, given the mass executions of soldiers without trial or actual evidence of guilt, evil as well, but that's me... vengeance is not justice.
*edit* And I could see this happening, but it would be a CE act by ticked off CG characters imo. Without the mass executions, just going after the Count, I could almost go "CN", but I tend to draw the line at mass murder :)
Mass murder? You mean like against mooks in dungeons? Common against goblins, orcs, drow etc etc etc. Killing evil in large numbers is not evil, it is adventuring and done by good characters to stamp out evil.
If you can't tell the difference between killing in combat and taking prisoners and then executing them without trial or evidence you have issues. You were talking about hanging all his guards.
The chaotics in the example have not mass murdered the good, they know what the count and his men have done, and end it. The castle is just another dungeon, the count, just another evil villain. They don't respect any laws, any of the protections that can and in this case have, hid the evil away from justice and an end to their existence, they get the job done.
And that makes it "good"? I'm sure the Count could find justification for what he did too. He'd probably say "It's war" and rely on people to nod yes.
What I'm trying to bring up, and why it is good that there is argument here, is that players often do what can be considered evil actions. If evil is protected, if evil is respected then striking at them and striking decisively can be considered evil even if only serious evil is killed. Isn't that intriguing? Now sometimes punishing evil steps over, other times it is just cleaning the filth out of the latrines of everyday life.
Yes, they do. That doesn't make it anything other than an evil act. Doing something doesn't make it right or justifiable, just done.
If the Chaotic good party captured a high up evil retainer of the evil lord, and they tortured him for more info so as to kill remaining evil agents/superiors of the count/LE courtiers backing the count, I've got very little problem with it. Then again, I do play CG adventurers that pull out all the stops when they are hunting evil. They do good and charitable acts for the needy, good and neutral common folk but they come after dark forces quite viciously, without honour or restraint. CG ninjas are fun.
Once more, "torture is evil". You may think it neccesary or find it emotionally satisfying, but it's still evil. It sounds like "pulling out all the stops hunting evil" to you means using the tactics of evil or just plain being evil. Doing charitable acts on the side might help balance the scales for awhile. Any number of pirates / bandits / outlaws etc. have done good deeds locally to secure their base area, but in the end evil will grow to be routine and acceptable. Just another day at the office. My 2 cp.
It is more because of others on forums that I am bringing this up, but strawman and any identification of a logical fallacy or fallacious reasoning can be over-used and imprecise to what we are discussing. I remember a few years ago when people rediscovered rhetoric. Fun times, but is so often a hammer to try and end a discussion. I called out a fallacy first, I win!
On the LG guards, I didn't say the most excessive and horrible tortures. I am talking about roughing up and beatings, deprivation and imprisonment. Good can get away with imprisoning evil, and nowhere does it say evil has to be fed well or you go evil. The guards can be lawful and committed to doing good and protecting people, but they hurt and harm evil and what they call scum, because they can, the state says they can and should, and they feel the urge to crack down on thieves, evil demihumans, necomancers etc etc etc.
On the pallies and mages, the pals won't fall if they only harm evil scum, and the mages that kill evil excessively with their terrifying spells, won't go to hell for it. Dnd is heroic, and the reprehensible jobbers of today are the heroes in the dnd/pathfinder setting.
Awww, there is no need for a Diablo insult. Are you trying to say if you really constantly attack evil in dnd/pathfinder, you are instead playing Diablo? How does that work?
To r chance, what validity do chaotics base on trials and procedure? If the players know an agent is evil, have witnessed it, why do they require a standard of evidence akin to today's courts?
Respecting and obeying laws and jurisprudence does not fit with all characters or character concepts.
On the Count, yes, ending an evil noble and his war criminal soldiery is good. To make this less complex, think of them like raiding orcs that have some legal protections. lol
I liked reading what you put down, chance. Another day at the office, yeah, the hunting and torture if need be, of evil can become bureaucratic and organised. Do you find imprisonment after capture, thrashing and intimidate checks to be highly evil?
Because killing seems a lot worse than harming to me, but pcs do that all the time.
Really?
You people can't tell the difference between foes locked in mortal combat and one person harming a helpless victim?
Apparently not (!)
|
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.
Um. What? Torture isn't an innately evil act? I would argue that point.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That book also says that poison that numbs (dex damage) is evil but special holy poison that inflicts the worst pain possible on evil is 100% good
It also says that "inescapable brainwashing for 'Good' isn't Evil" and that "dead bodies are anathema." :P
But, ignoring the book's weird mechanical flaws (of which, arguably, can be found wherever fluff ends), I think their description of Good is inline with what we would expect from the authors. Good, as a non-abstract, is closer to our modern abstract Western view of good and evil.
Which...of course then leads to all sorts of problems in the game...
On Adventurers
Though it might not be the consensus view on this forum yet, it's a well established *cough* "fact" *cough* that adventurers are Chaotic Evil homicidal hobos that wander the countryside killing and looting whatever happens to be in their way.
On the LG guards, I didn't say the most excessive and horrible tortures. I am talking about roughing up and beatings, deprivation and imprisonment.
The difference between beatings and "the most excessive and horrible tortures" isn't between good and evil but between evil and vile.
Good can get away with imprisoning evil, and nowhere does it say evil has to be fed well or you go evil.
Likening all imprisonment to torture is nonsense, it depends on the how and why. Putting someone into a hole in the ground where he would eventually drown in his own crap would be torture, a cell where you can move have a place to sleep and a bucket that is emptied regularly is something completely different. Letting a prisoner starve would always be evil, unless procuring his nourishment would itself be an evil act.
The guards can be lawful and committed to doing good and protecting people, but they hurt and harm evil and what they call scum, because they can, the state says they can and should, and they feel the urge to crack down on thieves, evil demihumans, necomancers etc etc etc.
Someone who is committed to doing good doesn't mistreat people who are at his mercy unless in the most dire of circumstances (and then it would still be an evil act). And "good" doesn't give a crap what the state says. That's "lawful".
On the pallies and mages, the pals won't fall if they only harm evil scum, and the mages that kill evil excessively with their terrifying spells, won't go to hell for it. Dnd is heroic, and the reprehensible jobbers of today are the heroes in the dnd/pathfinder setting.
Awww, there is no need for a Diablo insult. Are you trying to say if you really constantly attack evil in dnd/pathfinder, you are instead playing Diablo? How does that work?
Simple: If you think you are allowed to kill everything that lights up when you detect evil and take their stuff that's not good anymore. If a tribe of orcs is a bunch of donkeyholes to each other but doesn't bother their neighbors it's evil to come and kill them all because their chief has a waraxe +5. A thief and burglar who has selfishly stolen for years without taking a single life because the penalty for murder would be too big an inconvenience may register with detect evil and be "evil scum", but that doesn't give any paladin or mage the right to kill him. Detect evil is not a divine authorization to kill people, it's a tool to show the caster who he can trust and where a Paladin can be the most effective with smite evil when there is fighting to be done.
To r chance, what validity do chaotics base on trials and procedure? If the players know an agent is evil, have witnessed it, why do they require a standard of evidence akin to today's courts?
You know all of those guards are guilty? No newe guys, No non-guilty ones? And of course any civilians hurt in the raid, well they must have been evil. So maybe we should have executed every member of the German militray after World War II, because that militray did commit atrocities. Or hey, maybe just all Germans.
Respecting and obeying laws and jurisprudence does not fit with all characters or character concepts.
A sense of right / good does not require strict obedience to laws / courts. It does require some belief in standards of behavior, or right and wrong.
On the Count, yes, ending an evil noble and his war criminal soldiery is good. To make this less complex, think of them like raiding orcs that have some legal protections. lolI liked reading what you put down, chance. Another day at the office, yeah, the hunting and torture if need be, of evil can become bureaucratic and organised. Do you find imprisonment after capture, thrashing and intimidate checks to be highly evil?
Killing in combat is one thing, mass executions based on "they are bad guys and must have done it" are another. Yes, it could be burearucratized, organized and evil. People sometimes return evil with evil. I just don't think calling acts of evil good because it's a matter of revenge. And no, imprisonment, or for that matter execution, is not, imo, evil.
Because killing seems a lot worse than harming to me, but pcs do that all the time.
Sometimes, they do. Just don't say an evil act is not evil because it's common, accepted or convenient.
So Navarion, hurting bad guys is evil? Because if a beating while being restrained is evil, what about hold person and killing or inflicting harm while evil is powerless to act? i.e. they lost initiative, they are seized/entangled/stuck in evard's black tentacles. If they are disarmed tripped and then injured, or grappled, pinned and backstabbed it is going to feel awful on their end, they have no power, there is no hope and their hp is running out.
Good can be pretty good at violating rights and taking away the power of evil. Taking the power of evil is a motivation of good adventurers.
Think there is a blurring of dishonourable into evil.
Navarion, on the pally and the orcs, are you saying he will fall for killing an evil tribe? :?
On detect evil, if the crusader's god says unto the paladin, you are an agent of good, peace and law, go combat and root out evil and eradicate it, here, take some smites and holy juice, they have quite the divine mandate to kick in the door of evil and burn those smites. Now the local gov might disagree, but if the pally is from an order about eradicating evil, then it is crusader LG vs peaceful LG.
That book also says that poison that numbs (dex damage) is evil but special holy poison that inflicts the worst pain possible on evil is 100% goodIt also says that "inescapable brainwashing for 'Good' isn't Evil" and that "dead bodies are anathema." :P
But, ignoring the book's weird mechanical flaws (of which, arguably, can be found wherever fluff ends), I think their description of Good is inline with what we would expect from the authors. Good, as a non-abstract, is closer to our modern abstract Western view of good and evil.
Which...of course then leads to all sorts of problems in the game...
On Adventurers
Though it might not be the consensus view on this forum yet, it's a well established *cough* "fact" *cough* that adventurers are Chaotic Evil homicidal hobos that wander the countryside killing and looting whatever happens to be in their way.
Great link man. The Assyrians became... unpopular. Ropers don't play by the rules, love it.
|
|
If we are to consider the epitomes of Good (of which, most players are not), the Good party should extend the branch of peace before combat (if possible), during combat when enemies are either rendered unable to participate in combat or disable enemies (knock unconscious and then spare), should be against wiping out orc tribes completely (even if they are Evil), and should be taking steps to generally reduce the effects of Evil upon the community by greater education. However, in most cases, the ideal does not occur and Good reflects its authoritarian and totalitarian nature (much like MTG's White).
[Edit]
And I'm glad you enjoyed the link. xP
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.
My thoughts exactly. A LG Paladin holds HIMSELF to an ideal, not others. His own code of honour should prevent torture and other depravities regardless of the victim or the cause. He would lecture that to act as the beast one becomes no better than the beast itself. If I was DMing this one I'd have serious thoughts about bringing shame upon the Paladin and making him atone before allowing him to access his class features again.
I'm in the camp of Torture = evil. The TARGET of the torture is irrelavent as it's the 'causing pain' that's the important action.
Good characters may DO it occassionally... It shouldn't require an immediate alignment shift...
Paladins are pretty much the only ones who should be concerned about something like this... and if the enemy is intelligent, then they should treat it the same as they would any other captive.
Though... Starving a creature that desires the flesh of the living would STILL be considered 'OK' if not MANDATORY by most GOOD gods ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see what the issue is. Undead shouldn't feel pain, undead have no live nerves, and consist entirely of dead matter. They shouldn't be able to taste necrotic flesh, that's why they don't eat their own kind. Positive energy dissipates undead and makes them wither, the same way negative energy opens wounds on living creatures. It should kill them, but not torture them. Torture inflicts non lethal damage. Undead are immune to that. All the pcs did was disarm him and threaten him with destruction, which is psychological torment, but since he is a warped, psychotic mockery of all that is living, he deserves no pity.
An undead can be wounded, it can be threatened with distruction and disarmed of its component parts, but it can't really be tortured unless you bring it back to life so that it can feel pain again.
I want to take this opportunity to say that Paizo has one of the absolutely worst forum systems I have ever encountered. Just munched a very long post without a chance to recover it. And no smileys...
So Navarion, hurting bad guys is evil? Because if a beating while being restrained is evil, what about hold person and killing or inflicting harm while evil is powerless to act? i.e. they lost initiative, they are seized/entangled/stuck in evard's black tentacles. If they are disarmed tripped and then injured, or grappled, pinned and backstabbed it is going to feel awful on their end, they have no power, there is no hope and their hp is running out.
Already answered that one. Ignoring the answer doesn't help your case.
That is nonsense. Do you know why? Because hp are an abstract system designed to make combat enjoyable in the game because if it were realistic every single hit could kill you. There are different interpretations what hp damage represents, some consider it a combination of health and stamina, so a crit with a greatsword that didn't kill you for example didn't actually hit you but the effort to evade it was really exhausting. In combat you are still fighting back and normally it is ended either by surrender, being knocked out or killed. Torture is against someone who is unable to fight back and unlike in combat the goal is not to disable the opponent as quickly as possible but to draw out his suffering.
Good can be pretty good at violating rights and taking away the power of evil. Taking the power of evil is a motivation of good adventurers.
You mean the motivation of good adventurers is to get their hands on unholy weapons and the means to become lichs? :P
Think there is a blurring of dishonourable into evil.
Yeah, there is a blurring. After combat. During combat good and evil don't give a crap if you throw sand in someone's eyes, kick him in the nuts or backstab him. If you do it to someone who surrendered or otherwise was taken prisoner that's evil.
Navarion, on the pally and the orcs, are you saying he will fall for killing an evil tribe? :?
Yes. I'm not even starting about children and non-combatants or how killing all warriors/hunters would make them starve. If orcs agree that they want to live in a chaotic evil society that's their choice as long as they don't bother their neighbors with it.
On detect evil, if the crusader's god says unto the paladin, you are an agent of good, peace and law, go combat and root out evil and eradicate it, here, take some smites and holy juice, they have quite the divine mandate to kick in the door of evil and burn those smites. Now the local gov might disagree, but if the pally is from an order about eradicating evil, then it is crusader LG vs peaceful LG.
So your "crusader LG" would go on the market place in a human village, detect evil and kill everyone who lights up. The cutpurse, the baker who puts sawdust in his bread to make it cheaper, the moneylender whose interest rates drove a few families into poverty etc?
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.
Rogue already is evil. Torture isn't evil simply due to how deserving the target is; it's evil because of what it does to the torturer as well. Think about what kind of mindset it would take to be able to mutilate a corpse, let alone an intelligent being. The idea of having pity for the immortal soul of this creature should maybe have occurred to your PCs.
It's fine to run a gray and gray moral universe, but let's not pretend that you're not doing that.
I'll get to any responses I want to write over the next days, since I got an important exam tomorrow and three full days of work afterwards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Might also depend on exactly how a character looks at the nature of the universe.
A nihilist may not see individuals, they see temporary combinations of atoms and molecules that have been a nearly infinite amount of things before it was the tortured creature and will be a nearly infinite amount of things after it dies.
He/she doesn't see death and pain the same way others do. When they kill something, they didn't destroy it, everything it was still exists and is now simply decaying to be recombined into a new form.
I would see your average nihilist character as spanning the NG to NE range (since they are more pragmatic than anything and not necessarily caring about chaos or law)
A Neutral Good character with this kind of universal viewpoint could torture without much harm to their alignment as long as the torturing increases the overall "Good" of the universe.
Kind of the ultimate incarnation of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
Someone like that, of which would describe me to a degree, just doesn't see life and death the same way.
This character doesn't necessarily go about killing at will, but they don't care if an individual dies in the path to the the greater good because they see that person as less of an individual and more of a cloud of particles.
Even a nihilist can work toward the greater good. Not because it's some lofty ideal, but because the odds of his survival increase dramatically when good is in charge.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Modern standards" leaves a lot open since modern standards differ so much, so that is not the best way to look at it either
Yup.
IMO, a far better standard for Good would be the "Love thy Neighbor" or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Those aren't exactly 'modern' concepts. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always loved Keith Baker's take on alignment.
Since Eberron was always a pulp theme, I remeber somewhere where he said, "Sometimes characters commit evil acts for the greater good". Or something close to that.
IE, Torturing an intelligent undead for information to protect a village, etc, would be considered fine, as long as you are being not sadistic about it, and getting joy.
Here is a neat little article he did in April of this year
Skadooo
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea that you can torture sentient beings and remain in the "good" side makes good meaningless. If you define "hurting good people" as an evil action and "hurting evil people" as a good action you make "good" and "evil" just team names, devoid of meaning.
It is usually argued that usually evil beings first commit an evil act before the good guys decide to do the same to them. Well, this reduces the meaning of being "good" to "people that don't pick fights", because after it starts, they are as capable of doing crazy stuff to the other team as the evil guys.
Evil actions are evil. It is not a matter of who is on the receiving end of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always loved Keith Baker's take on alignment.
Since Eberron was always a pulp theme, I remeber somewhere where he said, "Sometimes characters commit evil acts for the greater good". Or something close to that.IE, Torturing an intelligent undead for information to protect a village, etc, would be considered fine, as long as you are being not sadistic about it, and getting joy.
Here is a neat little article he did in April of this year
Skadooo
But notice the statement: "sometimes characters commit EVIL acts for the greater good". The fact that the intended outcome is good does not make that action less evil. Thus, good characters can, sometimes, make evil actions. How do we know that he is a good guy? Probably his actions will haunt him; maybe he'll revisit that day in his memory, looking for what he could have done differently in order to save the day without having to taint his soul.
In other words, an evil act does not become good because it is done by a good person, or with good intentions.
Isn't Nihilism about as close to Neutral or even Chaotic Neutral as an outlook can come? I see nothing Good about it... evil maybe but unlikely. Unless I am completely wrong about nihilism.
|
|
None of which exist in Golarion or any medieval-esque fantasy game that I know of. The Red cross, the ACLU, Geneva conventions, they don't exist in Golarion. Actors of the good often go out and kill and maim. Now you have your benevolent contemplatives and selfless providers of aid, they are around, but rare. They don't define all that is good. The game in its ideas of alignment considers killing and harming evil to be good, and some versions of harm inflicted upon evil to be evil. It is quite funny.Many could argue incarceration is torture, where do we draw a line and who gets to decide what torture is ok?How about the Red Cross, the ACLU and the Geneva Conventions?
Actually, the western branch of the Church of Sarenrae DOES go out of its way to redeem evil, even in non-violent ways if they can help it, only resorting to smiting if they fail. And the church of Shelyn doesn't even do that. Their paladin codes even imply they must "approach first with a rose, and not a sword," or something similar. So, actually, there are organizations and religions on Golarion that attempt to cleanse evil non-violently. Just saying. And they aren't that rare, actually, both being fairly major and popular deities (the worship of Shelyn being almost universal along the Inner Sea, at least in Avistan and even some places in Garund, like Sargava). Hell, Shelyn even has small followings outside of the Inner Sea. Also, the difference here is this. They could have easily killed that vampire after they captured it, then gotten the information with Speak with Dead or what have you. Instead, they chose to bind him and cause him great...er...however you define pain, and for little reason. The way I see it, if you're good aligned, and you can accomplish a certain action in two ways (yet gain the same result), doing the more harsh one would be considered evil. They obviously had other options, and they decided not to take them. The alignment of torture itself in this case is irrelevant. Under these circumstances, it was evil, because it was unnecessarily cruel, and, i can't stress this enough, just plain unnecessary. The only reason why anyone would decide to do it the long and arduous (not to mention less practical) torture method is for sh*ts and giggles, and when your intention for doing something malign is for sh*ts and giggles, well then...then you've said bye-bye to the good alignment and parked yourself in neutral street, if not yet evil, though from where they're parked they can definitely see that street sign.
See, I also don't think good aligned characters would render enemies helpless before killing them unless they had no other choice. A witch who slumbers folk and then coup d'graces them would be treading on neutral ground in my opinion, for instance. Not because that would be called torture, but because that doesn't seem like the honorable and goodly thing to do. *shrugs* i dunno.
There's also the note NOT touched upon is that torture is, on Golarion mind you, the domain of Zon-Kuthon (as well as Shax, but to a much lesser extent), a LE deity, and very hungry and jealous at that (implying that anyone using his own methods without venerating him would probably draw his ire, or at the very least, his attention, which is not a good thing). This adds weight to any argument that states that torture is evil, for according to canonical Golarion lore, torture is the weapon of depraved and evil beings, and good beings ought to wash their hands of this nonsense, since in this case, the road to the Plane of Shadows, the Abyss, and Abaddon are paved with such intentions.
Isn't Nihilism about as close to Neutral or even Chaotic Neutral as an outlook can come? I see nothing Good about it... evil maybe but unlikely. Unless I am completely wrong about nihilism.
Nihilism is less a belief system and more a condition one inherits.
Eventually you have what some call a "Crisis of nihilism" where you finally "see" the universe as it really is.
You stop seeing things, you see particles. You stop seeing individual personalities, you see electrical impulses on wetware.
This eventually ends up with a "What's the point?" attitude.
But if you then take that "what's the point?" attitude (sometimes called negative nihilism) and you convert that to "There is no point, hence I will dictate the point. I will forge reality as I see fit. I will change what I can simply because I will it." You become a positive nihilist and can basically begin building ideals ontop of that nihilistic framework.
So NG could be a nihilist who decided that good is better than evil simply because he wanted to make the choice. He dictated a condition to the universe, and since the universe has no true purpose or point, his dictation is as valid as anything.
Some of you need to go back and watch the Star Trek: The Next Generation two-parter "Chain of Command" again.
What good would that do? Not everyone here is a Trekkie, and when I look at the Star Trek Online forums I get the bad feeling that a lot of the people there would have found Picard torturing Madred for information on his metagenic weapons "badass".-_-
|
|
Unfortunately for you, Forlarren, if they're talking Pathfinder (and using Golarion as their world), everything you said is moot. Most villains are never cartoonishly evil, often having huge, intricate plots explaining the why and how of their actions, and few view themselves as cartoonishly evil as you would have us believe. There are good deities that allow "ends justify the means" and there are also good aligned deities that do not. There are evil aligned deities who view themselves as at least neutral (and even worshippers who percieve them as such. Here's looking at you, Asmodeus). Nihilism DOES exist as a legitamate philosophy on Golarion (with daemonic cults probably negative nihilists), and it is not a failure of the DM to play it that way.
However, there is some validity to your point. When nigh-all-powerful beings decide (and write in stone) how they believe morality works, then going against their codes would be violating your alignment in the eyes of that deity. This applies to paladins and clerics, and the player aiding and abetting was a paladin.
You are correct in saying that real life doesn't apply, but many things do. As much as you might wish it, all human thought derives from the same source...i.e. us, so real-world logic still has a place in D&D, especially Golarion, where many of their philosophies mirror ours. Not all games of D&D have to be black-and-white high fantasy, and while Golarion has the flavor of that, it actually leans more towards gray-and-gray with its portrayel of BBeGs more than half the time. Sometimes...no, but often enough...yes.
unless you play a campaign that ignores alignments
I'm not even sure what is going on in this thread these days, but I'm sure this is relevant somewhere, somehow.
Yup...torturing any creature is an obviously evil act.
FTFY
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.wow, justify much?
Utilizing any form of harm to interrogate or otherwise punish a prisoner of war is morally, ethically, contrary to the humane condition. A creature, whether born of dark magic and evil intent, a normal human, or any other creature that thinks and feels ( a status that can be long debated in itself)is the target of the act, not a justification.
This is why we have the Geneva Convention, and why much of the German military was held accountable for atrocious acts after WWII (for detailed information that I'm referencing open a book, or wake up during history class, whichever most applies to your situation.)
So now that we understand that the ends rarely, if ever, justify the means, replace "intelligent evil undead" with "my family member" and see how it hypocritical you sound. that, or morally psychotic, in which case you need to see a medical professional. STAT!
The reason a Paladin has a code, and the replied to is just weaving interpretation into generalization, is to protect people from the paladin as well as the paladin protecting the people. How often in real history have we seen the label "evil" slapped on a minority, so we can.....oh say, enslave them, keep them from voting/integrating when they're finally freed, Taking thier land/women/children/wealth in general, converting them to christianity and obliterating their culture.
I can go on, but will assume I've made my point. If you have to justify any questionable act as 'for the good', just own up to doing an evil act. the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
+1. This was a great post.
I didn't feel like going through all of these pages to see if anyone said anything about it, but undead can't feel pain, can they? If you cut off their fingers and make them eat their eyes, can't they just be regenerated by some magical means? Or maybe silver and holy weapons are the only things that can cause undead pain, perhaps? Or is it just about psychological torture? Demoralization and all that? I'm really curious and I'm glad this post came up.
And to throw in my two cents, even if you hate undead and other evil creatures, it still seems not-so-Pally to torture ANYBODY. I would think that nearly all LG characters would just seek to take down their enemies as quickly as possible. Not saying it's necessarily evil, just seems a bit dishonorable.
When I said cartoonishly evil, I meant, Darth Vader, not Snidely Whiplash.
Since when is Darth Vader cartoonish?