|
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.
I'd be really curious to find out what god the pally here was worshipping. Homebrew? Cause I can't think of any undead-hating Golarion gods that can have paladin servants. Well, there's Sarenrae, but she doesn't like inflicting needless suffering...so...I dunno?
Evil or not, the paladin at least should lose his abilities due to violating his code (lying at the VERY LEAST), regardless of who he was doing it to. Redemption or not, the guy broke the rules and did something unlawful. As for everybody else...who cares? if you don't like it, tell your players to calm down with the ritualistic dismemberment, and if they don't after hearing your reasonable objections, you can always leave. Life's too short, ya know?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be really curious to find out what god the pally here was worshipping. Homebrew? Cause I can't think of any undead-hating Golarion gods that can have paladin servants. Well, there's Sarenrae, but she doesn't like inflicting needless suffering...so...I dunno?
Ever play Team Fortress 2?
Imagine Zon-Kuthon with a paper Sarenrae mask on.
"Now mercifully remove his feet. Oh yeah, that's the stuff. Now let's redeem his fingers. But take your time. You have to do it riiiiight."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@The Drunken Dragon
Sarenrae is not that merciful to the irredeemables. Undead are kill-on-sight for her and she did "...place therein the raging flames of the sun as an eternal torment" when she helped bind Rovagug. That sounds a lot like torture of a sentient being.
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.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Good find Magenta. If your goddess tortures evil...
hm, just some links
I can see these do a genocidal rush on undead, or torture them to death for revenge (Yes, everything that is sentient or alive can feel pain in many forms, even undead feel their flesh being burned or the pain from holy water. I may be even more biased towards that as I often played World of Darkness and Vampires)
The opposite of these as example could be the race restricted Redeemer Paladin, looking at the world/situation in an other light.
An Inquisitor would have no problems doing torture for various reasons, more sadistic people can easily be imagined to be a member among them. They are also followers of a god and divine casters, it can easily be seen that if something an Inquisitor does doesn't make it lose divine benevolence, then the same should be true for paladins of the same deity. If a character is a multiclass (or gestalt) Inquisitor/Paladin or Cleric/Inquisitor there is no way one could justify taking away half its divine support while not the other half. (yes, Inquisitors can be Lawful Good and thus also have paladin levels, clerics already work along the same alignment lines as Inquisitor)
To be clearer: Even those who argue against torturing done by good people/paladins would have no right to take away any powers from a multiclass Inquisitor even if also a Paladin, as its the same person, worshiping the same deity, following the same doctrines. Hey, sure, that person may not lie or backstab, but it could still torture a vampire up close and personal.
|
hm, just some links
I can see these do a genocidal rush on undead, or torture them to death for revenge (Yes, everything that is sentient or alive can feel pain in many forms, even undead feel their flesh being burned or the pain from holy water. I may be even more biased towards that as I often played World of Darkness and Vampires)
Uh...that's not stated anywhere. There's a huge difference between disliking and/or fighting something and committing atrocities on it.
The opposite of these as example could be the race restricted Redeemer Paladin, looking at the world/situation in an other light.
True. But it's the difference between killing a monster and giving it a second chance, not giving it a second chance and brutally torturing it.
An Inquisitor would have no problems doing torture for various reasons, more sadistic people can easily be imagined to be a member among them. They are also followers of a god and divine casters, it can easily be seen that if something an Inquisitor does doesn't make it lose divine benevolence, then the same should be true for paladins of the same deity. If a character is a multiclass (or gestalt) Inquisitor/Paladin or Cleric/Inquisitor there is no way one could justify taking away half its divine support while not the other half. (yes, Inquisitors can be Lawful Good and thus also have paladin levels, clerics already work along the same alignment lines as Inquisitor)
To be clearer: Even those who argue against torturing done by good people/paladins would have no right to take away any powers from a multiclass Inquisitor even if also a Paladin, as its the same person, worshiping the same deity, following the same doctrines. Hey, sure, that person may not lie or backstab, but it could still torture a vampire up close and personal.
There's no actual basis for this statement any more than about any other class. The description is a little grim...but much less so than, say, the Ranger's, and no reason to believe that a deity would be any more forgiving of an Inquisitor doing so than anyone else. And, indeed, little reason to believe a Good deity would allow such a thing at all.
@The Drunken Dragon
Sarenrae is not that merciful to the irredeemables. Undead are kill-on-sight for her and she did "...place therein the raging flames of the sun as an eternal torment" when she helped bind Rovagug. That sounds a lot like torture of a sentient being.
James Jacobs has specifically mentioned this tendency of Sarenrae's as one aspect that makes her imperfectly Good (along with Cayden Cailean's irresponsibility, Erastil's sexism, or Desna's disconnectedness). Just because the God is Good doesn't mean they're perfectly Good, after all.
An Inquisitor is basically there to do the darker deeds for its god,
the description for it is clear enough, even if it tries to stay wishy-washy.
I see it more like this: A Lawful Good character can be 90% Lawful and 10% Good, or 1% Lawful and 99% Good, neither of these mean the same character can't be a sadist or masochist on top of the alignment.
The Hungarian M.A.G.U.S. has an alignment system that has been carried over at the change to d20 system, alignments are similar to the D&D one although the opposite of Chaos is Order and not Lawful. The alignments have a name of their own that helps identify the smaller differences better (still not a perfect system for alignment, but better)
example:
A Chaotic, Evil character would be said to have Chimera alignment
An Evil, Chaotic character would be said to have a Daemon alignment
A Good character (not needed to have a second aspect, which basically equally Neutral Good in this case) would be Unicorn (or was it Angel? don't recall all details)
A Good, Order character I think is called Griffon aligned if memory doesn't fail me
personally I don't like a black/white alignment system at all, in my opinion most of it should be erased, and a paladin could choose from a list of things it opposes and get abilities according to that, like Detect Undead if the paladin/its god hates undead, or Detect Charm or Magic if it is about hunting witchcraft users. Smite Evil would become Smite Enemy.
|
|
An Inquisitor is basically there to do the darker deeds for its god,
the description for it is clear enough, even if it tries to stay wishy-washy.
No, they're there to do what they believe is necessary for their God, and to destroy his or her enemies. That's...not precisely the same thing. And it specifically calls out answering to both their own sense of justice and their God, as well.
Nor do the rules bear out Inquisitors having some sort of dispensation to ignore their Alignment's normal restrictions.
|
|
...she's not as Good as you thought.
I'd figure it plays into the Pathfinder take on gods largely being fallible.
When Sarenrae did that, she was likely the most pissed off any good being in that corner of the multiverse had ever been, having just survived what was practically a Ragnarok and having seen who knows how many lives snuffed out, be they mortal, outsider, or god. It's been stated over and over that Rovagug is the one god she actually hates, on account of what he did and what he intends to do if he is ever freed.
It poses an interesting question: Is her punishment of Rovagug beyond his imprisonment something she might regret deep down, or is it something she considers completely in line with Good? Dawncult might give one answer, mainstream Sarenraen churches may give another.
Both likely agree that she didn't enjoy it.
There may also be the possibility that keeping Rovagug on fire keeps him from breaking free, but there's nothing to back that theory up. To her credit, she doesn't visit him just to troll him like Asmodeus.
|
|
...she's not as Good as you thought.I'd figure it plays into the Pathfinder take on gods largely being fallible.
When Sarenrae did that, she was likely the most pissed off any good being in that corner of the multiverse had ever been, having just survived what was practically a Ragnarok and having seen who knows how many lives snuffed out, be they mortal, outsider, or god. It's been stated over and over that Rovagug is the one god she actually hates, on account of what he did and what he intends to do if he is ever freed.
It poses an interesting question: Is her punishment of Rovagug beyond his imprisonment something she might regret deep down, or is it something she considers completely in line with Good? Dawncult might give one answer, mainstream Sarenraen churches may give another.
Both likely agree that she didn't enjoy it.
There may also be the possibility that keeping Rovagug on fire keeps him from breaking free, but there's nothing to back that theory up. To her credit, she doesn't visit him just to troll him like Asmodeus.
Although I have to point out that I didn't know this fact, I agree with Mikaze's analysis herein. Sarenrae is a bit of a hot-heated deity (a bad pun, I know, but roll with it), so she may have...over-reacted there. On the other hand, messing with the prison now would probably not be entirely wise. In any case, I concede that I was wrong. Still, to be perfectly fair, if she could have destroyed him instead, she probably would have just done that. She couldn't. No one could. So she chose to punish him that way. The PCs in question could have used other methods, but chose the vindictive option. That, to me, seems the greater of these two evils. Yes, perhaps Sarenrae did in fact do a thing wrong. All right. I can agree to that. Thing is...the way I see it, what the PCs did was...significantly worse. And, as I said before, my other arguments aside (since so far none have rebuffed this directly), it is irrelevant what their good aligned deity allowed. He still lied and watched someone do a vindictive, dishonorable thing that could easily have been avoided, so regardless of belief, a Paladin would lose their powers. In this case, a paladin and an inquisitor, btw, could not operate as a gestalt character in this situation, because the inquisitor's abilities have an "escape clause" so to speak that allows them to quite literally do things For the Greater Good, where as Paladins do not possess this clause. Ergo, one can violate a Paladin code, but not an Inquisitorial code. The origin for their powers may be the same, but the contract for them operate on different principles. Heck, even clerics/paladins might be susceptible to this. A cleric/paladin of Shelyn must still be lawful to retain his paladin abilities. If he slips up on the Lawful alignment (for whatever reason), he'd lose paladin abilities, but since NG is a Shelyn-friendly alignment, he wouldn't lose cleric abilities. Same thing for Inquisitors. Playing a good character (and a paladin) is HARD. You can't just make random wanton decisions and expect all to go your way. It requires careful thought and difficult choices, most of which are sub-optimal or dangerous. That's what you get for wanting to play a holy warrior. If you don't want to screw with theology and wave a flaming stick around, play a Magus...
The only time in my experience that a party has tortured undead, it was an altered ghoul. The dm had taken pains to make ghouls more human, somewhat straddling the divide of undead and living as he saw it in his setting. Thus the ghoul could be tortured, thus we could get information. This reminds me of certain iterations of warhammer where ghouls and vamps were not immune to psychology.
Torturing a skeleton champion would have got a lot less results.
hm, just some links
I can see these do a genocidal rush on undead, or torture them to death for revenge (Yes, everything that is sentient or alive can feel pain in many forms, even undead feel their flesh being burned or the pain from holy water. I may be even more biased towards that as I often played World of Darkness and Vampires)
Yeah... I agree with Deadmanwalking. nowhere does it say anything about 'torturing is ok'... Hating and destroying is in character for sure... Genocide of the evil undead absolutely.
But slowly reflecting the sun to their flesh as they scream in agony does not become 'ok' because they took an oath to destroy them.
Quit playing with them... and DESTROY them ;)
To be clearer: Even those who argue against torturing done by good people/paladins would have no right to take away any powers from a multiclass Inquisitor even if also a Paladin, as its the same person, worshiping the same deity, following the same doctrines. Hey, sure, that person may not lie or backstab, but it could still torture a vampire up close and personal.
And this I disagree with COMPLETLY. Multiclassiing should NEVER be 'loophole'.
A paladin does not get a free pass because he's also an inquistor... An inquistor gets tied down with the stricter codes of being a Paladin.
I would never let a monk/Paladin get away with something by the arguement of 'Monks don't have that limitation'... Too BAD, PALADIN'S do ;)
There are quite a few things that a NORMAL inquisitor can get away with... but a PALADIN/INQUISTOR simply can NOT.
Also.... to clarify, There is SOME forms of torture that is NOT evil. There would be SOME kinds of torture that it would be Evil NOT to do.
If you have a vampire that your trying to question... Simple fact is, you will NOT let him leave till he gives you the information.
This is Fine.
Spraying him with Holy water and shining the sun on his arms and legs while he screams is WRONG... That is NOT cool paladin behavior.
However...
That Vampire WILL get hungry. Every day that goes by will be torture to the poor starving undead... but the Paladin is NOT required to feed him 3 square meals of virgin children blood due to any geneva act...
A Paladin can watch him starve until he gives you the info you need then stake him with no issues whatsoever.
Humans prisoners wouldn't get the same treatment... You pretty much HAVE to feed them or risk falling ;)
you forget that unlike a monk/paladin of your example, an Inquisitor/Paladin follows the same ideals and god on both classes
It is not a loophole, we talk here about a single entity/person/personality, those who multiclass often forget its not two or more people stitched together, and it would be more than weird if a god that is perfectly fine with granting powers for actions of an inquisitor would stop granting powers to the very same person on the "paladin-side"I guess the idea would work the best with a paladin/inquisitor following a Lawful Neutral god though.
Probably... but the gods have different rules for different classes. What is ok for an inquistor is not ok for a Paladin. Inquisitors are allowed a more flexible Alignment than a Paladin is.
A Neutral good inquistor can do things that a Lawful Good Inquisitor/Paladin can not.
I think the gods look at Paladins as 'Double O' Catagory of the James bond universe... If you screw up royally you loose your OO ranking, but you can still be an agent.
In fact in this example, As much as I HATE DM mandated Alignment changes... I think that's what would have happened here.
A LG Paladin/Inquistor fo Sarenrae starts torturing things... and next thing he knows he's Neutral Good Inquistor of Sarenrae.
Multiclassing to another class, does not stop or lessen the restrictions you have the first class.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also.... to clarify, There is SOME forms of torture that is NOT evil. There would be SOME kinds of torture that it would be Evil NOT to do.
If you have a vampire that your trying to question... Simple fact is, you will NOT let him leave till he gives you the information.
This is Fine.
Spraying him with Holy water and shining the sun on his arms and legs while he screams is WRONG... That is NOT cool paladin behavior.
However...
That Vampire WILL get hungry. Every day that goes by will be torture to the poor starving undead... but the Paladin is NOT required to feed him 3 square meals of virgin children blood due to any geneva act...
A Paladin can watch him starve until he gives you the info you need then stake him with no issues whatsoever.
Humans prisoners wouldn't get the same treatment... You pretty much HAVE to feed them or risk falling ;)
So why is it ok to starve torture the vamp but not the human? a pally can get blood, use his own. if it is wrong to starve an evil human it is equally wrong to starve the undead
Indeed, something I noticed as well.
If you are going to torture via deprivation, be honest on what you are doing.
Torture is NOT good.
End of argument; this shouldn't even be up for debate.
It doesn't matter if you do it against undead or evil people.
If they harmed you, you can still be Neutral and out for revenge.
If they did nothing to you, you're evil, period.
The 'Dexter' character is still evil. He's just bound by his code to only take his evil out on other evil people.
Was Rovagug's punishment really vindicative? I just assumed the "making sure he was on constant fire" was as much a way to keep him weak enough to not break out of his prison, as it was a means of punishment.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
An Inquisitor is basically there to do the darker deeds for its god,
the description for it is clear enough, even if it tries to stay wishy-washy.No, they're there to do what they believe is necessary for their God, and to destroy his or her enemies. That's...not precisely the same thing. And it specifically calls out answering to both their own sense of justice and their God, as well.
Nor do the rules bear out Inquisitors having some sort of dispensation to ignore their Alignment's normal restrictions.
Agreed. Inquisitors can be more likely to go 'alternate methods'. For example, an Inquisitor of Saranae might be better able to emphasize the 'mercy' aspects with their skills. They can easily take Sense Motive, Diplomacy, etc. and thus be more likely to tell if that 'conversion' is a fake or not.
I agree with others a Paladin/Inquisitor can fall as a Paladin while keeping their Inquisitor powers. Their power comes from their class. In 3.5e you didn't even need a deity to gain Paladin power. Not sure if they kept that in Pathfinder but they should have if they didn't. A Paladin gains his extra powers by upholding the strict Paladin code NOT by upholding a deities code.
|
|
Was Rovagug's punishment really vindicative? I just assumed the "making sure he was on constant fire" was as much a way to keep him weak enough to not break out of his prison, as it was a means of punishment.
Would it be ok to daily beat prisoners, especially high level ones, down to their last few HP to help keep them contained?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Torture is NOT good.
End of argument; this shouldn't even be up for debate.
It doesn't matter if you do it against undead or evil people.
If they harmed you, you can still be Neutral and out for revenge.
If they did nothing to you, you're evil, period.
The 'Dexter' character is still evil. He's just bound by his code to only take his evil out on other evil people.
Torture is good, it must be, it has a long tradition being performed ever since humanity exists up to today, often those who actually tried to resolve crimes were the torturers themselves, tormenting is an other thing :)
... now for real, I consider torture a chaotic act, maybe a lawful Neutral act, but not evil. It being evil just became a common reaction to it since about WW1, it is just another of a dozen+ examples how morale standards change, there are many things like sexual orientation or non-standard religious believes that were also considered once evil, in a lot of places even today.
So why is it ok to starve torture the vamp but not the human? a pally can get blood, use his own. if it is wrong to starve an evil human it is equally wrong to starve the undead
Indeed, something I noticed as well.
If you are going to torture via deprivation, be honest on what you are doing.
I suppose it depends on how much blood they need to survive. A few drops a day you can survive...
If Professor van helsing has to give you a full on transfusion every morning because you can't get out of bed anymore... then that's too much. Feeding an undead your own life just so he isn't hungry is Lawful Stupid.
Zombies seek brains... Ghouls seek flesh... Some of these things you simple CAN'T feed them without falling.
Depending on the DM of course.. they may allow them to feed on 'substitutes'... but a lot of creatures want Human... and Living for their diet.
|
|
So why is it ok to starve torture the vamp but not the human? a pally can get blood, use his own. if it is wrong to starve an evil human it is equally wrong to starve the undeadIndeed, something I noticed as well.
If you are going to torture via deprivation, be honest on what you are doing.
I suppose it depends on how much blood they need to survive. A few drops a day you can survive...
If Professor van helsing has to give you a full on transfusion every morning because you can't get out of bed anymore... then that's too much. Feeding an undead your own life just so he isn't hungry is Lawful Stupid.
Zombies seek brains... Ghouls seek flesh... Some of these things you simple CAN'T feed them without falling.
Depending on the DM of course.. they may allow them to feed on 'substitutes'... but a lot of creatures want Human... and Living for their diet.
Then kill it instead of torturing it.
|
|
Torture is NOT good.
End of argument; this shouldn't even be up for debate.
It doesn't matter if you do it against undead or evil people.
If they harmed you, you can still be Neutral and out for revenge.
If they did nothing to you, you're evil, period.
The 'Dexter' character is still evil. He's just bound by his code to only take his evil out on other evil people.
Torture is good, it must be, it has a long tradition being performed ever since humanity exists up to today, often those who actually tried to resolve crimes were the torturers themselves, tormenting is an other thing :)
... now for real, I consider torture a chaotic act, maybe a lawful Neutral act, but not evil. It being evil just became a common reaction to it since about WW1, it is just another of a dozen+ examples how morale standards change, there are many things like sexual orientation or non-standard religious believes that were also considered once evil, in a lot of places even today.
Of course what defines torture? Imprisonment can be considered torture to some of us. Where do we draw the lines?
The note NOT touched upon is that torture is, on Golarion mind you, the domain of Zon-Kuthon
Myself and then Mikaze actually did touch upon that,
albeit before the thread really went off the deep end...
The note NOT touched upon is that torture is, on Golarion mind you, the domain of Zon-KuthonMyself and then Mikaze actually did touch upon that,
albeit before the thread really went off the deep end...
this is a Pathfinder and not a Golarion discussion, I understand many don't see the difference but it basically means it is the core system vs setting.
A very big amount of people don't even play the Golarion setting due to its many restrictions like that all undead (except maybe some ghosts) are evil, I don't have any numbers but I would guess other settings and own created ones are in majority.
Then kill it instead of torturing it.
There's too many possible scenarios to Generalize.
I can think of many possibliities where the paladin is trying to 'cure' the vampire. It's practically a 'trope' at this point... and going 'blood-free' is usually a requirement.
Maybe the monster knows where the other vampires/ghouls/zombies have their 'human farm' full of orphans and we NEED that information. A paladin can't start pulling fingernails and burning them... But 'Just kill it because it's hungry' dooms the children too...
If evil begets evil, then good stooping to the tactics of evil is evil. Evil wins.
You need an example? Batman Darkknight. Harvey Dent. Two-Face. Sometimes all we need is a little push. Haaaaa haaaaaa haaaaa!
Torture is NOT good.
End of argument; this shouldn't even be up for debate.
It doesn't matter if you do it against undead or evil people.
If they harmed you, you can still be Neutral and out for revenge.
If they did nothing to you, you're evil, period.
The 'Dexter' character is still evil. He's just bound by his code to only take his evil out on other evil people.
Torture is good, it must be, it has a long tradition being performed ever since humanity exists up to today, often those who actually tried to resolve crimes were the torturers themselves, tormenting is an other thing :)
... now for real, I consider torture a chaotic act, maybe a lawful Neutral act, but not evil. It being evil just became a common reaction to it since about WW1, it is just another of a dozen+ examples how morale standards change, there are many things like sexual orientation or non-standard religious believes that were also considered once evil, in a lot of places even today.
Beatings and intimidation of a target, no matter who they are, is more chaotic for me as well. I can see chaotic goods and chaotic neutrals doing it. If neutrals go that far, they are stepping into chaotic waters. Now the real nasty torture, that is CE to me. A LE can torture, it might be a big thing in their city state of evil or evil empire, but they are professionals about it, and it isn't just to cause pain, it is until the information is given up, they are reasonable pro torturers. I don't care much about low scale torture, beatings, some deprivation, because as I said above, players cause pain and completely dominate enemies (sometimes with the spell) all the time when their team-work goes well.
I also don't change alignment immediately, because a player decided that torture was what they had to do. Doesn't come up much in games that I run, but its been a thing in games I've played. I think a hero can have a few dark nights and not immediately flip over, suddenly saying "let's serve the forces of darkness!"
In one game where I was playing an honourable knight, we captured a drow but did not torture it. This cleric had info, we kept her bound and imprisoned, but fed her well/washed her. My knight actually broke her down over time with seduction checks. She escaped, we caught her again, drow eventually cooperated. Then she became a henchman!
|
Then kill it instead of torturing it.There's too many possible scenarios to Generalize.
I can think of many possibliities where the paladin is trying to 'cure' the vampire. It's practically a 'trope' at this point... and going 'blood-free' is usually a requirement.
Well that's not torture anymore than drying out an alcoholic would be. Or performing life-saving surgery when no anesthetic is available.
It's only torture when pain is the POINT of the action, not when the pain is an unavoidable side-effect.
|
|
Then kill it instead of torturing it.There's too many possible scenarios to Generalize.
I can think of many possibliities where the paladin is trying to 'cure' the vampire. It's practically a 'trope' at this point... and going 'blood-free' is usually a requirement.
Maybe the monster knows where the other vampires/ghouls/zombies have their 'human farm' full of orphans and we NEED that information. A paladin can't start pulling fingernails and burning them... But 'Just kill it because it's hungry' dooms the children too...
Starving it doesn't cure it, killing and raising do.
Still torture, still a no-no for the pally. No different than withholding food and water from a human
Starving it doesn't cure it, killing and raising do.
Still torture, still a no-no for the pally. No different than withholding food and water from a human
Depends on the DM. I can see whole quests revolved around 'curing' a vampire... or other creature. And frankly the 'kill and Raise' is anticlimactic. None of our DM's like that cop-out.
But like you said above... 'imprisonment' is considered torture to some. Where do we draw the line? Does 'starving' KILL the undead beast? Killing the dead is USUALLY harder than that. Typically they just get REALLY... REALLY hungry... possibly go mad... sometimes slip into a coma sleep, depending on the DM/System.
I can only say that as a Paladin... I would NOT;
1) commit an evil act to sustain an undead. (Feed it people, let it suck souls/life force/whatever...)
2) Let it go free...
3) Kill the only lead in our quest to save innocent lives.
Torture is evil, but not everyone's definition of 'torture' is the same. There is an 'intent to do harm' aspect to it. The plan to HURT something. Witholding blood from a hungry monster/cursed loved one is not torture in my eyes.
I can only say that as a Paladin... I would NOT;
1) commit an evil act to sustain an undead. (Feed it people, let it suck souls/life force/whatever...)
2) Let it go free...
3) Kill the only lead in our quest to save innocent lives.
That's a false tri-chotomy. Its a world of magic. If you are at a level where you can capture a vampire you have a bunch of other options.
1) Speak with Dead. Its a level 4 spell. Kill the vampire, and then ask it questions. Also, if the vampire was Good before its unlife its corpse would not even get a save.
2) Commune. With 9 questions, you can easily narrow down the location of the "innocent lives." You take a map of the largest area you know contains the victims, and divide it in half. First question "Are the innocents in the left half of the map." Then you keep dividing the area and asking about the next chunk. An area the size of Washington state can narrowed down to only 0.7 square kilo-meters with 2 castings of commune at level 9.
3) Locate Object and Locate Creature can help. Work especially well with the Commune approach.
4) At level 9, scry and teleport is a possible tactic. For scrying, all you need is some personal effects of one of the kidnapping victims.
And all these options are just of the top of my head. Usually all these "Paladin MUST choose the lesser of two evils!" scenarios are unnaturally constrained. The whole point of being a paladin is that you look for a third option. Heck, even if he is alone and has no other party members, the paly should be able to buy spell casting services. Even Commune would only cost you 950gp and level 5 spells are available in any large city. A Good church might even do it for free in the aid of a good cause.
In that case I'd say its no harm no foul. The undead are evil, the deity sees no salvation for them, and it was for a greater good.
It's only a foul if the undead is ostensibly good or outright a good being who just happens to be undead IMHO
How so?
How not? You mean because they are evil? By that logic some thiefs, con artists and burglars who never physically harmed another being can be tortured too without it being evil. Or is it because they are evil "by nature"? In that case one has to argue what "by nature" is. They are spawned with their alignment, but is it unchangeable? The Fallen Angel is a pretty common trope, heck the devils have their own monster for that. If angels can fall, demons and devils can rise.
Torture is never a good act. Period. Pathfinder is a system of moral absolutes. It doesn't care if you summon a succubus to get someone out of a burning building with her fire immunity and flight abilities. You summoned an evil outsider into the world and that is an evil act. You also saved someone's life so you performed a good act at the same time. While that may cancel out alignment shifts it does not change the fact that you performed a minor evil act.