I don't know about Pathfinder, but according to page 30 of Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells (D&D 3.5), "Engaging in intimidating torture" was considered an "corrupt act" that could lead your character to damnation.
As a GM I would say this is an evil act and I would remove the paladin's powers ASAP. Paladins are supposed to deliver swift and final justice to the bad guys, not slow and painful death.
|
How so?Yes. Yes it is.Let me put it this way. I consider torturing undead the same as torturing Devils/Demons.
Is torturing Devils/Demons an evil action?
TORTURE AM TORTURE. AM EVIL ACT ALWAYS. NOT MATTER IF AM PUTTING PALADIN FEET IN FIRE OR AM LOCKING DEMON IN ROOM WITH CARROT TOP. PALADIN GOD AM SAY SO REGARDLESS OF VICTIM. TORTURE AM EVIL.
|
How so?Yes. Yes it is.
Is torturing Devils/Demons an evil action?
Why wouldn't it be? A Devil or Demon was once a perfectly ordinary person. They were, y'know, a bad person, but a person nonetheless, and nothing that's changed about them since then has changed that simple fact. They're evil, and probably (though not absolutely) beyond redemption...but they're still every bit as much people as a human sneak-thief (who might also be Evil).
And torturing people is, y'know, wrong. It's awful, and degrading, and a violation of their personhood. It is categorically not okay. Whatever they may be, or may've done, it's still wrong.
Now I'm no saint, and I don't usually play people who are either, and, indeed, I've played Good aligned characters who've tortured people (though never for information)...but that doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. Evil. Not okay.
A Good character can perform an Evil act and remain Good...but a Paladin will fall from it, and a Good character can't do so too often and still remain Good.
And torture is categorically such an act.
|
Why wouldn't it be? A Devil or Demon was once a perfectly ordinary person. They were, y'know, a bad person, but a person nonetheless, and nothing that's changed about them since then has changed that simple fact. They're evil, and probably (though not absolutely) beyond redemption...but they're still every bit as much people as a human sneak-thief (who might also be Evil).How so?Yes. Yes it is.
Is torturing Devils/Demons an evil action?
And it gets worse. You don't even have to be evil to be turned into a fiend. Looking through the Bestiaries and the setting boks, there are a lot of ways innocent souls can be claimed by the Lower Planes and twisted into evil outsiders.
But like you said, that's beside the point. The nature of the victim changes nothing about the evil nature of the act.
Good and Evil are so integrated into our culture that they seem like natural absolutes, but in the end they are constructed. Whether something is from Go(o)d or from the (D)evil is the only actual, technical criteria for Good and Evil, and that equation gets wrecked by fantasy polytheism. The most legitimate way to apply good and evil in fantasy would have to base the idea on the perceived 'values' of one particular god (maybe a supreme god?). But then people might come up with some pretty outrageous ideas, like "burning people alive for believing or saying the wrong things is righteous!" and that would be crazy...
Good and Evil are so integrated into our culture that they seem like natural absolutes, but in the end they are constructed. Whether something is from Go(o)d or from the (D)evil is the only actual, technical criteria for Good and Evil, and that equation gets wrecked by fantasy polytheism. The most legitimate way to apply good and evil in fantasy would have to base the idea on the perceived 'values' of one particular god (maybe a supreme god?). But then people might come up with some pretty outrageous ideas, like "burning people alive for believing or saying the wrong things is righteous!" and that would be crazy...
I recall that this constantly happens/happened
You could try instead to base good/evil off of objective ethics - in other words, something is evil if it hurts someone or good if it helps someone - but ethics isn't always simple and obvious. Its almost like someone is constantly testing our abilities to actually use our minds and frame our own convictions, and then live up to them or something. Nah, better to find someone who tells us what's what with absolute certainty. Like a GM.
DnD has roots in heroic fantasy. Where Good guys where white hats and bad guys Black hats. (I don't know what colour Law is...) It gets weird when you try to add in shades of grey. Your best bet is to find where your gaming group agrees on morality and as GM do not set up scenarios where your group would disagree on what is Good.
You are not going to convince everyone of your view of ethics, and frankly, I don't want to get ethical debates all over my heroic escapist fantasy.
|
|
Good and Evil are so integrated into our culture that they seem like natural absolutes, but in the end they are constructed. Whether something is from Go(o)d or from the (D)evil is the only actual, technical criteria for Good and Evil, and that equation gets wrecked by fantasy polytheism. The most legitimate way to apply good and evil in fantasy would have to base the idea on the perceived 'values' of one particular god (maybe a supreme god?). But then people might come up with some pretty outrageous ideas, like "burning people alive for believing or saying the wrong things is righteous!" and that would be crazy...
Speaking as a real-world polytheist, this is far from the only appropriate or existent construction of Good and Evil. As, indeed, your next post discussing 'objective ethics' (which I'd personally argue aren't that objective) discusses somewhat.
This is even more true in a fantasy world like that of D&D where whether something is Good or Evil is an objective fact of reality and can be measured magically than it is in the real world.
|
This is even more true in a fantasy world like that of D&D where whether something is Good or Evil is an objective fact of reality and can be measured magically than it is in the real world.
This is a point that should be stressed. Unlike our world, in the game world Good and Evil acts can be set as natural laws. If torture is Evil it is because it is Evil, no different than the way gravity means objects fall towards the ground. The why is not necessary to the fact, although it is helpful to those that care.
"Torture is Evil because it is"
Except that it isn't. Then again, a lot of nations consider killing murderers an evil and inhumane act too, and that is why death sentence is abolished in so many places.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Torture is Evil because it is"
Except that it isn't.
Well, in a world with objective Good an Evil, it either is or isn't. I'd say the evidence supports 'is', but that has little to do with this argument, which is basically about how a GM is going to decide his particular world works, and that's really where this discussion comes in.
What kind of world do you want? Personally, I don't want one where a Paladin or Celestial, the purest Good there is, can brutally torture people. But maybe that's just me.
Then again, a lot of nations consider killing murderers an evil and inhumane act too, and that is why death sentence is abolished in so many places.
Indeed! But that's a subjective viewpoint...and one directly contradicted in the game world by things like Smite Evil. Torture has no such support as a non-evil act in the rules, and is, IRL, generally considered somewhat worse than execution of criminals, morally speaking.
Speaking as a real-world polytheist, this is far from the only appropriate or existent construction of Good and Evil. As, indeed, your next post discussing 'objective ethics' (which I'd personally argue aren't that objective) discusses somewhat.
This is even more true in a fantasy world like that of D&D where whether something is Good or Evil is an objective fact of reality and can be measured magically than it is in the real world.
I was mostly speaking tongue-in-cheek here but... the difference between 'objective' ethics and religious morality is what I was getting at. Literally speaking, good = relates to God, evil = relates against God. Why would a polytheist embrace a dichotomous construction introduced by monotheism?
Modern society has generally substituted the original meaning of Good/Evil (which is absolute because it is based on "God's Will") with the general abstract idea of good/bad. Since we don't notice that we've made the change, we end up arguing about abstract ideas as if they had absolute answers - and that leads to endless frustration and argument. We can (and maybe should) say "this fantasy world has good and evil as an absolute part of natural law," but logically, unless there is a single, absolute authority, there can't be a single, absolute correct interpretation.
"1.Torture is Evil because it is Evil. 2.Subject X inflicted mild psychological torture on a very, very brutal criminal because it was the one, single, only way to save millions of children from violent death. 3.Therefore, Subject X is Evil." Good luck with that.
EDIT: "1.It was against god's will that subject X inflict torture to save children. 2.Therefore, Subject X is Evil." See how that suddenly works?
No, because one Evil act does not make you Evil.
Fine, then change it to 'Subject X's action was evil.' Same issue remains. Also, in absolute terms, how many and much evil act(s) make someone evil?
No, because one Evil act does not make you Evil.
If it doesn't than your not doing it right.
No, because one Evil act does not make you Evil.
issue remains, as you still call that an evil act
|
|
No, because one Evil act does not make you Evil.Fine, then change it to 'Subject X's action was evil.' Same issue remains. Also, in absolute terms, how many and much evil act(s) make someone evil?
Depends on the universe. (Read: GM)
What issue remains? The action was Evil. Non-Evil characters can perform an Evil act. No issue.
No, because one Evil act does not make you Evil.Fine, then change it to 'Subject X's action was evil.' Same issue remains. Also, in absolute terms, how many and much evil act(s) make someone evil?Depends on the universe. (Read: GM)
What issue remains? The action was Evil. Non-Evil characters can perform an Evil act. No issue.
(Read: GM) - exactly my point; if you want absolutes, it boils down to an absolute arbitrary authority, whether that is a GM finally using fiat to resolve a dispute, or an 'official' clergy laying down an absolute interpretation of divine will.
The issue that remains is that you're separating the consequences from the act, and/or you're saying that the 'evil' act is forgivable based on how it relates to the consequences. No longer absolute positions. Again, if you want 'absolute law':
1.Subject X's act opposed god's will. 2.Therefore it was Evil.
1.Subject X opposes god's will. 2.Therefore he is Evil.
Killing someone is 'evil.' Is a soldier killing a terrorist about to set off a nuke an 'evil act?' We can pretend for fantasy purposes that its all in absolutes, but we'll have much less frustrated arguments if we remember that we're pretending its absolute, and that in reality we have to step back and take it for what it is.
|
|
I was mostly speaking tongue-in-cheek here but... the difference between 'objective' ethics and religious morality is what I was getting at. Literally speaking, good = relates to God, evil = relates against God. Why would a polytheist embrace a dichotomous construction introduced by monotheism?
But you're not talking about all religious morality, there. The idea that things are Evil (or bad, or wrong, whatever term you wish to use) because God or the Gods disapprove of them is really tied up in monotheism, it's true, but the idea of the Gods as a whole disapproving of something because it's wrong is an equally valid religious construction (the breaking of the laws of hospitality comes to mind). And their deciding that such an act is wrong can be used as evidence of it's wrongness (as they are, perhaps, wiser than mortals in such matters) without any necessity of morality being defined by their existence in the way you speak of.
The idea of right and wrong, particularly right action and wrong action, is way older than the primacy of monotheism. And almost all religions have a code of behavior they claim is the right way to live. Good and Evil is really just another way of phrasing the same old things.
Modern society has generally substituted the original meaning of Good/Evil (which is absolute because it is based on "God's Will") with the general abstract idea of good/bad. Since we don't notice that we've made the change, we end up arguing about abstract ideas as if they had absolute answers - and that leads to endless frustration and argument. We can (and maybe should) say "this fantasy world has good and evil as an absolute part of natural law," but logically, unless there is a single, absolute authority, there can't be a single, absolute correct interpretation.
Huh? This is like saying the laws of physics must not work unless someone has authority to say they do. It's entirely possible to believe that some things are Good and others Evil as a law of nature (ie: "That's just how the world works.") without any particular being making them so. Whether that's true in the real world is unprovable, obviously, but it's equally clearly how the world of D&D operates.
"1.Torture is Evil because it is Evil. 2.Subject X inflicted mild psychological torture on a very, very brutal criminal because it was the one, single, only way to save millions of children from violent death. 3.Therefore, Subject X is Evil." Good luck with that.
An Evil action doesn't make you Evil. Especially not a small, petty, one. A continued pattern of them does.
One's enough to make a Paladin fall, though.
EDIT: "1.It was against god's will that subject X inflict torture to save children. 2.Therefore, Subject X is Evil." See how that suddenly works?
Not any better, really. Or any worse, I suppose.
The idea of right and wrong, particularly right action and wrong action, is way older than the primacy of monotheism. And almost all religions have a code of behavior they claim is the right way to live. Good and Evil is really just another way of phrasing the same old things.
Case in point: you're substituting 'right and wrong' for 'good and evil'. Right and wrong aren't absolutes, good and evil taken literally are. And then once again, you're making an analogy to physics, which operates in absolutes - x force moves y object z distance, all freely measurable - with good and evil. If good and evil worked in absolutes that could literally be measured and studied by cause/effect experimentation...
I'm NOT saying there is no such thing as good and bad, I'm saying that confusing absolutes with relative concepts is a good way to get into a real mess.
|
|
Case in point: you're substituting 'right and wrong' for 'good and evil'. Right and wrong aren't absolutes, good and evil taken literally are.
So, uh, where are you getting this info? Because that's not how we define either Good or Evil in modern English. And their roots have as little to do with how they're used currently as the fact that octopus is from the Greek.
And then once again, you're making an analogy to physics, which operates in absolutes - x force moves y object z distance, all freely measurable - with good and evil. If good and evil worked in absolutes that could literally be measured and studied by cause/effect experimentation...
How do you know they don't? A lot of physics we didn't have the tools to measure until recently. Maybe in another century we'll have the tools to measure morality.
Personally, I doubt it, but you don't know.
And besides, in D&D you can do exactly that.
I'm NOT saying there is no such thing as good and bad, I'm saying that confusing absolutes with relative concepts is a good way to get into a real mess.
Everything conceptual is relative in real life. There simply are no absolutes. Or at least none we can measure at the moment...
The point I'm trying to get at is that if you want to operate in absolutes, you need an absolute authority. Both of those dictionary definitions of good and evil cite, first point, morality. If you want to have an 'absolute' morality, you need an 'absolute' authority. If you want an absolute authority, there's a GM who makes an arbitrary ruling by some kind of ethical calculus on how many 'units' of good or evil, since he runs the universe anyways. I agree that in real life things are relative; that's why if we pretend things aren't, we have to make up the right answers to morality problems.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
A lot of quoting there. Maybe too much.
For D&D/Forgotten Realms though, this part is the most relevent.
Then your torment will be unending." Cadderly Bonaduce continued the spell of exaction, and the imp howled. Torture, even when inflicted on an imp from the nether planes, pained him. But sometimes, most often with beings from the nether planes, it was a necessary evil.
(Emphasis mine)
So by R.A. Salvator's Logic, it's an evil act. I don't think the book is clear on if he cast atonement on himself afterwards, but Paladins don't get the option of 'necessary' evil.
IS it really evil to torture one inherently evil being if it means saving the lives of dozens of innocents?
Yes. Yes, it is. Effectively, you are doing evil to achieve good.
You may rationalize it, claiming the end justifies the means. You may even end up doing more good than evil in retrospect.
However, this is not the way of the Paladin.
|
|
I'm going to go ahead and give my two cents on the issue before reading through the 377 other responses, just so I can give my completely fresh and unbiased opinion without engaging in ongoing debate. After this, I'll go through and read, maybe have some other things to say (or, who knows, maybe even change my mind). So, excuse me if this has all been said before (it almost certainly has).
There are two ways of looking at this, I suppose. The first is from a purely rules-based perspective (as good and evil are mechanics in the game rather than philosophies), the second is more of a philosophical or doctrinal perspective.
To look at it from the perspective of the rules, we first need to identify what good and evil are:
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
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.
Pathfinder, itself, says little else on the subject. However, it's predecessor says quite a bit. Essentially, in the objective view of evil (the view presented by the published materials; people are, of course, free to change the rules as they see fit) torture is firmly the domain of evil. Every god of torture is an evil god, using implements of torture is an evil act, and spells designed to cause "undue suffering" (such as symbol of pain) are explicitly evil. Going from this, I would conclude that by RAW, torture is an evil act. How evil that act is I supposed depends on your motives and your DM. This, of course, says nothing about the necessity of the act. Though it is evil, it may be necessary (however, it should be noted that in the real world, torture is an excellent way of getting people to talk, but a very poor way of extracting useful information). However, the necessity of an act doesn't necessary mitigate the evil of the act itself.
Even the most deranged mass murderer might be able to justify his actions to himself in the name of his beliefs, his deity, or some skewed vision of what is best for the world.
If, to choose an extreme example, the legions of the Abyss were about to spill onto the material plane using an innocent child as a conduit, it could be necessary for the sake of the world to kill the child. However, purposfully killing an innocent is inherantly evil. While the act is necessary to prevent evil and to preserve good, the act itself is still objectively evil. Perhaps the gods would be willing to forgive a paladin who summarily cut down the child to save the world, but at the least there's going to be some serious atonement.
In the specific scenario you recounted, the paladin should have immediately lost his paladin abilities. Not only did he aid and abet the party in the sadistic and brutal torture of a helpless prisoner capable of experiencing pain, but he also was party to lying, cheating, and betrayal. This violates both his lawful and his good alignment, and is specifically mentioned in the paladin code of conduct. It doesn't matter that he hates undead with a passion, he is expected to uphold his oaths regardless of his personal feelings. The CG sorc probably should have slid more towards CN (if not all the way there, I don't know how the party normally acts). The N cleric is kind of a gray area, if he was the cleric of a neutral deity, it probably wouldn't change much. If he was the cleric of a good deity, he probably should have lost his spellcasting and channeling abilities. And the rogue, if he wasn't already N on Good-Evil axis, should have slid hard toward it.
Now, from a more philisophical perspective. Of course it's evil! You are knowingly engaging in the suffering of a sapient being for your own benefit. The fact that you are doing it to a horrible person doesn't mitigate the fact.
"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."
I'm not really a sadistic guy (much) but this had me spitting out my coffee in laughter. I especially liked the part about making the undead eat his own eye.
Is torture inherently evil? Questionable. Our intelligence experts utilize techniques that are considered "harmless" yet make the victim feel as if they are in peril of death (waterboarding being the prime example, obviously, et al), and many "civilized" people go nuts at the thought of that type of treatment. This method is obviously much more gray than cutting someone or something up and forcing them to dine upon their own severed body parts. (That still has me chuckling...)
I would say that a paladin, despite how they feel about undead, (or any lawful good character for that matter,) would balk at the torture, deception and execution of an intelligent being, whether it was evil or not. The lawful good alignment is not only governed by how one deals with others but also how one carries themselves. Playing a true LG character often requires a LOT of sacrifice. This includes actions like taking prisoners when you know it will inconvenience you, donating treasure to charity, and standing up against your fellow party members when they're about to do something you know to be morally gray or downright wrong.
I once played a character in Spycraft that tortured a guy for info. I went for the classic fingernail trope before mentioning that I'd next be moving on to the guy's eyes. One person in our group (NOT a LG person at all, either in real life OR character) completely wigged. He couldn't stand the idea of participating in a torture, so we just glossed over the scene.
Torture can have funny effects on people.
|
|
Is torture inherently evil? Questionable. Our intelligence experts utilize techniques that are considered "harmless" yet make the victim feel as if they are in peril of death (waterboarding being the prime example, obviously, et al), and many "civilized" people go nuts at the thought of that type of treatment.
I'm really not looking to get into a political discussion, but as it's pertinent to the subject I am going to briefly touch on this. Back in WWII we actually executed Japanese interogators for war crimes because of those same "techniques that are considered 'harmless' yet make the victim feel as if they are in peril of death." So it's very much subjective how a government will respond to such behavior.
That being said, Pathfinder is a much more cut and dry system. There are acts that are evil and will always be evil. In the real world there are complex discussions to be had. In Pathfinder Iomedae will layeth the smack down if one of her paladins acts with dishonor.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@Isonroc,
I'm unable to find citations of EIT sessions by US Intel doing this:
During World War II both Japanese troops, especially the Kempeitai, and the officers of the Gestapo, the German secret police, used waterboarding as a method of torture. During the Japanese occupation of Singapore the Double Tenth Incident occurred. This included waterboarding, by the method of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach. [Emphasis mine]
Saying both are equally 'waterboarding' is akin to saying that both removing a splinter and performing an apendectomy are both 'surgeries'
Is torture inherently evil? Questionable. Our intelligence experts utilize techniques that are considered "harmless" yet make the victim feel as if they are in peril of death (waterboarding being the prime example, obviously, et al), and many "civilized" people go nuts at the thought of that type of treatment.I'm really not looking to get into a political discussion, but as it's pertinent to the subject I am going to briefly touch on this. Back in WWII we actually executed Japanese interogators for war crimes because of those same "techniques that are considered 'harmless' yet make the victim feel as if they are in peril of death." So it's very much subjective how a government will respond to such behavior.
That being said, Pathfinder is a much more cut and dry system. There are acts that are evil and will always be evil. In the real world there are complex discussions to be had. In Pathfinder Iomedae will layeth the smack down if one of her paladins acts with dishonor.
Isonaroc: Maybe I didn't word my post correctly. I think it may come across as if I'm in favor of "harmless" torture, when in fact, I'm uncertain how I feel about it. Will torturing someone save a lot of lives? If so, is it ok? I watched 'Dirty Harry' again (for the 50th or so time) last night, and the scene where he's stomping on Scorpio to find the little girl always beings an uneasy smile to my lips, while simultansously making me feel ashamed for feeling that way. Does he deserve that treatment? No doubt. Is Harry a good guy for doing it? Unclear.
Ultimately, I think torture is wrong, no matter what ends are served. That's doesn't mean it's not necessary from time to time.
"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."
I'm not really a sadistic guy (much) but this had me spitting out my coffee in laughter. I especially liked the part about making the undead eat his own eye.
Is torture inherently evil? Questionable.
"evil" and "good" are made up ideas in a world of ever changing morale standards, thus I would say nothing is inherently good or evil
the problem is that basic D&D uses this alignment system what creators made upon their opinion that good and evil exist and can have extremes, as long "Detect Evil" and "Smite Evil" exist in a setting it greatly limits reasonable ideological (or basically: overall) roleplaying because no matter how great the reasoning and explanation of a person is to justify deeds, a paladin can point at them and call "EEEEVIIIL!" and that depends on what the GM itself considers evil or good. (of course a disguised anti-paladin could just as well shout evil at a good person but I think you understand what I try to say)
I am pretty sure basic D&D alignments also differ greatly depending on what society and culture/religion the players are of, a group from a part of the USA is most likely to consider evil/good acts differently than an x culture European, an Arabian, or a Japanese group of players. (add to this a mix of personal religious beliefs to make it extra spicy)
Despite all of them using the same rule books.
if we throw out ingame good/evil related effects and spells we get a more reasonable/realistic world where all religions also have their own idea of what is good or bad, and there is no invisible overlord that dictates what is truly evil or good (ergo the alignment system)
|
|
@Isonroc,
I'm unable to find citations of EIT sessions by US Intel doing this:
During World War II both Japanese troops, especially the Kempeitai, and the officers of the Gestapo, the German secret police, used waterboarding as a method of torture. During the Japanese occupation of Singapore the Double Tenth Incident occurred. This included waterboarding, by the method of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach. [Emphasis mine]
Saying both are equally 'waterboarding' is akin to saying that both removing a splinter and performing an apendectomy are both 'surgeries'
*squeezes bridge of nose* I really don't want to get into this, it's off topic at this point as we're now discussing whether or not certain countries are engaged in torture rather than whether or not torture is wrong when done to evil people. But, let's just say that the sort of stuff you just posted is still accurate when describing certain U.S. techniques and the techniques of people the U.S. outsources their interrogations to. This is the last I'm going to say on the matter as it is no longer relevant to the discussion.
if we throw out ingame good/evil related effects and spells we get a more reasonable/realistic world where all religions also have their own idea of what is good or bad, and there is no invisible overlord that dictates what is truly evil or good (ergo the alignment system)
You could also keep alignment effects, but have a much more relativist approach (granted, it would require more work, but it could be interesting). In which alignment effects work based on the ideals in place. For instance, one paladin who had one set of goals and ideas might come up against another paladin who has a differing set of goals or ideas, and their respective "smite evil" abilities might work on each other. You'd have to keep track of all sorts of stuff, and it'd be a crap shoot as to whether or not certain effects work at certain times, but it could be interesting.
Isonaroc, in that case I would rename "Smite Evil" into "Smite Rival/Opponent", give paladins a Detect Charm or Detect Undead maybe and all would be fine
I don't know/understand the Golarion setting much, but as far I know there is a communist/atheist realm that banned religion, I wonder how as per game they are handled, are they considered Evil because they deny the right of freedom of choice and worship of their religion, self-determination, or does it have neutral or even good members among its leadership/hierarchy?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
*squeezes bridge of nose* I really don't want to get into this, it's off topic at this point as we're now discussing whether or not certain countries are engaged in torture rather than whether or not torture is wrong when done to evil people. But, let's just say that the sort of stuff you just posted is still accurate when describing certain U.S. techniques and the techniques of people the U.S. outsources their interrogations to. This is the last I'm going to say on the matter as it is no longer relevant to the discussion.
Shorter answer, no you have no reliable sources stating these were done by American interrigators. Good.
I don't recall saying EIT isn't a non-good act. I'm saying that calling EIT a war crime because it shares a name with a war crime doesn't make it the same thing. If the CIA was full of Paladins (ok, stop laughing) then they'd lose their status because it's an evil act. Governments as a whole tend to Lawful Neutral.
ironically, I think the very top leaders tend to be chaotic meanwhile (not talking only about US)
Is torturing intelligent undead an evil action?
Let make question simpler is torturing evil?
YES! YES! YES!
If you think other wise let me torturt you then answer that question about me ... You would say hell yes I was mean EVIL SOB.... This really not hard of a question. Why this thread got up to over 390 post blows my mind that some you think other wise.
Side note I have never torturted anyone nor do I want to.
Is torturing intelligent undead an evil action?
Let make question simpler is torturing evil?
YES! YES! YES!
If you think other wise let me torturt you then answer that question about me ... You would say hell yes I was mean EVIL SOB.... This really not hard of a question. Why this thread got up to over 390 post blows my mind that some you think other wise.
Side note I have never torturted anyone nor do I want to.
Sorry, Tom S, but I think maybe you might be missing the point. First, so many people are responding to this thread because this is actually a fascinating discussion of morals and philosophies that can unfold in a roleplay setting without risk to one's actual soul. I find that very interesting and well worth discussing, ad infinitum.
Secondly, the specific question was "is torturing INTELLIGENT UNDEAD an evil action?" Do you consider undead to have rights and to be worthy of the same protections as living "people" or even animals? (For the record, I'm not saying they don't...God, this is getting ridiculous...also for the record, this is ALL within the contextual argument as pertains to roleplay...I don't think undead exist in reality!) Also, your answer does not take into account torture as used to save a life, or lives. That was the point I was bringing up with the 'Dirty Harry' reference above. Is torture wrong? I would say, most likely, yes. Is it evil? Depends on why the torture is occurring. Would you torture someone if it was the only way to find out where a friend or relative or loved one was being held underground and suffocating? I think most people, when confronted with such a horrible situation, would probably break down and do some terrible things. Are they evil? Not really. Wrong...yes (probably). See? So many conundrums. This is why there are 390+ posts.
Is torturing intelligent undead an evil action?
Let make question simpler is torturing evil?
YES! YES! YES!
If you think other wise let me torturt you then answer that question about me ... You would say hell yes I was mean EVIL SOB.... This really not hard of a question. Why this thread got up to over 390 post blows my mind that some you think other wise.
Side note I have never torturted anyone nor do I want to.
Sorry, Tom S, but I think maybe you might be missing the point. First, so many people are responding to this thread because this is actually a fascinating discussion of morals and philosophies that can unfold in a roleplay setting without risk to one's actual soul. I find that very interesting and well worth discussing, ad infinitum.
Secondly, the specific question was "is torturing INTELLIGENT UNDEAD an evil action?" Do you consider undead to have rights and to be worthy of the same protections as living "people" or even animals? (For the record, I'm not saying they don't...God, this is getting ridiculous...also for the record, this is ALL within the contextual argument as pertains to roleplay...I don't think undead exist in reality!) Also, your answer does not take into account torture as used to save a life, or lives. That was the point I was bringing up with the 'Dirty Harry' reference above. Is torture wrong? I would say, most likely, yes. Is it evil? Depends on why the torture is occurring. Would you torture someone if it was the only way to find out where a friend or relative or loved one was being held underground and suffocating? I think most people, when confronted with such a horrible situation, would probably break down and do some terrible things. Are they evil? Not really. Wrong...yes (probably). See? So many conundrums. This is why there are 390+ posts.
Actually he was right on target. He said, and I agree, torture is an evil action. The action is evil, the target is irrelevant to that. You could torture a good man or a demon, both are evil actions. It may be, as others have said, a "neccesary evil" or not, but evil it is. Can good people do evil? H3ll yes :) Does this turn them evil? If they make a habit out of it or do some horrendously evil thing. Can a paladin do an evil action? Not without losing his powers. Pretty striaght forward really.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@scrmwrtr42 Actually my Inquisitor believes that undead *don't* "have rights and to be worthy of the same protections as living "people" or even animals". He sees them as echoes at best, mockeries at worst. But he would never torture an undead, he'd destro- er put it to rest. Then he could use speak with dead on the remains.
A lot of quoting there. Maybe too much.
For D&D/Forgotten Realms though, this part is the most relevent.
Then your torment will be unending." Cadderly Bonaduce continued the spell of exaction, and the imp howled. Torture, even when inflicted on an imp from the nether planes, pained him. But sometimes, most often with beings from the nether planes, it was a necessary evil.(Emphasis mine)
So by R.A. Salvator's Logic, it's an evil act. I don't think the book is clear on if he cast atonement on himself afterwards, but Paladins don't get the option of 'necessary' evil.
Salvatore is a sanctimonious tool, so this attitude he puts forward for a character who is supposed to be truly good doesn't surprise me in the least.
Please don't bring real-world religion into this. Inevitably someone will say something unfortunate and the thread will self destruct. I like following this thread. Please don't hurt it :)
That being said, real-world religions are a poor analogue for PF alignment. In Golarion, the Gods and their wishes are well known, and Good is not only only demonstrably absolute, but it can be measured by the adept down the street.
|
|
Think of the question from a religious perspective. The Malleus Maleficarum written and used in the late 1400's was the go to reference material used by inquisitors on how to "properly" question a witch. Were the inquisitors deemed "evil" by the church or their "god"? Or we're they holy vindicators for the righteous?
Really? You're using a book that helped start a craze of burning innocent people at the stake after torturing them as an argument for something not being evil? I have no words.
That's like arguing that the ritual sacrifice of innocent children is fine because the Aztecs did it. I mean, they thought they were right so clearly it's a good act. Right?