Agreed. BUT, in the case Im talking about, the characters cause is not lying to the world, but making sure the truth is known, even if it costs him his life, which it does. His cause is to justice to an individual that literally just killed millions, even if it was for the um, um "greater good", and making sure that all those folks that worked the system to get back on the streets and do more harm, which they did, do not have that chance to hurt more innocent people, even if his own name was drug through the mud and his life was over.On the other hand, the guy was willing and able to tell a god "No! You are wrong.", to his face, and live and die by the consequences of not giving in, no matter what.Which is where Good and Evil meet, it doesn't really matter if you are Good or Evil, as both could pursue their particular "moral compass" all the way up to the Gods, and claim they are wrong (and probably die in the attempt).
Belief in your cause doesn't really know Good or Evil. It is, for lack of a better term, proof enough in it self, that you are doing the correct thing
Well, I can kind of see what you trying to say here, and I have in fact myself played quite a lot of characters, who where completely committed to justice.
The only question was what or who's justice? a particular god's, a characters personal concept of justice? the laws of a particular realm?I mean, even if we go by the gods themselves, there are number of different Lawful Good gods, who are clearly invested in the protection, promotion and implementation of justice. When we look at description of each of these entities though, there seems to be a difference in the ways, or "means", in which they would reach that goal, or "end".
In other words I don't really see justice as completely well-defined concept. It means different things, for different people, under different contexts.
Umm, Vid.
You do know that tickling can legally and legitimately be assault and abuse, right?
It is altogether too often a dominance game, and part of an abuser's arsenal.
I do love the cartoonish imagery of it with a demon, but just sayin'.
Would it be as innocuous if it was part of a succubus torture game?
Torturing fiends for information is, in fact, not evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Torturing fiends for information is, in fact, not evil.
Our definitions of "fact" appear to be at odds. You have the right to your opinion of course.
Rub-Eta.........
Hmm, last reply was eaten by the crash.
Thanks for continuing the thought Rub-Eta.
Yes, tickling (and other, more disgusting things) can be harmless, even delightful, consensual things. It can also be more sinister. That abusers use this ambiguity is a sad fact. The legal system is a tool of the good and evil alike.
Torturing fiends for information is, in fact, not evil.Our definitions of "fact" appear to be at odds. You have the right to your opinion of course.
It was more or less a response to the notion that Torture was stated to be factually Evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Knowing people who have been tortured, I have more difficulty calling quibble in that direction.
While it may not be directly related to the conversation, there is a PF class that condones torture for the greater good in the name of a god. Inquisitor. At least, that is the general flavor of the class, and they do get a lot more along the lines of torture and information gathering than Paladins.
This comes into play when you realise that the class Paladin and the role paladin are not entirely identical. Thus a paladin might torture demons for information, being an Inquisitor, Fighter, Cavalier, or other class fighting a holy war as a force of good, but a Paladin would more likely ask for information or kill the evil immediately. Or, depending on the god, attempt redemption, as Demons in Golarion can be non-evil if they really want to.
Yep, the Inquisitor is not a walking billboard, the Paladin is.
... This comes into play when you realise that the class Paladin and the role paladin are not entirely identical. Thus a paladin might torture demons for information, being an Inquisitor, Fighter, Cavalier, or other class fighting a holy war as a force of good, but a Paladin would more likely ask for information or kill the evil immediately. Or, depending on the god, attempt redemption,...
Are you using lower case "paladin" to denote any holy warrior, not just the Paladin class? I think that may just add to the confusion, but, other than the kludgy "holy warrior" I really can't think of anything that probably isn't worse. Especially with the DND history of coopting meaningful terms without regard for their actual meanings. (Paladin is one of these terms of course.)
Definition of paladin in English:
paladin
NOUNhistorical
1Any of the twelve peers of Charlemagne's court, of whom the Count Palatine was the chief.
Example sentences
1.1 A knight renowned for heroism and chivalry.
Example sentencesSynonyms
Origin
Late 16th century: from French paladin, from Italian paladino, from Latin palatinus ‘(officer) of the palace’ (see palatine).
Probably needs to be pointed out again: Demons have souls.Nope. I go for a much older and well established concept called "ancient religion" which is far older than Pathfinder, you and I combined. Demons don't have souls, and they are monsters incarnate. They also don't have bodies either, which is another thing Pathfinder and every D&D version got wrong.
False equivalences are fun.
It was more or less a response to the notion that Torture was stated to be factually Evil.Torturing fiends for information is, in fact, not evil.Our definitions of "fact" appear to be at odds. You have the right to your opinion of course.
In games that I run, it is an evil act.
In games that I run, it is an evil act.It was more or less a response to the notion that Torture was stated to be factually Evil.Torturing fiends for information is, in fact, not evil.Our definitions of "fact" appear to be at odds. You have the right to your opinion of course.
Cool? In mine it isn't. Intent means far more than the act itself.
It is.It was more or less a response to the notion that Torture was stated to be factually Evil.Torturing fiends for information is, in fact, not evil.Our definitions of "fact" appear to be at odds. You have the right to your opinion of course.
Except when it isn't.
Gee this is fun!
Torture is always Evil. Full stop.
If that's what you do in your games, that's cool. But, full stop, that is an opinion (one I wouldn't argue with when in relation to the actual Real World) from a game stand-point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Diffan, unless you are just trying to pick up Regeneration you have ceased to add to the conversation, and are just being a bit insensitive on a very touchy subject.
CaD.
Torture is always Evil. Full stop.
"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. "
Wow, lots of Paladins out there killing. Or oppressing people by putting them in prison and taking their rights away. Or hurting them by using nonlethal damage to subdue them. I guess they're evil, too.
Or maybe it depends on the circumstances and the intent?
Torture is the infliction of severe pain. If I can hurt someone for a good cause, maybe I can hurt them a lot for a really good cause? Why or why not? Where's the line between too much and not too much, a good enough justification and not a good enough justification? Is "torture" here for you just tautologically those things that you feel cross that line? At some point I guess I agree with you that torture is evil, I just think it's questionable whether a given act in a given circumstances will register on a Detect Evil spell. "Oh, I guess it wasn't torture this time!"
That torturing fanatic inquisitor of Iomedae in Kenabres was/is LN, not LE, you know.
Said fanatic either does a crapton of good things to offset the torture or there was an error.
Great, now we've established you agree with us on principle, we're just arguing about price. The infliction of torture, if done in service of a sufficient good, isn't evil. Therefore not all torture, in every possible situation, is evil.
|
What? No I'm not. Torture is Evil.
You can torture someone and go pet kittens the next day. The torture is still evil.
You can torture someone and go save someone's life the next day. The torture is still evil.
You can torture someone and go save the world the next day. The torture is still evil.
The infliction of torture, if done in service of a sufficient good, isn't evil. Therefore not all torture, in every possible situation, is evil.
B+$~@&$!.
That is complete and total b@+*+*&~ and a poor attempt at tying to justify something horrible.
Torture is always Evil. It doesn't matter what you do it for. It's Evil.
You as a person can still do other acts afterwards for the rest of your life that affect your alignment, but absolutely nothing will make that act of torture not-Evil.
The examples I give highlight this, torturing someone for what you think is a good cause is not a conglomerate act. There's the torture (Evil) and then whatever you do afterward.
Torture is Evil. Nothing you ever do will ever change that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PP,
The game, warfare and the concept of Justice are all based on the concept of justifiable violence. Only a rather broken or evil person is going to argue that violence in and of itself is not a bad thing.
That being said, in the game, in warfare, and in Justice, there is also violence that goes beyond what is justifiable, whatever the ends. In the games, some actions are Evil. In warfare, some actions are war crimes. In Justice, some actions are Unjust, even Criminal.
As to Kenabres, I rather suspect I would rule him evil, and unable to draw from Iomedie's blessings. I, of course, am not having to push that storyline.
The Last module I ran in had us killing/capturing villains who were stealing donations to local orphanages, starving the orphans, and killing benefactors who caught on. The module had them down as Nuetral, not Evil. Yeah, Right.
EDIT.
Saw you last post, enjoy regeneration.
Diffan, unless you are just trying to pick up Regeneration you have ceased to add to the conversation, and are just being a bit insensitive on a very touchy subject.
CaD.
No, not regeneration but I also don't like it when people interject their opinion as fact. I respect Rysky's opinion that torture is and always will be evil but lets establish this as opinion, not fact.
It's a game, so, yes it is preference.
As I have alluded to earlier, torture is far more common a thing in real life than any of us want to admit, so it is certainly kinder not to push your preference here, especially when it is obvious that you have touched a nerve. There is an awful lot of very real pain being triggered here. It can be therapeutic to talk about it in a safe setting, but it can easily go too far.
Just Sayin'
Arushulae is from an adventure path.
** spoiler omitted **
my thanks.
still though, that would make her an unique monster and not teh norm. same with F-F-G.
irredeemable is the norm.now someone put her on the wiki....
or point me the way
Every person is unique. Therefore, by your logic, we should discount every single person's story? You can correctly say that the vast majority of demons are so difficult to redeem that the chances of seeing one in your lifetime is almost zero. You can't correctly say demons are irredeemable period. Because if there is at least one example, your point is refuted.
Ultimately, I think people are talking past each other here.
Torture is, in my opinion, always an Evil act, no matter the justification for it.
However as an act it doesn't instantly make a person completely Evil. It's a problem of the cosmological alignment system. An act is either Neutral, Good or Evil, Lawful or Chaotic and each persons soul gets stained, with either of the five alignments, as they commits those acts.
So a person who has lived a good clean life, who snaps an kills someone slides towards evil, but it might not be enough shift an alignment category.
The problem is that these thing haven't been completely quantified (and in my opinion shouldn't be quantified), which has left thing up to the individual GM, and his players, to decide to which degree, how much and how often these alignment shifts should happen.
Also I have to chuckle when someone brings up Charlemagne's court, like they're some pinnacle of LG-ness. Charlemagne slaughtered so many people its not even funny. Why that was chosen as a staple point for the class is beyond me?
Ultimately, I think people are talking past each other here.
Torture is, in my opinion, always an Evil act, no matter the justification for it.
However as an act it doesn't instantly make a person completely Evil. It's a problem of the cosmological alignment system. An act is either Neutral, Good or Evil and each persons soul gets stained, with either of the three alignments, as they commits those acts.
So a person who has lived a good clean life, who snaps an kills someone slides towards evil, but it might not be enough shift an alignment category.
The problem is that these thing haven't been completely quantified (and in my opinion shouldn't be quantified), which has left thing up to the individual GM, and his players, to decide to which degree, how much and how often these alignment shifts should happen.
I think the issue comes up when in direct conflict with the Paladin specifically, losing all their class features for that one act.
Oh, the French and Francophiles pretty much redefined all the chivalric mythlines.
Thus, Charlemagne is the true essence of royal virtue. Palatine is named after the house knight, pretty much the definition of steadfast loyalty. So, your steadfast and loyal knight are your Paladins, in homage to, and drawing on, the myth. We edit out the uncomfortable stuff, like marriage by rape, and all the like. Honestly, I'm OK with that when I am not in scholar mode.
They're not talking past each other. Some people will just argue anything. If someone says torture is always evil, then someone will defend it.Ultimately, I think people are talking past each other here.
Torture is, in my opinion, always an Evil act, no matter the justification for it.
However as an act it doesn't instantly make a person completely Evil. It's a problem of the cosmological alignment system. An act is either Neutral, Good or Evil, Lawful or Chaotic and each persons soul gets stained, with either of the five alignments, as they commits those acts.
So a person who has lived a good clean life, who snaps an kills someone slides towards evil, but it might not be enough shift an alignment category.
The problem is that these thing haven't been completely quantified (and in my opinion shouldn't be quantified), which has left thing up to the individual GM, and his players, to decide to which degree, how much and how often these alignment shifts should happen.
And I've been one of them, mostly because I find, that some people have conflated, doing an Evil act with being Evil alignment-wise.
Ultimately, I think people are talking past each other here.
Torture is, in my opinion, always an Evil act, no matter the justification for it.
However as an act it doesn't instantly make a person completely Evil. It's a problem of the cosmological alignment system. An act is either Neutral, Good or Evil and each persons soul gets stained, with either of the three alignments, as they commits those acts.
So a person who has lived a good clean life, who snaps an kills someone slides towards evil, but it might not be enough shift an alignment category.
The problem is that these thing haven't been completely quantified (and in my opinion shouldn't be quantified), which has left thing up to the individual GM, and his players, to decide to which degree, how much and how often these alignment shifts should happen.I think the issue comes up when in direct conflict with the Paladin specifically, losing all their class features for that one act.
75% of all alignment issues has a Paladin somewhere in it, around 20% have undead issues, and the last 5% is a jumbled mess of everything else.
Problem is, in game, this usually goes along with the "Can't I just do it until I need glasses?" mindset which can mess with story immersion. In a game you are making the whole table complicit in any sleaze you get away with.
75% of all alignment issues has a Paladin somewhere in it, around 20% have undead issues, and the last 5% is a jumbled mess of everything else.Ultimately, I think people are talking past each other here.
Torture is, in my opinion, always an Evil act, no matter the justification for it.
However as an act it doesn't instantly make a person completely Evil. It's a problem of the cosmological alignment system. An act is either Neutral, Good or Evil and each persons soul gets stained, with either of the three alignments, as they commits those acts.
So a person who has lived a good clean life, who snaps an kills someone slides towards evil, but it might not be enough shift an alignment category.
The problem is that these thing haven't been completely quantified (and in my opinion shouldn't be quantified), which has left thing up to the individual GM, and his players, to decide to which degree, how much and how often these alignment shifts should happen.I think the issue comes up when in direct conflict with the Paladin specifically, losing all their class features for that one act.
Well that's the honest to God truth right there haha.
A lot of the problem is caused by the whole "paladin can't commit an evil act" thing.
You can theoretically torture without becoming evil - under exceptional and rare circumstances. A paladin can torture without changing her alignment to evil, but will still fall since it's an evil act.(Assuming, for the moment, that we're in agreement about torture being evil.)
Yea this was actually what I was trying to say. I just ended up making things much more complicated, and bumbling, by trying to put a cosmological, instead of a Paladin-centric, perspective on it.
And I've been one of them, mostly because I find, that some people have conflated, doing an Evil act with being Evil alignment-wise.They're not talking past each other. Some people will just argue anything. If someone says torture is always evil, then someone will defend it.Ultimately, I think people are talking past each other here.
Torture is, in my opinion, always an Evil act, no matter the justification for it.
However as an act it doesn't instantly make a person completely Evil. It's a problem of the cosmological alignment system. An act is either Neutral, Good or Evil, Lawful or Chaotic and each persons soul gets stained, with either of the five alignments, as they commits those acts.
So a person who has lived a good clean life, who snaps an kills someone slides towards evil, but it might not be enough shift an alignment category.
The problem is that these thing haven't been completely quantified (and in my opinion shouldn't be quantified), which has left thing up to the individual GM, and his players, to decide to which degree, how much and how often these alignment shifts should happen.
A lot of the problem is caused by the whole "paladin can't commit an evil act" thing.
You can theoretically torture without becoming evil - under exceptional and rare circumstances. A paladin can torture without changing her alignment to evil, but will still fall since it's an evil act.(Assuming, for the moment, that we're in agreement about torture being evil.)
Well that's sort of the crux, isn't it? I mean I personally believe that a Paladin wouldn't fall if they were torturing an evil entity such as a Demon or Devil to obtain information. I mean these being are, cosmically speaking, born of pure evil essence. The reasoning behind the act, to me specifically, is the driving force behind the alignment of an act.
For example we know killing someone is wrong, ultimately. We have strict laws forbidding it. We, as a society, know that this cannot be undone and it changes everyone: the killer, the death of the person, the families of all involved a considerable amount pain and anger. But we also accept that in some dire circumstances it's necessary due to intent. The intent (motive) is the sole reason that needs to be established to assign any punishment if at all. And that's Death! That person will forever cease to be.
So, like I said, in this particular game where there is everything from black and white to shades of gray, putting a hard-line as "this is and will always irrevocably be" (insert position here) you will have a dozen reason why it could, in dire circumstances, be deemed necessary.
Also I have to chuckle when someone brings up Charlemagne's court, like they're some pinnacle of LG-ness. Charlemagne slaughtered so many people its not even funny. Why that was chosen as a staple point for the class is beyond me?The difference between legend and reality? Guess which this game is based on?
And honestly, despite the name, the class is based far more on Arthur than on Charlemagne - particularly on Lancelot & Galahad.
I must have missed the part in King Arthur where Lancelot or Galahad put his hands on someone and healed them miraculously, lol. But if the Paladin is based on the myth of these heroic and chivalrous knights then why is the sling such a terrible weapon? I mean if we're basing things off of myth then a Sling should have a x6 or x10 crit rating based on David vs. the Goliath.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Diffan, I understand your point, but The Paladin™ Is, by definition, thematically and ruleswise, the Black and White, 100 foot high billboard to all or nothing righteousness, anywhere his sacrosanct laws apply. The "reasonable" Paladin might be willing and able to accept that some situations are outside of Canon, but torture, even of a demon is going to be fall-worthy. "You have allowed the demon to tempt you into an evil act, this is its victory not yours." An evil act upon an evil creature is still an evil act. Pragmatism may apply for anyone else, and cause no lasting taint, but the Paladin is a creature of absolutes.
Oh, for the fans of my favorite Paladin.
Paksenarrian fell for a, perhaps, more justifiable sin, and was allowed to be humiliated, tortured and crippled before she was redeemed and healed. The humiliation, (Hair) was allowed to remain, and was only "corrected" because it offended the sensibilities of the elf-lord.
Missed the point entirely but whatever I don't care that much.