RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I still say torture is not evil in of itself.
In the context of organized play (granted you may not have known that's where you're posting), given that the Campaign Coordinator has now made the call, torture IS automatically evil.
Outside of organized play, of course, it's whatever you and your group agree that it is. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and regarding the "30 kids" situation:
Obviously, the correct answer is to verbally agree, act like you're going to do it, then surprise attack the sick SOB who came into your classroom, killing him in the fastest and most efficient manner possible.
;)
|
|
... Playing hardball doesn't make you evil.
One evil act doesn't make one evil (unless it is beyond redemption).
According to Mike Brock, playing hardball (ie torture) is an evil act.
Evil acts should be noted on the character's Chronicle sheet. If it is evil enough (in the GM's judgement) to turn the character evil, then the character should be marked as dead and a report sent to the local VO.
In any case a player should be advised that they will be taking an evil action and given a chance to change their course of action.
And if the character is given a mission that is evil, it is the person who issued the mission that suffers the evil, not the character (unless they are a Paladin).
|
|
I encountered a Silver Crusade faction mission where a paladin group ordered me to remove corrupt thugs from the streets "at all costs". ...
And technically, if torture is evil and against the PFS rules, then faction missions should never require torture and/or murder. It can't be both ways.
Was that mission an actual Silver Crusade mission or one from an early season where you got the Andoran faction mission instead?
Sorry to say, it is both ways. That is why the Alignment Infraction paragraph was modified as mentioned above. So characters can complete their faction missions without turning evil.
|
I voluntarily failed the faction mission at that point.
If all "torture is evil", then the Silver Crusade is most certainly funding that particular faction mission with their Atonement insurance fund.
And technically, if torture is evil and against the PFS rules, then faction missions should never require torture and/or murder. It can't be both ways.
Even if torture is evil - executions aren't. Arguably slapping them around is evil. But slitting their throats definitely would not be.
|
I encountered a Silver Crusade faction mission where a paladin group ordered me to remove corrupt thugs from the streets "at all costs". ...
And technically, if torture is evil and against the PFS rules, then faction missions should never require torture and/or murder. It can't be both ways.
Was that mission an actual Silver Crusade mission or one from an early season where you got the Andoran faction mission instead?
Sorry to say, it is both ways. That is why the Alignment Infraction paragraph was modified as mentioned above. So characters can complete their faction missions without turning evil.
And this is the quandary I was pointing to earlier.
It seems rather odd that torture is somehow different than all the eviler stuff that pathfinders get a pass on, or are directly told to do on a daily basis.
The thing with murder (and with some of the definitions of torture) is that they're legal definitions. They go on the law/chaos axis, not the good/evil axis.
|
|
It's an alignment infraction no matter what if you're good-aligned.The Guide explicitly states that an action specifically ordered by a Faction head does not count as an alignment infraction.
Nope. Paladins are bound by a higher authority than a faction mission. They will still need to decide whether completing the faction mission is worth an atonement. -Mike Brock
|
|
I don't recall any of my PFS characters murdering anyone. They've all felled enemies in battle, and there's been the occasional execution of an exceptionally heinous evildoer, but no murders.
I agree - people often confuse murder and killing. A soldier is not inherently a murderer, nor is an executioner.
|
|
I'm not sure I would change someone's alignment due to one evil act. One action does not determine someone's alignment. You also have to warn a player before they commit an alignment infraction that the action they are about to take will be an infraction and noted on their chronicle sheet. Players are in control of their alignment for the most part according to the CRB unless repeated infractions force you to invoke the alignment infraction rule in the guide to organized play.
|
|
There is plenty of other scenarios where torture will 'save the day' and without it the bad guys win.
Playing hardball doesn't make you evil.
Except that with magic, you have options for getting information from an unwilling target beyond torture. I imagine that a paladin's enhanced interrogation method of choice would be to tie someone to a chair and charm or dominate them to get them to answer questions. Failing that there is always reading someone's mind to find out what they know.
Given actual morality, these magical options would probably be equally as wrong and illegal as torture, but within the Good-Evil dichotomy even a paladin can do them, you just need to think outside the box.
|
|
Alas...Slitting the throats of bound and gagged members of the local "law" that attacked the party using only non-lethal damage is the act of a "heinous evildoer". That was my bottom-line choice and decision.
Were the "evil thugs" nice enough to attack with lethal damage, or not being members of the local "law", or simply encountered beating a small puppy rather than patroling the district looking for criminal activities...
I was hosed from the get go. It's only a faction point. I'll never have the gold to spend to keep up with them anyways. It popped my Silver Crusade bubble, 'tis all. I thought they were the "good guys". I now know they are as steeped in gray moral dilemmas like everyone else.
I've got to disagree here. Arguably it's a chaotic choice to execute them if they are the local "law" as you say. And it isn't a good act. But it's not evil either.
By that logic it's evil for the justice system to execute murderers just because they didn't try to kill the cops that arrested them.
I think that you're trying to apply our modern seperation of police / judge / jury / executioner etc.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I've got to disagree here. Arguably it's a chaotic choice to execute them if they are the local "law" as you say.
So if my superiors give me orders to execute someone, and I choose to trust that they have done their due diligence to make the call on whether or not that someone deserves death, and act according to the decision of my superiors rather than investigating the situation myself, thus performing the execution under delegated authority granted by a formal hierarchy; then it's a chaotic act?
That conclusion seems questionable to me... ;)
|
|
I've got to disagree here. Arguably it's a chaotic choice to execute them if they are the local "law" as you say.So if my superiors give me orders to execute someone, and I choose to trust that they have done their due diligence to make the call on whether or not that someone deserves death, and act according to the decision of my superiors rather than investigating the situation myself, thus performing the execution under delegated authority granted by a formal hierarchy; then it's a chaotic act?
That conclusion seems questionable to me... ;)
I actually agree with you here - but it is arguable. Personally - I'd think it to be a neutral act.
|
My personal experience is that good characters tend to act neutral, neutral characters tend to act evil, and evil characters (obviously not PFS PCs) tend to act sociopathic. I claim no originality for this observation.
It's useful from time to time to review what is actually written in the rules about the alignment descriptions. It's easy for a mental picture of an alignment to erode over time, particularly in light of the parade of atrocities and questionable acts that tend to get committed at the table. I think we get a bit jaded about them. "Ho hum. Yet another discussion about what to do with the prisoner..."
|
|
I am in agreement that it is rather disturbing that it is so hard for some people to interpret torture as an evil act. You shouldn't even need a legal definition or a dictionary definition to know that torture is an evil act. No amount of twisting will change that fact.
Causing pain to someone that is in custody, incarcerated, bound, etc is torture, you shouldn't even need a definition of what torture is.
Torture is evil.
Torture done under duress is evil.
Condoning torture could be construed as neutral depending on the circumstances but that doesn't change the fact that the act of committing torture is still evil.
|
Is torture Lawful or Chaotic?
If it's Lawful, is it necessarily Good?
Can it really ever be Good? Does it really ever FEEL good?
You know, one man's torture is another man's foreplay.
How frequently does torture provide useful intelligence you couldn't obtain some other way? If you can't obtain it some other way, how do you know your victim wasn't lying to you? Maybe he told you the truth about where the treasure was, but didn't bother to mention the dragon guarding it, because you didn't ask.
Torture is a waste of time and effort and potentially counter-productive.
So regardless of whether it is evil, or exactly how you define torture, torture is bad because it is icky (foreplay, ew!) and wasteful.
"The only thing that is required for Good to succeed is for evil men to do nothing. Encourage evil people to be lazy."
|
Since it's already coming up, torture-as-kink isn't really actual torture, provided all parties involved are down with that(and are safe and sane about it). Hell, paladins can do that sort of thing with no problem.
I think that you're trying to apply our modern seperation of police / judge / jury / executioner etc.Remove my judgment, which you are calling into doubt, from the equation.
The other members of the party also considered it an evil act to slit their throats. Even the neutral barbarian that offered to do the deed considered it an evil act.
Every one of my good aligned characters would have essentially said "lol wut, no" to the mission too in those circumstances, be they LG paladin or CG barbarian. I'd need a hell of a lot more to go off of to justify an intentional killing than being attacked non-lethally too.
|
|
This whole discussion really puzzles me. Why is it even going on? Quite aside from Mike Brock's statement that torture is evil (which should've closed the whole issue down), why are some people trying to argue that torture is ok enough to be used in PFS, or that there are circumstances where torture is permissible?
Seeing as Golarion is based (somewhat) off Renaissance Europe (and other real world regions) then it's easy to see why torture would be permissible there. That is to say, if you compare the real world analogue of Golarion to Golarion. But, to me, that's faulty thinking, at least in Society play. We impose guidelines on morality in Society play to keep things (relatively) on the up and up and to avoid situations which might turn ugly/awkward/uncomfortable for a player (or the whole group). We don't live in the Golarion analogue anymore, so why should we accept the morality of those times?
That's why you can't play evil characters, vivisectionists and gravewalkers (amongst a host of other classes/archetypes) and it's also why you can't torture (for whatever means).
Now, I know that there's the line in the Guide that absolves characters from doing evil deeds if the faction mission calls for it. But that line should be done away with and faction missions kept non-evil.
|
The discussion is going on because Michael Brock made two quite absolute claims:
1. Torture is Evil
2. Torture is when you deliberatly cause pain and suffering to an individual and they are unable to defend themselves. ...
Together the strict interpretation poses a real and concrete issue with intimidation. Later on Brock goes on to amend the second point to
2. Torture is when you deliberatly cause excessive pain and suffering to an individual and they are unable to defend themselves. ...
The addition of the word "excessive" takes the definition back from nigh absolute claim to much more subjective one, thus watering down the definition and allowing much more leeway on the GM decisions. This would solve the issue pretty much. But because the term excessive was not present in the first comment and Brock didn't make it clear that he's withdrawing the early definition and replacing it with a new one, people missed the one-word addition and the damage was already done.
Also, please cut the crap with the "If you need to ask...". The line between torture and intimidation is if anything, grey. We can declare torture absolutely evil and have its definition be grey, or give it a clear all-encompassing definition and then say its borders are morally grey. But it's naive to try to give it both absolute evil and absolutely clear all-encompassing definition. That's not how world works.
|
|
The discussion is going on because Michael Brock made two quite absolute claims:
1. Torture is Evil
2. Torture is when you deliberatly cause pain and suffering to an individual and they are unable to defend themselves. ...Together the strict interpretation poses a real and concrete issue with intimidation. Later on Brock goes on to amend the second point to
2. Torture is when you deliberatly cause excessive pain and suffering to an individual and they are unable to defend themselves. ...
The addition of the word "excessive" takes the definition back from nigh absolute claim to much more subjective one, thus watering down the definition and allowing much more leeway on the GM decisions. This would solve the issue pretty much. But because the term excessive was not present in the first comment and Brock didn't make it clear that he's withdrawing the early definition and replacing it with a new one, people missed the one-word addition and the damage was already done.
Also, please cut the crap with the "If you need to ask...". The line between torture and intimidation is if anything, grey. We can declare torture absolutely evil and have its definition be grey, or give it a clear all-encompassing definition and then say its borders are morally grey. But it's naive to try to give it both absolute evil and absolutely clear all-encompassing definition. That's not how world works.
That's not how the world works, that correct. But it is how Campaign leadership wants the Organized Play to work.
This isn't (or shouldn't be) an argument on the definition of torture or trying to parse some morsels of meaning form Mike's answer. According to PFS Campaign Leadership torture is evil and torture is defined as causing excessive pain and suffering. Excessive is not a complicated word and there aren't degrees of "excessive pain".
It's an alignment infraction no matter what if you're good-aligned.The Guide explicitly states that an action specifically ordered by a Faction head does not count as an alignment infraction.
I only did what I was commanded to do, isn't it? Yeah, now, that sounds familiar somehow...
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
I do, in fact, intend to leave it open to GM interpretation. How many times do posters here request we give GMs more authority at the table to adjudicate rules and situations?
Slapping a bound man probably does not cause excessive pain. Filleting his fingers probably does. This is one of those situations where I can not provide an absolute definition for every situation that may occur so I leave it to the GMs to make the best interpretation they possibly can.
Torture is evil. I think most people out there understand when someone is being tortured and someone isn't. GMs use your best judgement when it happens at a table.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many times do posters here request we give GMs more authority at the table to adjudicate rules and situations?
Not as often as posters HERE request we give GMs more authority at the table.
;)
|
|
Michael,
Thank you for your answer. It gives the GM at the table the leeway to adjust things to their tastes at their table, while giving a definite answer: Torture is evil.
One thing to keep in consideration is how does the table feel. Is someone at the table uncomfortable? If one person is uncomfortable, you as a GM should run the game at their comfort level.
Myles Crocker
|
|
I only did what I was commanded to do, isn't it? Yeah, now, that sounds familiar somehow...It's an alignment infraction no matter what if you're good-aligned.The Guide explicitly states that an action specifically ordered by a Faction head does not count as an alignment infraction.
Remember that the act is not being whitewashed as 'not aligned'. Only that the PC is not being punished for it.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Remember that the act is not being whitewashed as 'not aligned'. Only that the PC is not being punished for it.I only did what I was commanded to do, isn't it? Yeah, now, that sounds familiar somehow...It's an alignment infraction no matter what if you're good-aligned.The Guide explicitly states that an action specifically ordered by a Faction head does not count as an alignment infraction.
Indeed, it's not a campaign statement that the act is not evil, it's a metagame-level patch to keep a player (not character) from having to choose between missing prestige and taking a step toward banning their PC forever. Can you imagine if by pure chance a new player's first few faction missions required doing things that got marked on their chronicle as evil actions, and in their (for instance) fourth session of PFS ever, they're confronted with "If you keep doing the things I hand you a piece of paper telling you to do, your character is banned from play"? Blech.