|
/shrug
What good is a threat if you're not willing to back it up?
Who says you're not? Heck, you can prove you're not (or fake proving it, which is much more likely to be moral in some cases). Not torturing people doesn't mean you aren't willing to execute them, just for example.
I generally assume that Threats are a PART of the torture process... but if you've got a reputation of 'a good guy'... then what does the bad guy have to fear? Execution? Prison? A hardened criminal won't fear prison, and a zealot doesn't fear death...
Then they're not gonna fear torture either, are they?
Threats are an effective tactic against some interrogation targets, not all, but there are other tactics that are effective against most that threats aren't...torture just isn't one of them.
I guess I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around 'threatening' is ok, but following through with that threat is bad...
It's not that hard to follow. Lying to people is less bad than torturing them, and thus more morally acceptable. It's also more likely to work if done properly.
And I never said threaten them with torture. Threatening them with other things you are more willing to do works fine.
Actually no, I still absolutely believe that Torture is evil... I'm questioning 'effectiveness'.
Oh, I got that. My point is, as long as people believe its effective, someone will prioritize that over how bad it is. But it's not effective.
If I were a prisoner trying hold on to my secret information for the good of the group... and someone threatened to hurt me, I'd try to match my stubbornness against theirs... See who wins out. If all he is is bluster... I'd probably win.
Right...which is why threats are far from the first tactic employed on such targets. You're acting like threats are all there is to non-torture interrogation. They are not.
Also, again, never said anything about not being willing to carry out the threats.
If He asked repeatedly and threatened to break my fingers... and I still held out... and he snapped one and said '9 to go'.... Then yeah, that threat has an actual meaning now... we're all on the same page and I'm a LOT more scared of what's coming than I was when it was just words...
Or he could calmly execute someone else who wouldn't talk. That'd work when he threatened to execute you, and isn't even necessarily Evil if he was a criminal (Death Penalty + Plea Bargains are basically this in some ways, for example).
Or he could begin by smiling, offering you a seat, and quickly becoming your friend. That tactic actually works best of all if you can manage it right.
Deadmanwalking, I think most of us agree torture is evil.
And I think most of us agree that it is not the most effective means to get reliable information.
I think the disconnect is here. If torture were rated in effectiveness for procuring information, on a scale of 1 to 10, what score would you give it?
24 would give it a 10. Most of us disagree.
You, from what I gather of your posts, would give it a 0, ranking it below 'doing nothing at all' and 'actively helping the individual lie to you.'
Most of us disagree. I'm inclined to rate it a 4-5, myself.
One thing I will note about the issue of torture producing false confessions, more humane interrogation tactics can do that too. If you tell a suspect they'll be convicted either way, but a confession will get them a lighter sentence, a lot of them will confess regardless of their actual guilt.
|
|
Deadmanwalking, I think most of us agree torture is evil.
And I think most of us agree that it is not the most effective means to get reliable information.
I think the disconnect is here. If torture were rated in effectiveness for procuring information, on a scale of 1 to 10, what score would you give it?
24 would give it a 10. Most of us disagree.
You, from what I gather of your posts, would give it a 0, ranking it below 'doing nothing at all' and 'actively helping the individual lie to you.'
Most of us disagree. I'm inclined to rate it a 4-5, myself.
I'd actually give it a 2. It's technically better than doing nothing as an information extraction tool...just not much. And it's a 2 that prevents you from using 7s and 8s forever once you've done it. And the scientific evidence agrees with me.
One thing I will note about the issue of torture producing false confessions, more humane interrogation tactics can do that too. If you tell a suspect they'll be convicted either way, but a confession will get them a lighter sentence, a lot of them will confess regardless of their actual guilt.
This is definitely true, which is why subtle interrogation methods where you acquire information without the target realizing you're getting anything sensitive are the best ones.
Torture is, however, more likely to result in this sort of thing than just about any other method.
Ok, that explains things a bit better, DMW, and I'll read your posts in the future under that understanding. So to summarize your position...
Torture is great for hurting people, making them afraid, making others around them afraid, and for ultimately breaking them into shards of the human (or elf/orc/dwarf) being they used to be. Of these qualities, making others afraid is probably the only useful one to interrogation.
Torture is of minor use in interrogating someone, because it eliminates more effective and efficient methods, produces unreliable info, and is only slightly more revealing than doing nothing at all or just asking a question.
Torture is evil. There are interrogation techniques that are mean and of dubious ethical quality that are not torture.
That solid?
Still totally Evil!!! But the idea that it's 'useless' isn't something I believe.Then you are, quite simply, wrong.
I think it's hard to show from history that torture is so ineffective in producing accurate information.
The conquistadors in America wanted to lay hands on as much native gold as possible, but, problem! - what about when the natives would try to conceal valuables? (As people often do in times of strife).
Using torture to find out hidden stashes filled more than one of the treasure fleet galleons sailing back to Europe.
Were such actions the optimal method, of greatest long-term benefit to colonial administration of the New World? It doesn't seem necessary to establish that. The conquistadors certainly weren't worried about it - and it certainly did work well enough for their purposes, whether or not it was the most efficient of all possible approaches.
There are too many similar instances of torture producing true information scattered throughout the historical record to palatably name even all of the most famous ones.
(Along similar lines, Solzhenitsyn also tells me that the NKVD got hold of immeasurable loot by torturing the locations of stashes of various wealth, concealed during the Revolution, out of prisoners. That's a circumstance where it's difficult for a prisoner to save himself by making something up; do they find the stash where you said, or not?)
|
|
Ok, that explains things a bit better, DMW, and I'll read your posts in the future under that understanding. So to summarize your position...
Torture is great for hurting people, making them afraid, making others around them afraid, and for ultimately breaking them into shards of the human (or elf/orc/dwarf) being they used to be. Of these qualities, making others afraid is probably the only useful one to interrogation.
Torture is of minor use in interrogating someone, because it eliminates more effective and efficient methods, produces unreliable info, and is only slightly more revealing than doing nothing at all or just asking a question.
Torture is evil. There are interrogation techniques that are mean and of dubious ethical quality that are not torture.
That solid?
Fairly solid, yeah. :)
Still totally Evil!!! But the idea that it's 'useless' isn't something I believe.Then you are, quite simply, wrong.I think it's hard to show from history that torture is so ineffective in producing accurate information.
The conquistadors in America wanted to lay hands on as much native gold as possible, but, problem! - what about when the natives would try to conceal valuables? (As people often do in times of strife).
Using torture to find out hidden stashes filled more than one of the treasure fleet galleons sailing back to Europe.
Asking "Where in this room is X?" when you don't have a time limit is one of the few situations where torture is actually pretty useful and reliable. It's a pretty good tactic specifically in situations where you can immediately, and with no cost to it not being true, check whether what they say is true.
That does not make it useful in most interrogation scenarios, since that's a pretty rare and specific condition. And one I've noted previously as a corner case where torture's actually potentially useful.
Were such actions the optimal method, of greatest long-term benefit to colonial administration of the New World? It doesn't seem necessary to establish that. The conquistadors certainly weren't worried about it - and it certainly did work well enough for their purposes, whether or not it was the most efficient of all possible approaches.
This is true, but again that's a very specific situation.
There are too many similar instances of torture producing true information scattered throughout the historical record to palatably name even all of the most famous ones.
Really? Cite some. I'll bet a lot of them are either not entirely plausible or fall under the same very precise corner case.
(Along similar lines, Solzhenitsyn also tells me that the NKVD got hold of immeasurable loot by torturing the locations of stashes of various wealth, concealed during the Revolution, out of prisoners. That's a circumstance where it's difficult for a prisoner to save himself by making something up; do they find the stash where you said, or not?)
And again, the same very specific corner case.
Really? Cite some. I'll bet a lot of them are either not entirely plausible or fall under the same very precise corner case.
Cinadon. The Gunpowder Plot.
That does not make it useful in most interrogation scenarios, since that's a pretty rare and specific condition. And one I've noted previously as a corner case where torture's actually potentially useful.
*shrugs*
The generalization lies when you a) have plenty of time and b) can verify the information you get.
It doesn't really matter whether you're trying to find out which cornerstone they buried the gold under, or the murder victim under, if you're willing to dig it up and check.
|
|
Cinadon.
Uh...at least according to wikipedia, that plot and its leader was revealed by a willing informer. All they got via torture were names of 'co-conspirators'...which easily could've been fake. There's literally no proof every single person executed with the exception of Cinadon wasn't innocent. Heck, there's only one man's word (plus a meaningless confession under torture) that the plot existed at all, since nothing was ever actually done.
This is not compelling evidence.
The Gunpowder Plot.
Again, the plot was revealed by an informer. Plus, according to wikipedia, torture wasn't even used very extensively in the interrogations of most of the people involved...and was only used after the plot was smashed, once again meaning there's basically no evidence it helped in any meaningful sense.
So, again, not actually very good evidence of torture's efficacy.
*shrugs*
The generalization lies when you a) have plenty of time and b) can verify the information you get.
It doesn't really matter whether you're trying to find out which cornerstone they buried the gold under, or the murder victim under, if you're willing to dig it up and check.
You're missing a third necessary prerequisite: There must be no meaningful cost to the act of verifying the information. If verifying false info could get you killed, you can't rely on torture-based information even if you have all the time in the world. That's a really specific set of criteria.
*Will* Will get you killed. Verifying false information could always get you killed. And for the evil overlord, an expendable minion is no meaningful cost.
I'd say that provides the fairly large subset of areas which caused me to rate it at 5, personally. I think everyone knows 24 is bunk. But the pendulum swinging all the way left isn't that accurate either.
|
|
*Will* Will get you killed. Verifying false information could always get you killed.
Very rarely for "Where in this house is your money?" or similar things. For other stuff...the risk goes way up if you use torture, making it inefficient and less than useful in most intelligence or military contexts.
And for the evil overlord, an expendable minion is no meaningful cost.
This is potentially true in games. It's very rarely actually true in the real world. Minions aren't as easy to get as all that. And even in games, it's a waste of resources.
I'd say that provides the fairly large subset of areas which caused me to rate it at 5, personally. I think everyone knows 24 is bunk. But the pendulum swinging all the way left isn't that accurate either.
Eh. Even for the areas where it's potentially effective other varieties of interrogation are more so, generally speaking.
The Gunpowder Plot.Again, the plot was revealed by an informer. Plus, according to wikipedia, torture wasn't even used very extensively in the interrogations of most of the people involved...and was only used after the plot was smashed, once again meaning there's basically no evidence it helped in any meaningful sense.
These are distinctly not the goalposts I was aiming at. A reminder:
I think it's hard to show from history that torture is so ineffective in producing accurate information.
and
There are too many similar instances of torture producing true information
If you want a case which would have been insoluble without use of torture, that's something different from a case in which torture can be shown to have provided true information.
In fact, I seem to be rather hemmed in between conflicting requirements of yours. If you reject a case because alternate routes of inquiry lead to the same conclusion as the torture (thus rendering the torture unnecessary), then how am I to convince you that the torture provided true information?
Fawkes was revealed due to an informer, and initially claimed to be acting alone. After days of torture in the Tower, he broke down and named a number of his fellow conspirators.
The fact that they were caught elsewhere in England the next day due to developments independent of his naming them may show that torture wasn't necessary in this case, but it is precisely that which allows us to know that the torture provided true information.
You're missing a third necessary prerequisite: There must be no meaningful cost to the act of verifying the information.
I consider that covered under "can verify." It's a spectrum. Some cases may be easier ("we know you hid the subversive manuscripts somewhere in this apartment!") some cases might be moderately easy ("send someone from prison out to the house the prisoner lived in twenty years ago, to find out if he really hid his old Tsarist officer's sabre under the floorboards in the bedroom"), some might be rather laborious ("the prisoner confesses to dumping murder victims in Silver Lake - go start dragging the bottom") and some might be too difficult or time-sensitive to be verifiable at all (ticking bomb).
The easier the better, naturally, but if you can't verify something without risking likely death, it's probably far enough along that it doesn't really help. What matters is whether the prisoner believes a lie will be found out and thus not help to avoid more torture, not how much effort it is for the investigator do so.
If all the guy has to do is wait thirty minutes till the nuke goes off, then yeah, sure. He can lie his pants off and be confident that it will all be over before he gets called on it. But I think we all know 24 is awful, and if Jack Bauer would flunk out of any self-respecting LE fantasy organization, that's fine with me.
|
|
These are distinctly not the goalposts I was aiming at. A reminder:
I think it's hard to show from history that torture is so ineffective in producing accurate information.and
There are too many similar instances of torture producing true informationIf you want a case which would have been insoluble without use of torture, that's something different from a case in which torture can be shown to have provided true information.
Right...but here's the thing: Torture didn't produce true information in either of those cases. If torture had indicated that Guy Fawkes was below Parliament with gunpowder and then he was, that would be evidence it worked, since it revealed verifiable information...but nothing remotely like that happened.
In fact, I seem to be rather hemmed in between conflicting requirements of yours. If you reject a case because alternate routes of inquiry lead to the same conclusion as the torture (thus rendering the torture unnecessary), then how am I to convince you that the torture provided true information?
Oh, I'm fine with alternate information methods leading to the same info...my issue is that torture didn't lead to actionable or useful information at all. Also, if torture leads to real-world places or events (ala the Guy Fawkes example above) then it's verifiably true even if other info led to it, too.
Now, other methods leading to the same info is evidence of the separate point that torture was completely unnecessary...but that's a slightly different matter.
Also, see below about the order that information is obtained in.
Fawkes was revealed due to an informer, and initially claimed to be acting alone. After days of torture in the Tower, he broke down and named a number of his fellow conspirators.
The fact that they were caught elsewhere in England the next day due to developments independent of his naming them may show that torture wasn't necessary in this case, but it is precisely that which allows us to know that the torture provided true information.
Here's the thing, getting people who have been tortured to confirm info you already have is easy (and means nothing): They'll say whatever you tell them to say. It's not the same as getting useful info out of them. It's exactly the same as getting a confession, and exactly as reliable (ie: not at all). If your evidence is already overwhelming, it'll be true (just like a confession extracted the same way), but all that means is that you knew the truth and can make them repeat things you say to them verbatim.
You're missing a third necessary prerequisite: There must be no meaningful cost to the act of verifying the information.I consider that covered under "can verify." It's a spectrum. Some cases may be easier ("we know you hid the subversive manuscripts somewhere in this apartment!") some cases might be moderately easy ("send someone from prison out to the house the prisoner lived in twenty years ago, to find out if he really hid his old Tsarist officer's sabre under the floorboards in the bedroom"), some might be rather laborious ("the prisoner confesses to dumping murder victims in Silver Lake - go start dragging the bottom") and some might be too difficult or time-sensitive to be verifiable at all (ticking bomb).
The easier the better, naturally, but if you can't verify something without risking likely death, it's probably far enough along that it doesn't really help. What matters is whether the prisoner believes a lie will be found out and thus not help to avoid more torture, not how much effort it is for the investigator do so.
If all the guy has to do is wait thirty minutes till the nuke goes off, then yeah, sure. He can lie his pants off and be confident that it will all be over before he gets called on it. But I think we all know 24 is awful, and if Jack Bauer would flunk out of any self-respecting LE fantasy organization, that's fine with me.
You're right as far as it goes, but the vast majority of interrogation is not "Where do I find this object?" Torture does indeed work okay for that. It's more like these questions, and how painful verifying them can be:
"Where is the rest of your cell?" (Victim tells you where a group of violent criminals unrelated to his organization are, lets you pick a fight with people you didn't care about and get some of your people killed.)
"What are your passwords?" (Tells you a wrong password, getting your operative killed. If their organization is smart all their operatives will tell you the same one, an 'I'm an enemy' signal to others of their sort.)
"What are you planning?" (Gives the wrong plan, leaving you looking in the wrong direction when the real one happens.)
And so on and so forth. Yes, you can use torture to find out where people hid physical objects fairly well. That's a tiny subset of interrogation, though, and even there they could send you to somewhere booby trapped.
Wait now, you were criticizing my examples of locating loot stashes or victims corpses or hidden evidence or whatever as tiny subset corner cases, but clandestine operations against terrorist cells is such a universal, everyday part of the law enforcement experience that it merits all three of your examples? :p
"What is going to happen in the future" is probably not a question torture reveals a true answer to, I think most of us would agree. Not sure what more merit that 'counterpoint' has, Lazarx.
That's not a counterpoint, LazarX, because we both already seem to agree that torture kind of sucks for the usual contrived terrorist scenarios and for US counterterrorism more practically, in the real world.
It strikes me that we seem to have reached substantial agreement about what we were debating before, though. We've agreed that torture works in certain circumstances, and I'm certainly not interested in trying to establish comparative efficiencies of torture vs. alternate means. We're now just disagreeing about whether counterterrorism is more typical than homicide, or whatever. How common the required circumstances (mostly, verifiability) are in the real world.
Which is not important enough to the original topic that it seems worth continuing, to me. It would be different in a fantasy world, anyway.
-snipped to save space-
I think part of the problem with your argument is that a lot of the issues you're bringing up with torture are really just issues with interrogation in general. Suspects are perfectly capable of lying or giving out bad information during a humane interrogation. False confessions happen all the time even without torture being a factor. You would still need to verify any information a suspect provided under humane interrogation, and so on.
Then again, that might be the best indictment one can level against torture. If it has all the same problems as normal interrogation methods, then that suggests that in most cases any possible increase in effectiveness is minimal at best. And that's not enough to justify doing something morally abhorrent.
|
|
Wait now, you were criticizing my examples of locating loot stashes or victims corpses or hidden evidence or whatever as tiny subset corner cases, but clandestine operations against terrorist cells is such a universal, everyday part of the law enforcement experience that it merits all three of your examples? :p
Sorry, most people agree that in day-to-day police work torture isn't warranted, so I'm using examples from situations where people would argue it might be. Though they weren't terrorism per se (they could just as easily be against enemy soldiers), but intelligence operations in general, which are different from police work. And primarily what I've been talking about.
Police work is different, not least because when dealing with something like organized crime, the police usually have most of the real intelligence they need, they just lack proof. And when dealing with individuals there's no organization to deal with at all. That's a very different scenario from intelligence work.
That's not a counterpoint, LazarX, because we both already seem to agree that torture kind of sucks for the usual contrived terrorist scenarios and for US counterterrorism more practically, in the real world.
Yay! Agreement!
It strikes me that we seem to have reached substantial agreement about what we were debating before, though. We've agreed that torture works in certain circumstances, and I'm certainly not interested in trying to establish comparative efficiencies of torture vs. alternate means. We're now just disagreeing about whether counterterrorism is more typical than homicide, or whatever. How common the required circumstances (mostly, verifiability) are in the real world.
Well, all my arguments are from the perspective of intelligence work. For police work, torture would work fine, as long as you're fine with giving the police the right to torture anyone they feel like. And assume they are incorruptible, since once you're allowed to torture people, you can either do a full and thorough investigation, or you can just torture the first person you see into confessing and not worry about who really did it...and guess which is less work?
Which is not important enough to the original topic that it seems worth continuing, to me. It would be different in a fantasy world, anyway.
By all means, let us do so. :)
I think part of the problem with your argument is that a lot of the issues you're bringing up with torture are really just issues with interrogation in general. Suspects are perfectly capable of lying or giving out bad information during a humane interrogation. False confessions happen all the time even without torture being a factor. You would still need to verify any information a suspect provided under humane interrogation, and so on.
Depends on the methodology. Again, the best ones the subject probably doesn't even think of what's going on as interrogation, and don't usually have most of these problems. For harsher methods (even standard police interrogation), you're right, but IMO torture makes the problems notably worse.
Then again, that might be the best indictment one can level against torture. If it has all the same problems as normal interrogation methods, then that suggests that in most cases any possible increase in effectiveness is minimal at best. And that's not enough to justify doing something morally abhorrent.
Eh. I think the evidence supports a reduction in effectiveness vs. other methods, but yeah, basically.
Torture is evil. Compare that to what your god says, and go from there.
The problem with torture in Pathfinder is that while in this world you have your law and order, even in the smallest redneck town. And there is always some way to make things right.
In pathfinder there often is no way.
If the lord of the land is an evil greedy bastard, and he has enough money to give him the power of law, than it is not so easy to get the proof needed to make him drop.
And than who is to take him down, and even further what will stop his friends of not killing your good-aligned ass with law in hand?
This is where torture can (in the eyes of my inquisitor) be used. When proof is good, when you know he is evil, when there are none other than yourself to stand up for the weak and wounded.
Than you get the lord of the land, find the paper with all the accusations you have, and the proof you have gathered, and make him sign it. Because in court there will be no justice, if you just turn your back the weak will still be broken by the man. But with a signed paper in hand, and the proof to back up your claims, than even the highest, most powerful landlord can be sentenced to death.
If all that it takes is for one man to torture the final signature out of him, to ensure the safety of the land, to ensure the power of unbribed law, than it is needed.
Depends on the methodology. Again, the best ones the subject probably doesn't even think of what's going on as interrogation, and don't usually have most of these problems. For harsher methods (even standard police interrogation), you're right, but IMO torture makes the problems notably worse.
Eh. I think the evidence supports a reduction in effectiveness vs. other methods, but yeah, basically.
I'd say whether it's less or more effective is really going to boil down to specific situations and the personalities involved. At the end of the day, all torture really does is place the subject under a lot of stress and compel them to give some kind of answer. Which can be useful, but there are plenty of other ways of accomplishing it that are less inhumane.
The problem with torture in Pathfinder is that while in this world you have your law and order, even in the smallest redneck town. And there is always some way to make things right.
In pathfinder there often is no way.
If the lord of the land is an evil greedy bastard, and he has enough money to give him the power of law, than it is not so easy to get the proof needed to make him drop.
And than who is to take him down, and even further what will stop his friends of not killing your good-aligned ass with law in hand?
This is where torture can (in the eyes of my inquisitor) be used. When proof is good, when you know he is evil, when there are none other than yourself to stand up for the weak and wounded.
Than you get the lord of the land, find the paper with all the accusations you have, and the proof you have gathered, and make him sign it. Because in court there will be no justice, if you just turn your back the weak will still be broken by the man. But with a signed paper in hand, and the proof to back up your claims, than even the highest, most powerful landlord can be sentenced to death.
If all that it takes is for one man to torture the final signature out of him, to ensure the safety of the land, to ensure the power of unbribed law, than it is needed.
"Lawful Good is the best alignment because it combined honor with compassion. Also if someone gets in your way and they are wrong, you can torture or beat them until they give into your demands."
|
|
The problem with torture in Pathfinder is that while in this world you have your law and order, even in the smallest redneck town. And there is always some way to make things right.
In pathfinder there often is no way.
If the lord of the land is an evil greedy bastard, and he has enough money to give him the power of law, than it is not so easy to get the proof needed to make him drop.
And than who is to take him down, and even further what will stop his friends of not killing your good-aligned ass with law in hand?
This is where torture can (in the eyes of my inquisitor) be used. When proof is good, when you know he is evil, when there are none other than yourself to stand up for the weak and wounded.
Than you get the lord of the land, find the paper with all the accusations you have, and the proof you have gathered, and make him sign it. Because in court there will be no justice, if you just turn your back the weak will still be broken by the man. But with a signed paper in hand, and the proof to back up your claims, than even the highest, most powerful landlord can be sentenced to death.
If all that it takes is for one man to torture the final signature out of him, to ensure the safety of the land, to ensure the power of unbribed law, than it is needed.
In what universe is this preferable to just killing the guilty people? Because...vigilante justice isn't ideal, but it's sure as hell better than torturing people into signing the right papers.
Unless you're LE of course.
I think part of the problem with your argument is that a lot of the issues you're bringing up with torture are really just issues with interrogation in general. Suspects are perfectly capable of lying or giving out bad information during a humane interrogation. False confessions happen all the time even without torture being a factor. You would still need to verify any information a suspect provided under humane interrogation, and so on.
Then again, that might be the best indictment one can level against torture. If it has all the same problems as normal interrogation methods, then that suggests that in most cases any possible increase in effectiveness is minimal at best. And that's not enough to justify doing something morally abhorrent.
Fortunately in a world with magic there are even better ways to get information out of someone which theoretically always produce true information. They would not even need the psychological manipulation of modern interrogation methods. The best magical solution would probably just be to charm or dominate someone and then ask them. Paired with modify memory they won't even know they had been interrogated.
"Lawful Good is the best alignment because it combined honor with compassion. Also if someone gets in your way and they are wrong, you can torture or beat them until they give into your demands."
I have always had the above mentioned method of dominate/ask be the LG enhanced interrogation technique of choice. It is humane, quick, effective and does not violate anyone's alignment based codes of conduct. The only drawback is that it requires a relatively high level spellcaster, but in an emergency charm person would probably work pretty well too.
Sticking to the topic at hand, I would agree that torture is always evil. However, it's possible that it might be lesser of two evils in some situations.
Since alignment is about the sum total of a character's moral outlook, I tend to think it should almost never be dictated by a single action. If a character is 95% good and 5% evil, they should still be good-aligned.
However, the fact that a character is willing to regularly resort to torture could say a lot about their moral outlook. A moral position of "I usually try to do the right thing and make the world a better place, but will not restrained by my morals when they interfere with my goals" sounds like a good fit for neutrality on the good/evil axis.
It does seem like way too many alignment discussions forget that neutral's an option.
Well, all my arguments are from the perspective of intelligence work.
Then yeah, we are mostly taking our fantasy inspiration from different places.
(I tend to look back to conquistadors and stuff a lot as well, or classical or medieval literature and situations, but even in more recent times, I'd probably be much more likely to use something like Cesare Mori vs the Mafia as villainous inspiration than I would any of the current US stuff).
|
|
Well, all my arguments are from the perspective of intelligence work.Then yeah, we are mostly taking our fantasy inspiration from different places.
(I tend to look back to conquistadors and stuff a lot as well, or classical or medieval literature and situations, but even in more recent times, I'd probably be much more likely to use something like Cesare Mori vs the Mafia as villainous inspiration than I would any of the current US stuff).
I'm not solely talking about the current US stuff. I'm mostly thinking spies throughout the ages, really. From Rome's Agentes in Rebus to World War II military intelligence, and so on and so forth.
I mean, I'm thinking situations that would involve the PCs, which are usually more military or spy-like than they are police work, IMO.
LazarX. Well i believe as stated above and above that again, that acts of evil and good comes from the mind of the one that does it. Not the act in itself.
If you torture to get information, but while doing so find pleasure and joy in the screams of the victim. And even after you have what you need, you carry on just to further enjoy the situation. Than that is evil. As your moral compass is powered by the suffering of others, and the feeling of causing physical harm to others.
But again, if you have done your best and the person you know is behind all the murder-kidnappings, but his friends in high places makes the demand for proof to high for even you to get. Than with a sad heart, and a broken will, you torture the location of the girls from him, and where the bodies are buried. They are found, and with the confession in hand you hang the man. The friends cant demand higher proof than a confession and the girls.
Than it is actually an evil act, but it would not bring any "points" on the evil-alignment scale.Most situations are different, and therefor it is a gray area. Alignment should be based on your actions, and your reasons to do them.
And then when the "friend in high places" sees your great example and tortures an innocent person into confessing to the same crime...
|
|
@Deadmanwalking. I reserve alignment for use in discussing game terms. It has no place in describing the infinitely more complex situations of a real world where Good and Evil are merely human constructs.
Huh? This is in regards to what? I mean, I don't generally disagree (though I believe some actions, including torture are categorically not acceptable in the real world)...and wasn't talking about this anyway.
|
|
Durngrun; I agree that it is a dark path that is nothing but a downward spiral.
Sooner or later you will target the wrong person, enjoy the act of torture or just kill someone innocent. And than it is done.Kain; It is not truly lawfull good, but my arguments are based on the fact that some times you must do an act you hate to achieve the right goal. The goal and reason behind it is LG. But the tool you use is not.
Deadmanwalking; In a world of law and where the reporcutions of a plain murder are to grand to handle. My inquisitor follows the teachings of Helm and therfor views law as a tool to save the weak and injured. To torture the final confession out of him and find him guilty is better than to murder a highranking official.
He hates it, he despices the act and wishes it would never be done. But it is the last resort he has to ensure the protection of the people.
So...your character is putting his own well-being above doing the right thing? I mean, he'd rather torture someone extensively than risk death? That doesn't sound especially heroic.
I'm also gonna bring up something I did earlier in this thread:
Would your 'LG' character use rape as a way to achieve the same goals? Because rape is wrong for all the same reasons torture is, and equivalently bad.
If he wouldn't...then maybe you should reconsider whether he should be torturing anyone. If he would, you might want to rethink his Good alignment.