Inquisitors and torture


Advice

301 to 333 of 333 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Theodor Snuddletusk wrote:

Durngrun, than the quest has moved further and the inquisitor has another person he must look into (the friend in a higher place). The difference between the two torture-insidents is the reason to do it.

One is to make an guilty friend escape the crime he has done by forcing an innocent person to take the fall.
The other is to make a guilty person make the final and crucial evidence against himself.

The point in my case is still that it is a matter of reason behind the act.

LazarX: Than we have a different view on it. Or.. well. i can agree on the good character crossing a line, but that it is evil i do not agree on. His "penalty" will come in form of mental problems with what he has done and the way he copes with that.

What i am looking for? Nothing, i argue becouse i feel like it is a wrong point of view to make a rp game so bound by black and white, that you can make a list and state that "every possible reason, every possible situation can not change the fact that this is evil". :P

You missed the point. Your "greater good" is negated but you're still a torturer. And if you play in any kind of dynamic world, your credibility is now stained. The only difference between the two of you is the "friend in high places" probably knows he's evil.


Durngrun; And this is where i disagree. Just having the term "torturer" on your cv do not make you evil. Just like the term healer dont directly make you good.

If torture is used to ensure personal goals or pleasure. Or you use it on the slightest wim, or even if it is used when you could have ysed less brutal meens, than its an evil act. But as the last resort, to ensure good and with a sad and defeated heart. I belive it is not.

Shadow Lodge

You can't continue to justify your actions with good intentions once it becomes clear that you are both doing evil things and getting evil results. You cannot point a loaded gun at a person's head, pull the trigger, and then be found innocent because you didn't intend to kill them.

Extended example: a physician is treating patients who have a life-threatening illness. He thinks that an experimental treatment will help but is worried for whatever reason that the patients would not agree so he treats them without their consent. Two of the ten patients show minor improvements, and five drastically worsen in their condition. The physician has done something unethical and immoral by failing to obtain informed consent and it made things worse and if the physician ignores that and decides that clearly his sample size was too small and he needs to repeat the treatment with a new (unconsenting) group of patients, then he is evil or at the very least not good.

Your inquisitor may intend to improve the condition of the common people by performing the evil violation of human dignity that is torture. Instead he has worsened their condition by validating confessions obtained through torture and increasing its use, even on innocents. If he does not realize his error and change his actions his good intentions are no longer credible and he is not a good character.

You act as if your inquisitor is not morally responsible for the lord's son or allies using your example to justify torturing confessions out of innocents. But if that is the case why is he perfectly willing to be morally responsible for the lord's son punishing the countryside in revenge for his murder at your hands? This is inconsistent moral reasoning which suggests self-justification.

If you're looking to play a morally grey character, that's fine, but such characters are rarely if ever of Good alignment. Neutral is a pretty good place for morally grey characters - by definition it's the grey zone between good and evil. My current campaign has two of them: a self-sacrificing defender of the faithful who killed an essentially innocent person because his deity told him to (TN) and an honourable soldier who is proud of her military commendation earned putting down a slave rebellion (LN). They can be noble characters but their moral standards are significantly flawed, landing them in the grey zone. By resorting to evil means and being unwilling to take responsibility for the harms these actions visit upon those he claims to protect, your inquisitor has at minimum significantly flawed moral standards - and I would not be surprised if he slipped through Neutral and into Evil. Because part of a "grey" playstyle is that evil can have good intentions, too.


Theodur for what it's worth, I think your inquisitor is still in the green.

He knows the bad guy is evil. He lacks evidence for a conviction so he gets the bad guy to confess through torture. That's clearly against the law but I don't believe it goes against the end goal of "Putting evil behind bars." I'd sign up for team Chaotic Good or even Neutral Good.

At the end of the day you'll see a few different mindsets behind people here. Some will tell you some things are always bad despite the circumstances surrounding them.

Personally, my belief at the end of the day is that Evil is Evil and they've lost whatever "personal rights" they had when they walked down that path. Law is fair. Chaos isn't. People often get stuck on that image of Lawful Good being the general stance on Good, but often forget the different alignment axis of Law and Chaos.

Kidnapping someone and forcing a confession out of them? Definitely against the Law. Torture is bad as much as straight up murdering someone is, but considering murderhoboism is a thing, I'm not getting hung up on it.

Somehow the line gets drawn between killing a evil person is "Not actually bad", but forcing a confession even through torture of an evil person is "Always bad no matter what."

So my conclusion is "A Chaotic Good or Neutral Good Inquisitor could use torture as a method of convicting a known villain when they lacked evidence to show others. A Neutral Good Inquisitor would only do so if it was the best option whereas the Chaotic Good Inquisitor would be more likely to do so anyways if it expedited the process."


Does the morality of the torturer change if he is wrong? If it is an innocent who has been framed? Can good intentions save you if both the action and the outcome are evil?


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Does the morality of the torturer change if he is wrong? If it is an innocent who has been framed? Can good intentions save you if both the action and the outcome are evil?

He is absolutely okay if he's been tricked. Your own alignment will not shift, though team evil got a freebie.

Though it's really hard for an innocent to be convicted by an inquisitor. They have a very nice spell list for that.


Scavion wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Does the morality of the torturer change if he is wrong? If it is an innocent who has been framed? Can good intentions save you if both the action and the outcome are evil?

He is absolutely okay if he's been tricked. Your own alignment will not shift, though team evil got a freebie.

Though it's really hard for an innocent to be convicted by an inquisitor. They have a very nice spell list for that.

Are intentions all that matter? Is there a difference if he is simply wrong rather than tricked?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Theodor Snuddletusk wrote:

LazarX;

Raw that is true. But the way my group play and how i feel the game should be played, there are always exeptions based on setting or circumstances.

If the witch has cast a spell that if she is a virgin (live or dead) at 00.00 than the demon prince nesguch is summoned onto the mortal plane. Than you cant kill her or reson with her.

One of the ways that can be solved is for the good alligned charracter to make sure she no longer is a virgin. Forcefully so.
Evil act no. Kind or cuddle, no. But not evil.

Don't you dare. If you're seriously going to go down that road, you need to close your account and get out.


On-topic trivia:

While the inquisition certainly has a bad reputation as a nasty torturer in its time, were you to be accused of some crime or other you were much less likely to suffer torture under them than you were under the conventional "legal" system.

In fact, the inquisition actually took their cases seriously, using forensics and investigation and witness questioning, unlike the other courts of the time. The inquisition was first in using a more scientific approach to dealing with suspects.

"the Spanish Inquisition was widely hailed as the best run, most humane court in Europe." - Thomas Madden


Mikaze wrote:
Theodor Snuddletusk wrote:

LazarX;

Raw that is true. But the way my group play and how i feel the game should be played, there are always exeptions based on setting or circumstances.

If the witch has cast a spell that if she is a virgin (live or dead) at 00.00 than the demon prince nesguch is summoned onto the mortal plane. Than you cant kill her or reson with her.

One of the ways that can be solved is for the good alligned charracter to make sure she no longer is a virgin. Forcefully so.
Evil act no. Kind or cuddle, no. But not evil.

Don't you dare. If you're seriously going to go down that road, you need to close your account and get out.

But you're fine with him defending torture? What about using rape as torture?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Theodor Snuddletusk wrote:

LazarX;

Raw that is true. But the way my group play and how i feel the game should be played, there are always exeptions based on setting or circumstances.

If the witch has cast a spell that if she is a virgin (live or dead) at 00.00 than the demon prince nesguch is summoned onto the mortal plane. Than you cant kill her or reson with her.

One of the ways that can be solved is for the good alligned charracter to make sure she no longer is a virgin. Forcefully so.
Evil act no. Kind or cuddle, no. But not evil.

Don't you dare. If you're seriously going to go down that road, you need to close your account and get out.
But you're fine with him defending torture? What about using rape as torture?

Where in the hell are you arriving at the conclusion that I'm defending torture? You apparently don't know me very well.

Do not take my absence for most of this thread as some sort of approval. Quite frankly I find banging my head against the wall to be too exhausting on top of all the other crap I've dealt with this past month and Deadmanwalking has been pretty much saying everything that needs to be said on the matter.

But when I peek in the thread against my better judgment and see someone trying to justify rape and only one person has called him on it, I'm damn well going to say something.

I may not agree with LazarX on a lot of matters but I'm glad he did call that for the poisonous #%*+ it is. That crap has no place here. Or anywhere else.


Theodor Snuddletusk wrote:

Chengar - Yeah, neutral is an option. But i feel like a persons reasons, goals and focus areas are more the things that define alignment, not just an action.

You can have the kindest man do gruesome or "evil" things if you set the right scene. A father that beats his daughters rapist to death with a tire iron, or a cop that frames a rich man that have bought his freedom five times after hit and runs.

A good person that hates the fact that he must kill someone, he does not want to, and he wishes it would just resolve. But he knows that it will not and time runs out. With a sad heart, a broken spirit, but a strong will he does it, and he does not regret, but he is sadden.

The idea of my inquisitor when (or if) he tortures someone than he hates the fact that he must do such an act to reach the goals that he should have reached without those means. He sees it as a personal failure and as a result he often drinks and is sad by the fact that he has done those acts.

But at the same time it was what was needed to be done, and it was the last and only resort he had. If he had not done it, someone else, someone weak and innocent would be harmed. His lack of will would condemn someone else into pain and misery.

I agree that a person's reasons and goals are important for defining their alignment. So are the means they use to achieve them. I would be hard-pressed to call Bob the Goblinslayer a good person if his goblin-slaying is powered by eating the souls of orphan children.

I think there's a big difference between a good person who does something evil in a specific extreme circumstance, and one who does so on a regular basis. If a character is torturing often enough for it to be a major defining aspect of his character, I'd be hard-pressed to call them a good person.


Theodor Snuddletusk wrote:

LazarX;

Raw that is true. But the way my group play and how i feel the game should be played, there are always exeptions based on setting or circumstances.

If the witch has cast a spell that if she is a virgin (live or dead) at 00.00 than the demon prince nesguch is summoned onto the mortal plane. Than you cant kill her or reson with her.

One of the ways that can be solved is for the good alligned charracter to make sure she no longer is a virgin. Forcefully so.
Evil act no. Kind or cuddle, no. But not evil.

"Lawful Good is the best alignment you can be because if you are really sure about it, raping a witch is perfectly permissible."

Are you even hearing yourself anymore? First off, reasoning with her sounds like a fuggin' GREAT idea, since you can't kill her. Undoing the ritual. Getting her to willingly give up her virginity in remorse. Or if all else fails, getting humanity ready to fight the demon prince Nesguch. But raping her not evil? Absolutely evil. And frankly, you're going to have to make a better case than you have that it is even the lesser of two evils.

Shadow Lodge

Scavion wrote:
Though it's really hard for an innocent to be convicted by an inquisitor. They have a very nice spell list for that.

Yes, inquisitors have such a nice spell list that they really shouldn't have to resort to torture to get a confession in the first place. A character capable of kidnapping and torturing a powerful person is certainly capable of sitting that person down in front of witnesses and questioning them under truth-compelling magic. Refusing to confirm innocence under such conditions could itself be taken as a confession (the right to remain silent is surely less inviolable than the right not to be tortured). Truthtelling is my personal favourite, but Confess has its charm. Had an awesome moment at my table when the party walked into a courtroom, accused the judge of treason, and put him on trial. Confess made short work of him, starting with "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" "No! I mean... I protest this treatment."

Also, Scavion, believe me that I have not forgotten about the Law/Chaos axis. I am a huge proponent of Chaotic Good being just as valid an interpretation of "Good" as LG. However I disagree with your characterization of Law vs Chaos.

Torture is not inherently non-Lawful. It may be contrary to some laws and customs (including ours), but is not contrary to all laws and customs. It also doesn't undermine a general preference for order which is the core of the lawful alignment. Torture is only non-lawful if a character has sworn to uphold a set of laws that forbid torture (eg a modern police officer). It has been an entirely lawful option for many authorities throughout history.

In this particular example the character is using torture instead of murder because torture is the more lawful/socially acceptable way of dealing with the problem. That is not the thought process of a chaotic person, who would probably find murder more "expedient" than jumping through hoops to prove to some court that an evil person deserves to be punished. Is murder better than torture? It feels less bad to me, but maybe that's because I'm desensitized by lots of heroic killings in games & media - in which case the solution is to have less tolerance for good characters committing murder in our game, not more tolerance for torture.

@Mikaze - Sorry, I think most of us were too busy trying to explain that "torture is evil even if you're pretty sure the victim is guilty/evil" that we missed out on "rape is evil even when it's a horribly contrived situation designed to give your character permission to rape."

Silver Crusade

Weirdo wrote:
@Mikaze - Sorry, I think most of us were too busy trying to explain that "torture is evil even if you're pretty sure the victim is guilty/evil" that we missed out on "rape is evil even when it's a horribly contrived situation designed to give your character permission to rape."

No such thing. Ever.


Weirdo: "Your inquisitor may intend ..."

But this is where i belive different. It is true, if the same idea that the inquisitor has is used by another person (or himself) and it is an innocent, or the torture is done on a basis that is evil. Fx: To find out where the innkeeper stashes his gold. Than it is evil. But if the intent is good, the motivation is good, and the result is good, than the evil act (as i see it) is not enought to alter the allignment of the inquisitor.

The common people`s condition has not been worsened, as the pre-requisits to torture validly is, a good motivation, a good result and a good intent. You also need to be in the right setting lawwize. A commoner cant do it, but a representative high up in the chain of command in the police can.

Just becouse a cop aloes one starving mother to steel a bread from the baker, does not result in every singel person in town having their condition worsened based on the laws disregard for any thievery..

"You act as if ..."

I dont view it that way. To just go up to a person and do the classic "you are evil, i see it with my divine ways. I kill you!" does not work in a land of law. It would result in you being charged with manslaughter, it would result in your church being responsible and it would most likely result in other damaging acts.

But to go up to a person, show him your "i am the law" paper, take him with you together with members of the law and torture/interrogate a confession from him without glee, fun or any other sadism. If it is proven to be correct than you cant be charged with murder, as you were the "tool of the law", your church is know to do what is necessary to find the culprit, and you at the same time create a respect/fear in the hearths of the rich and powerful. Not even them are above the law.

Mikaze: I did not wish to go down that road and i shall not. Anyway, i am sorry for the example and i feel like i should not have said it. I wish to focus on the torture part.

Chengar: "If a character is torturing often enough for it to be a major defining aspect of his character, I'd be hard-pressed to call them a good person."

I am 100% in agreement.

As i view it, the entire aspect of the torture argument is that people dont want to view it as an alternative because it goes against most human morals. But in truth it CAN be an alternative, but the demands to use it must be set as the highest possible.

Weirdo: A lowlvl inquisitor in a lowlvl setting might have to be forced to use it as a tool. If the spells are avalible and he just cba to use them it is by far not a good sign for his allignment.

Shadow Lodge

If an agent of the law does not have the authority to execute someone for a crime, they should not have the authority to torture a confession out of them, because an overwhelming majority of the time the suspect will confess whether guilty or innocent. The confession doesn't prove anything. If your law enforcement is not trustworthy enough to be absolutely confident in a suspect's guilt prior to torture, then they will end up torturing false confessions out of innocents and that is obviously evil. If law enforcement is trustworthy enough to be absolutely confident in a suspect's guilt prior to torture, then just skip the torture and authorize your law enforcement to convict.

The only reason it would be legal to torture a confession out of someone is if the legal authority cares more about convicting the suspect and looking legitimate than about finding the guilty party. Such a system is LE and and a LG person should not be a part of it unless they are trying to change the system from within.

Might a LG person trapped in a LE system resort to torture out of desperation? I would say that they could - but only if it is portrayed as an act of true desperation and the character then redoubles their efforts to eliminate torture by finding alternative methods that are both moral and effective. Drowning out your conscience with alcohol doesn't cut it.

Theodor Snuddletusk wrote:

Weirdo: "Your inquisitor may intend ..."

But this is where i belive different. It is true, if the same idea that the inquisitor has is used by another person (or himself) and it is an innocent, or the torture is done on a basis that is evil. Fx: To find out where the innkeeper stashes his gold. Than it is evil. But if the intent is good, the motivation is good, and the result is good, than the evil act (as i see it) is not enought to alter the allignment of the inquisitor.

I do believe that results and intentions matter. But before you excuse an action because it has "good results" you have to examine all the results of your action, both direct and indirect, intended and unintended. And before you excuse an action because of "good intentions" you need to determine whether those intentions are realistic or delusional given your actions. If I grab a bottle of asprin from the medicine cabinet, check the instructions, and give my grandmother a pill for her headache, and it turns out that the asprin was mislabelled and I have poisoned my grandmother I am not morally guilty because I had good intentions and did my due diligence. If I grab a random bottle out of the cabinet and just shake out however many pills seem right I am absolutely guilty of poisoning even if I didn't "intend to" because a reasonable person would have anticipated the poisoning.

An evil action that has reasonably forseeable bad results is immoral.

In your inquisitor's case:
1) The result is not good because while he has directly convicted an evil person, he has indirectly supported the use of torture as a tool for gaining convictions, which is systemically Evil as explained above regardless of whether a corner case exists in which it might be justified.

2) If your inquisitor repeats this action even though it yielded bad results, he either is not actually paying attention to the results of his actions or doesn't care. His good intentions are not backed up by due diligence and thus they are morally meaningless.

Theodor Snuddletusk wrote:
Weirdo: A lowlvl inquisitor in a lowlvl setting might have to be forced to use it as a tool. If the spells are avalible and he just cba to use them it is by far not a good sign for his allignment.

Truthtelling is a level 1 spell.

Rysky wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
@Mikaze - Sorry, I think most of us were too busy trying to explain that "torture is evil even if you're pretty sure the victim is guilty/evil" that we missed out on "rape is evil even when it's a horribly contrived situation designed to give your character permission to rape."
No such thing. Ever.

I didn't say it gave permission to rape, I said it was designed to. When I was a kid I went out into the backyard and performed a magic ritual designed to summon fairies. Unfortunately, none answered.

Grand Lodge

Are we noting a difference between physical, and psychological torture?


Rysky wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
@Mikaze - Sorry, I think most of us were too busy trying to explain that "torture is evil even if you're pretty sure the victim is guilty/evil" that we missed out on "rape is evil even when it's a horribly contrived situation designed to give your character permission to rape."
No such thing. Ever.

Between the rapist and the victim, obviously not, since that is what distinguishes the crime from consensual sex.

Between the rapist and other institutions he holds in authority, it (permission to rape) can exist. For instance, laws that decriminalize it, or a slave owner, etc. As Obi-wan Kenobi said, "it was true, from a certain point of view"

Blackbloodtroll wrote:
Are we noting a difference between physical, and psychological torture?

I don't think people have gotten into what actually constitutes torture. Just that torture is evil.

Shadow Lodge

Kain Darkwind wrote:
Blackbloodtroll wrote:
Are we noting a difference between physical, and psychological torture?
I don't think people have gotten into what actually constitutes torture. Just that torture is evil.

There were a few posts to that effect on page 2: (link 1) (link 2) (link 3)


I mean, we haven't parsed out precisely whether

-beating someone with your fists.
-pulling someone's teeth out with pliers.
-keeping someone awake and in an uncomfortable cell for a few days
-keeping someone awake and in an uncomfortable cell for a few years
-threatening to kill someone's loved ones
-actually killing someone's loved ones
-lying to someone and making them believe you've killed their loved ones.
-starvation
-the rack
-rape
-flensing
-throwing a spitball at someone's face every day for four years
-tying someone up with a rope and holding them very close to a lethal source of damage
-waterboarding

Etc, are torture, if used for interrogation.


Scavion wrote:

Theodur for what it's worth, I think your inquisitor is still in the green.

He knows the bad guy is evil. He lacks evidence for a conviction so he gets the bad guy to confess through torture. That's clearly against the law but I don't believe it goes against the end goal of "Putting evil behind bars." I'd sign up for team Chaotic Good or even Neutral Good.

I have to sincerely disagree.

Torture - hurting and oppressing.

Front and center in the basic Pathfinder definition of evil.

We can debate whether or not torture is effective all day long, but whichever answer you favor, it doesn't change the moral question, and I don't think there's even any room for argument as far as the game rules go.

Also, if I am going to object to ineffective torture partly on grounds of respecting classic inquisitorial villain tropes, I think I have to object to ends-over-means justifying torture and whatever as Good, as well, on the same grounds. The Well-Intentioned Extremist is an excellent and classic villain trope, and the inquisitorial villain committing atrocities in the name of Good is an iconic manifestation of that trope. Let's not defang it.


Coriat wrote:
Scavion wrote:

Theodur for what it's worth, I think your inquisitor is still in the green.

He knows the bad guy is evil. He lacks evidence for a conviction so he gets the bad guy to confess through torture. That's clearly against the law but I don't believe it goes against the end goal of "Putting evil behind bars." I'd sign up for team Chaotic Good or even Neutral Good.

I have to sincerely disagree.

Torture - hurting and oppressing.

Front and center in the basic Pathfinder definition of evil.

Alignment, Good Vs Evil wrote:
Good Characters and Creatures protect innocent life.

Im afraid your definition differs from the text.


Scavion wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Scavion wrote:

Theodur for what it's worth, I think your inquisitor is still in the green.

He knows the bad guy is evil. He lacks evidence for a conviction so he gets the bad guy to confess through torture. That's clearly against the law but I don't believe it goes against the end goal of "Putting evil behind bars." I'd sign up for team Chaotic Good or even Neutral Good.

I have to sincerely disagree.

Torture - hurting and oppressing.

Front and center in the basic Pathfinder definition of evil.

Alignment, Good Vs Evil wrote:
Good Characters and Creatures protect innocent life.
Im afraid your definition differs from the text.

Well, fear not, because I found that you just don't know how to look things up.

Evil wrote:
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
Coriat wrote:
Torture - hurting and oppressing.
Webster wrote:

Torture - the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

to afflict with severe pain of body or mind


Well screw it. Let's post the whole thing.

Good Vs Evil wrote:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

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.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

I find the presence of the word innocent very interesting in that it is not only in the evil section, but the good one as well.

Webster wrote:

in·no·cent

adjective \ˈi-nə-sənt\

: not guilty of a crime or other wrong act

: not deserving to be harmed

Is the cultist to be tortured guilty of a crime or other wrong act or deserving to be harmed? By Paizo's definition, Evil debases or destroys innocent life. As the cultist is clearly not innocent, it doesn't apply. By inference, it is not evil to debase or destroy non-innocent life.

EDIT: Of course the vague definition couldn't possible be that they intend for both positions to be valid and neither being wrong.


I'm going to go ahead and say, no, the developers of the game did not intend for the position that it is good aligned to torture the non innocent to be valid and not wrong. If they call me out and say otherwise, I'll cheerfully admit I was wrong and wipe the egg off my face.


Well, I wasn't the one who tried to bring up what Paizo defines as good or evil in the text. Merely pointed out that harming non-innocents, by the book alignment, was not evil as Paizo defines it.

Keep in mind theres text in the books about how a good character could kill goblin babies seeing them as a threat that wouldn't divert from their racial evil.


Scavion wrote:
stuff about innocent

If "innocent" appeared in the line I referred to, you would have a strong point in arguing it is meant to govern that line - but it is not there. If it were in the same paragraph, you might have a leg to stand on, but it's not even that. Nor does the line that it is present in indicate that the word is to be taken to govern the later paragraph.

This approach to rulebook parsing is unsound.

However, if you do indeed want to expand the dragnet past what I referred to earlier, we can, indeed, look beyond the hurting and oppressing line - say to Ultimate Campaign, which goes into rather more depth, including defining the core concepts of each individual alignment.

You proposed Chaotic Good as the alignment best fitting such actions, while also somewhat fitting for Neutral Good.

Chaotic Good wrote:
Core Concepts: Benevolence, charity, freedom, joy, kindness, mercy, warmth.
Neutral Good wrote:
Core Concepts: Benevolence, charity, considerateness, goodness, humaneness, kindness, reason, right

So we can see that torture is directly contradictory to Core Concepts ("humaneness... mercy") of your two proposed alignments, and not innately allied to any of them at all.

And then let's look at Lawful Evil.

Lawful Evil wrote:
Core Concepts: Calculation, discipline, malevolence, might, punishment, rationality, subjugation, terror

Calculation. Rationality. Discipline. Punishment. All feature in the justifications of the Torture For the Greater Good inquisitor we've been discussing. Considering that terror is part and parcel of torture, that too, which means we just won Lawful Evil Bingo.


Hmmm, Coriat's post is convincing, at least for me. I guess now it goes back to does one evil act turn you evil, especially if motives are "good" ("good" being intent, not actual moral goodness), or can your inquisitor do it once and still be good aligned? I would argue yes, but only because the CRB makes it very clear that the alignment is not a railroad, and there would be some kind of consequence. If it happens repeatedly, then I'd definitely shift their alignment.

I always like the idea of corruption as a powerful story tool. Gives a hint of sadness to the whole thing. A game where a PC is trying to do a good thing but ends up destroying his own soul...


mmsbhs wrote:

Hmmm, Coriat's post is convincing, at least for me. I guess now it goes back to does one evil act turn you evil, especially if motives are "good" ("good" being intent, not actual moral goodness), or can your inquisitor do it once and still be good aligned? I would argue yes, but only because the CRB makes it very clear that the alignment is not a railroad, and there would be some kind of consequence. If it happens repeatedly, then I'd definitely shift their alignment.

I always like the idea of corruption as a powerful story tool. Gives a hint of sadness to the whole thing. A game where a PC is trying to do a good thing but ends up destroying his own soul...

Have to agree on that. I could see a lot of story fun to be had with a character who uses torture once in some kind of extreme situation, and has it end up working (or at least appearing to work). And that leads to the temptation to keep using it, because you know this minion can tell you where the children are before the mass-sacrifice happens, but he just won't give up the info. Then have the reasons slowly get thinner and thinner, until they start sounding like excuses.


Coriat wrote:
Scavion wrote:
stuff about innocent

If "innocent" appeared in the line I referred to, you would have a strong point in arguing it is meant to govern that line - but it is not there. If it were in the same paragraph, you might have a leg to stand on, but it's not even that. Nor does the line that it is present in indicate that the word is to be taken to govern the later paragraph.

This approach to rulebook parsing is unsound.

Unsound because it doesn't agree with your own reading? Wow. So because I disagree with you and have shown you where the text doesn't make any direct statement, in fact it specifically lacks a statement on the treatment of non-innocent individuals, my reading is unsound?

The particular section you quoted is in the same section as the one I did. I merely showed it's entire context.

Good Vs Evil wrote:
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

A definition of "imply" is "to contain potentially" which means this sentence could be read that evil might mean that one hurts, oppresses, or kills others but does not mean that it definitely does.

I don't understand why it's so hard to believe the rule is written to be vague to allow the greatest variety of concepts.

Good fights Good sometimes. The Well-Intentioned Extremist is still an interesting encounter whether the alignment written on his sheet is good or evil. Demanding it to be only one way just takes away from it.


Quote:
Unsound because it doesn't agree with your own reading? Wow.

It's not personal. It's unsound to apply an adjective from one sentence to a different sentence - in a different paragraph - when the text gives no indication that you should do so. It's not a good way to read rulebooks.


Coriat wrote:
Quote:
Unsound because it doesn't agree with your own reading? Wow.
It's not personal. It's unsound to apply an adjective from one sentence to a different sentence - in a different paragraph - when the text gives no indication that you should do so. It's not a good way to read rulebooks.

It's not about the adjective. I told you why that sentence lacks anything concrete.

Scavion wrote:
A definition of "imply" is "to contain potentially" which means this sentence could be read that evil might mean that one hurts, oppresses, or kills others but does not mean that it definitely does.

Or are you telling me there is only one way to read that sentence?

301 to 333 of 333 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Inquisitors and torture All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.