Inquisitors and torture


Advice

1 to 50 of 333 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

One of players, who will be playing an inquisitor hunting down arcane magicians, and he was asking if inquisitors are allowed to torture their enemies for information to serve the greater good. After reading various flavour descriptions I ruled he can, but it had to be considered a very grim necessity, so he would realistically want to cut down on the savagery of the process. I also said he should pray after each time physical pain becomes necessary, not a lengthy atonement spell, just penance he couldn't find a better way.

Any actual rules on this that Paizo has released for inquisitors, or what have others ruled in their games?


Every character can torture his enemies, there is nothing that phisically prohibit them to do it. However, they could face aligment shift if the DM think is apporpiated. The inquisitor could lose his powers if torturing is against the god ethos, again, at DM judgement.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, there's actually an option for Inquisitors called the Torture Inquisition. They also get access to spells like Confess that damages and debufss targets if they don't answer the Inquistor's questions. Fluff-wise Inquisitors get more leeway in the tactics they choose compared to other clergy of a religion. However there are some limits depending on the Inquisitor's Alignment and what Deity they worship. For example Iomedae, the core Paladin style godess of Golarian flat out loathes people who who use "it was for the greater good" as an excuse." Shelyn hates it when people try to hide ugliness behind a beautiful veneer.

An example of Inquisitorial leeway would be Sarenrae. She's a NG angelic looking goddess of Goodness, Healing, and Redemption. Sounds all fluffy pillows and rainbows right? However some of her splinter cults do some extremely heinous things in the name of Redemption. Horrible acts such as out right Jihad, torture, and mind screwing evil people with compulsion spells to force them onto the path of goodness.
Even in her core church, if words fail to sway evil doers, pretty much anything except casual and thoughtless cruelty is permitted to make wicked people have change of heart.

An Inquisitor for most Neutral or Evil gods would pretty much have free reign to torture as long as it served a valid purpose based on their own ethos.

What's more important though is the tone of the game. If the people at the table are okay with things getting Grim Dark then in most cases torture can be fluffed away with a few Hail Mary's while the Inquisitor is refreshing his daily spells. Truth be told, an Inquisitor built for it really have no need to for an investigation to pass beyond a few harsh words and a slap across the face. They get tons fact finding steroids with Stern Gaze and Discern Lies built in as class abilities. They also have a good number of spells on their dedicated to drawing out answers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Who does he worship?

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It really depends on the character's alignment, and his god's. Zon-Kuthon would be upset if you didn't torture your enemies. Calistria wouldn't care very much either way, as long as it was part of your vengeance. Shelyn, Sarenrae or Desna would NOT approve.

The Exchange

Iomedae's attitude is... well, people who've done Wrath of the Righteous will have a different opinion than the rest of us.

If you're not sure, toxicpie, answer, "No, torture is against your religious principles." It's not as if the typical inquisitor can't get at the truth just as easily through regular interrogation - have you seen their Sense Motive modifier?! Let the folks with detect thoughts, discern lies, etc. pull out those spells. And I've had very good results over the years with generous bribery...


It's not anywhere close to necessary. Detect thoughts is a 2nd-level inquisitor spell, and you have a free zone of truth. The usage for the latter should be obvious, and the former can be used after prompting in the form of questions, thus making the relevant information count as surface thoughts. Inquisitors can do questionable things when necessary (e.g. forging a warrant, probably), but they can't do questionable things just because they want to.

The Exchange

Honestly, getting what you want through interrogation tends to be more effective and more entertaining. Shows off your brains.

Black Widow (to Loki): Thank you for your cooperation.

Sovereign Court

From the Inquisitor's introduction:

APG wrote:
Grim and determined, the inquisitor roots out enemies of the faith, using trickery and guile when righteousness and purity is not enough. Although inquisitors are dedicated to a deity, they are above many of the normal rules and conventions of the church. They answer to their deity and their own sense of justice alone, and are willing to take extreme measures to meet their goals.

I think you've got the right idea, toxicpie. Inquisitors are specifically the class that CAN do the things a Cleric or Paladin of the same deity are forbidden to. That does not, however, mean they have a free pass - the freedom to transgress the church's doctrines comes with the responsibility to not do so unless necessary. An Inquisitor who abuses his power may just find himself the target of his church's other inquisitors...


Suma3da wrote:
What's more important though is the tone of the game. If the people at the table are okay with things getting Grim Dark then in most cases torture can be fluffed away with a few Hail Mary's while the Inquisitor is refreshing his daily spells. Truth be told, an Inquisitor built for it really have no need to for an investigation to pass beyond a few harsh words and a slap across the face. They get tons fact finding steroids with Stern Gaze and Discern Lies built in as class abilities. They also have a good number of spells on their spell list dedicated to drawing out answers.

Absolutely. Many players tend to jump straight to the overt "SWEAR TO ME!" style of investigation. But, between their inbuilt mechanics and spell list, Inquisitors have more than enough tools in their toolbox handle any investigation non-violently.


Allow me to throw in real world application as that may offer something of use....

During the height of the Inquisition, it was papal or church law that no blood of a Christian could be shed but "torture" was permitted if judged right by someone in authority of the church did so. These tortures could be anything from food or sleep deprivation to some of the worst things one can easily imagine. The other way to get around this was if someone was declared a witch then they were not Christian and they could be tortured any way the inquisitors chose (often in the form of rape or sodomy). Nonetheless the law of no blood shed of a Christian remained in effect for I believe something like 200+ years.

Perhaps the Deities in Golarian impose a similar restriction based on alignment or ethos.


A minor off topic question. Does anyone else find it interesting that spells like Confess, Persuasive Goad, and Instrument of Agony are perfectly kosher on the good/evil axis, yet Greater Interrogation is singled out as being an [Evil] spell? In certain situations, killing them first and then asking questions from their corpses with Speak with Dead would be less evil than using the Interrogation spell.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Torture is Evil. Class has absolutely no bearing on this.

And the flavor description of Inquisitor is a much less harsh and frightening than that of Ranger. Heck, if the flavor descriptions actually meant much all Rangers would be social darwinist psychopaths.

I mean actually look at these:

Ranger wrote:
For those who relish the thrill of the hunt, there are only predators and prey. Be they scouts, trackers, or bounty hunters, rangers share much in common: unique mastery of specialized weapons, skill at stalking even the most elusive game, and the expertise to defeat a wide range of quarries. Knowledgeable, patient, and skilled hunters, these rangers hound man, beast, and monster alike, gaining insight into the way of the predator, skill in varied environments, and ever more lethal martial prowess. While some track man-eating creatures to protect the frontier, others pursue more cunning game—even fugitives among their own people.
Inquisitor wrote:
Grim and determined, the inquisitor roots out enemies of the faith, using trickery and guile when righteousness and purity is not enough. Although inquisitors are dedicated to a deity, they are above many of the normal rules and conventions of the church. They answer to their deity and their own sense of justice alone, and are willing to take extreme measures to meet their goals.

Which of those sounds worse?

And the second explicitly says they must answer to their deity...so unless the deity approves of torture (which Good deities do not), you don't get to torture people.


A few things. First to ignore morality the inquisitor would need a class feature that said so clearly.

Secondly the rules of the mortal church are not the god who gives them their power.

But really the lack of a beyond morality class feature is the big issue.


I would add what is torture? Things like water boarding are unpleasant to be sure but does no permanent damage. Is this torture? If your willin to say as a GM that isn't torture then you and the inquisitor both have an out.


Unless you have a political agenda to suggest otherwise yes simulating a near death by drowning repeatedly falls under most definitions of torture.

Most people would basically admit to killing their own parents (who are still very much alive) just to make it stop.

There are enough spells to painlessly get information subjecting somone to simulated drowning is rather cruel for a good alignment.

On a side note I read about a German interogatoe who was so good at simply getting people to agree ro give him information voluntarily. That after the war there were no negative feeligings from the prisoners he worked with.

It was a while ago though and I can't remember the fine details.


Mojorat wrote:

Unless you have a political agenda to suggest otherwise yes simulating a near death by drowning repeatedly falls under most definitions of torture.

Most people would basically admit to killing their own parents (who are still very much alive) just to make it stop.

There are enough spells to painlessly get information subjecting somone to simulated drowning is rather cruel for a good alignment.

On a side note I read about a German interogatoe who was so good at simply getting people to agree ro give him information voluntarily. That after the war there were no negative feeligings from the prisoners he worked with.

It was a while ago though and I can't remember the fine details.

I get what your saying, I do. And I'm not bringing politics into this at all. But torture is defined as inflicting pain on someone...having experience in this matter I can say I had more pain from falling through my ceiling two nights ago. And simple tortures like simulating drowning are weak as you know they are t going to kill you and it doesn't permantly hurt you. A simple marine corp "soap bath" where they beat you with a bar of soap is more damaging to body and "barbaric" in nature and that is done everyday. But I don't hate marines, I like most of em in fact. Are they evil?

Point being you as the GM need to decide what is torture and what is not. There are 3 levels of torture as far as I can tell... 1) inflicting pain to compel cooperation, 2) inflicting permanent damage to force cooperation and, 3) sadist activities.


This thread isn't grimdark enough. Inquisitors man, physical torture and pain is the minimal I expect during interrogations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I tend to see it as a problem to look at a fantasy setting that is not a modern scientific world with our contemporary morality.
For example today we know that beating children, even your own ones is a bad thing to do. But in the times that more closely resembled the golarion societies it was normal to do that.

So in terms of morality I give PCs (those I gm for and those I play) more leeway than our modern world-view would allow.


Umbranus wrote:

I tend to see it as a problem to look at a fantasy setting that is not a modern scientific world with our contemporary morality.

For example today we know that beating children, even your own ones is a bad thing to do. But in the times that more closely resembled the golarion societies it was normal to do that.

So in terms of morality I give PCs (those I gm for and those I play) more leeway than our modern world-view would allow.

Word!


It is important to note, Inquisitors don't even need to follow a Deity to get their abilities. Like Paladins, they can become an embodiment of an Idea simply by believing hard enough in it. For example they could be an Inquisitor of Harsh Justice if they believe strongly enough in the law and that criminals should be punished. They alternatively become an Inquisitor of Anti-Magic if they feel arcane practitioners need restricting.


Thanks everyone, really interesting discussion and some great thoughts. I like the point about the spells making torture unnecessary.
The deities aren't the Golarion gods, instead they are the Ancient Greek gods. He's an inquisitor of Hera, and I haven't decided if she's LG or LN. Are there any gods of marriage, childbirth, women etc. like her in Golarion?


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Renegadeshepherd wrote:

I get what your saying, I do. And I'm not bringing politics into this at all. But torture is defined as inflicting pain on someone...having experience in this matter I can say I had more pain from falling through my ceiling two nights ago. And simple tortures like simulating drowning are weak as you know they are t going to kill you and it doesn't permantly hurt you. A simple marine corp "soap bath" where they beat you with a bar of soap is more damaging to body and "barbaric" in nature and that is done everyday. But I don't hate marines, I like most of em in fact. Are they evil?

Point being you as the GM need to decide what is torture and what is not. There are 3 levels of torture as far as I can tell... 1) inflicting pain to compel cooperation, 2) inflicting permanent damage to force cooperation and, 3) sadist activities.

Torture is not defined as inflicting pain on someone. Sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, starvation, thirst, and rape are all methods used that do not work primarily through pain. Torture is getting information (or just for the lulz) through any means necessary. Pain is merely one way to do it.

As for not permanently hurting you, that is quite simply not true. In a large percentage of cases, torture permanently changes the victim in personality, giving rise to untreatable anxiety disorders of which post-traumatic stress disorder is the most well known. PTSD sufferers usually report worse quality of life than the sufferers of the worst chronic pain syndromes.

Again, it is not the pain involved. It is helplessness. Being subjected to that, especially for long periods of time or in situations where you feel you are getting killed slowly (like waterboarding), DOES things to people. You mutilate their very personality, and there is no way to fix it. Ever. Let me restate that for your convenience: Waterboarding is cruelty on a scale no human should EVER be subjected to. Imagine it yourself. You're tied down and helpless. They put a number of towels over your mouth and nose. Then they pour water on the towels, and you can't breathe. You can't breathe for too long, and you feel your mind getting damaged, fainting, dying... then you get air. For a little while... then it happens again... again and again... your mind getting more and more wounded and damaged each time. And you can't get it to stop. That a human would to this to another is incomprehensible. On Ireland during the nineteenth century, they used half-hangings. A charming method of killing someone... you string them up gently so as not to break their neck or damage their throat. Then when they fall unconscious, you take them down, and when they wake up, it's time again. Eventually, you let them die. Sound familiar?

A beating, by contrast, is a short-term, painful bout that the human body can recover from very well, so long as it is not a recurring event you can't prevent.

There are three levels of torture: 1) Monstrous acts against human beings that should be illegal in any country calling itself civilized, 2) Monstrous acts against human beings that should be illegal in any country calling itself civilized, and 3) Monstrous acts against human beings that should be illegal in any country calling itself civilized.

EDIT: My first thought when you write "having experience in this matter" was that you knew a thing or two about being in pain. It strikes me that I may be far too charitable here. If the "matters" you have experience in is torture, then do yourself a favour and do not speak of it in any sort of civilized company. Not everything can be forgiven, or excused.


toxicpie wrote:

Thanks everyone, really interesting discussion and some great thoughts. I like the point about the spells making torture unnecessary.

The deities aren't the Golarion gods, instead they are the Ancient Greek gods. He's an inquisitor of Hera, and I haven't decided if she's LG or LN. Are there any gods of marriage, childbirth, women etc. like her in Golarion?

Pharisma prayed to for midwifery as she is goddess of death (mostly) and so women pray to her during pregnancy. No goddess is patroness of women as a whole (or at least has dominance) but marriage I'm not sure about. Shelyn is goddess of love but not marriage per say. Ill look into that.

Edit: I would recommend Hera be LN as she did do some bad stuff against those who violated sanctity of marriage, especially against Zeus' children not born of Hera.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
toxicpie wrote:

Thanks everyone, really interesting discussion and some great thoughts. I like the point about the spells making torture unnecessary.

The deities aren't the Golarion gods, instead they are the Ancient Greek gods. He's an inquisitor of Hera, and I haven't decided if she's LG or LN. Are there any gods of marriage, childbirth, women etc. like her in Golarion?

Not the best fit for Hera, but the Egyptian Goddess Isis has be incorporated into Golarion. She counts Fertility, Magic, Motherhood, and Rebirth among her Areas of Concern.

There's a LG demigoddess named Falayna. Not a heavy hitter, but she's the Empyreal Lord of Femininity, Martial Training, and Rings.


To elaborate a little on my earlier posting...
Some years ago a man abducted a child. He was caught by the police but the child could not be found and the man refused to tell where he kept the child. He just grinned and told them that despite having him they can't save the child because he (or she don't remember if it was a boy or girl) would starve.
After some time a high ranking police officer threatened to torture the criminal if he did not reveal the child's location. Eventually he did.
I do not remember if the child could be saved or was already dead. What I do remember is that the criminal brought the police officer to trial who lost his job for threatening to torture him.

This perversion of justice is today. I refuse to use the same moral in fantasy settings. Why should the wellbeing of a criminal be more important than the life of an abducted child?

If it really serves a direct higher goal like saving of an innocent child I'd always ignore the fact that developers with our modern moral views see torture as evil.


The threat wasn't starvation. The little girl would drown unless the criminal confessed. I remember when that story broke too, ahh, 1971...

Here, link to the story.


Oh, I should clarify: when I wrote "if the 'matters' you have experience in is torture", I did not mean being subjected to torture, but torturing. There is no risk for confusion, though. Someone actually subjected to torture would never claim it was no big deal. Oddly enough, huh?


The case I was referring to happened in Germany in 2002.

Wikipedia wrote:
On September 27, 2002, he kidnapped Jakob von Metzler in order to blackmail his parents, but killed him in his apartment. Gäfgen then demanded one million euro in ransom from the Metzler family.[2] He was observed by the police when he picked up the ransom. After a few hours, during which he had booked a holiday and not released his victim, who was already dead, he was arrested. After being threatened[2] with torture, as ordered by Frankfurt Police Vice President Wolfgang Daschner, he confessed and told where the body was hidden.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, they managed to recover a body. And all it cost them was breaking the Geneva Convention on Torture. One would have thought the germans knew the importance of not doing that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
So, they managed to recover a body. And all it cost them was breaking the Geneva Convention on Torture. One would have thought the germans knew the importance of not doing that.

No, it's okay. You see, criminals aren't really people so you don't have to treat them as such.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

He told them the boy was still alive. And they did not torture him, they only threatened it.

hypocrisy:

And, you know, threatening someone to save a child is still better than American policemen beating up black suspects just for fun.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Umbranus wrote:


This perversion of justice is today. I refuse to use the same moral in fantasy settings. Why should the wellbeing of a criminal be more important than the life of an abducted child?

This is completely off topic but you're asking the wrong question. The right question is what would the world be like if the police had been able to torture him? The answer is it would be horrendous. Take a look at what eastern Europe was like before the wall fell and the wide spread abuses by the authorities. Don't forget emotive cases like the above are extremely rare and powers given to authority WILL be misused, typically against the most vulnerable members of society.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbranus wrote:
And, you know, threatening someone to save a child is still better than American policemen beating up black suspects just for fun.

But you're fine with them beating up the ones who really deserve it, right?


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Torture is an insidious, deeply evil thing. Once you start, you will need to cover it up, because it's something that escalates. The prisoner we thought we could break with threats of torture didn't break, so we inflict light pain. Still nothing. Harsh beatings. Still nothing. "Light" torture like waterboarding. Still nothing. Fake executions. Still nothing. Okay, we actually kill him if he doesn't talk. Nothing. Blam. Ooops, guess he didn't know after all. Or, hunger strikes. Well, nothing that force-feeding through the nose can't fix. Or unintentional killings. Or when the guy that has been completely destroyed through years of torture is finally put in court to testify, his testimony is disregarded because he's been too mentally damaged. And if it comes out, a LOT of highly placed people will get VERY uncomfortable questions - so classified it is. And then, the next generation of people in charge have an interest in not disclosing either, because a) they know the people that used to be in charge, b) they don't want to be responsible for what the last people in charge did, and c) they want the tools the last people in charge had, so the horror story continues. The ONLY place to stop it is before you begin. The alternative is a decade or so of thorough investigation, public denouncement and severe punishments of the involved people and millions upon millions in damages, both personally and from the state. And, note that the US did sign the Geneva Convention against Torture, but did not ratify it.

Torture remains one of the absolute worst things a government can do or allow. It taints everyone involved. The ones who actually do it are subhuman monsters.


Silas Hawkwinter wrote:
Umbranus wrote:


This perversion of justice is today. I refuse to use the same moral in fantasy settings. Why should the wellbeing of a criminal be more important than the life of an abducted child?
This is completely off topic but you're asking the wrong question. The right question is what would the world be like if the police had been able to torture him? The answer is it would be horrendous. Take a look at what eastern Europe was like before the wall fell and the wide spread abuses by the authorities. Don't forget emotive cases like the above are extremely rare and powers given to authority WILL be misused, typically against the most vulnerable members of society.

Perhaps you are right.

Still the two policemen involved in that case are heroes in my view. Partly because they did what was right despite knowing that they'd be punished for it.

And back to topic:
In my games actions like that are ok for everyone except paladins. The latter have to rely on others to handle this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Indeed. A personal decision to sidestep the rules, knowing you will be punished for it, I can respect that since they did not actually torture the person. Having torture be sanctioned by the state, having its civil liberties sidestepped by "extraordinary rendition" into territories where those liberties do not exist such as Cuba, Egypt and so on, having government people in the DoJ defend the practice of torture - that's despicable, dangerous and unforgiveable.

As for paladins, well, a paladin that "relied on others for this" or even considered doing so, would be a fallen paladin in VERY short order. Anyone else torturing would no longer be Good.

Silver Crusade

I think that you are right to say "cut down on the savagery of the process," especially if they are not playing an evil-ish PC.
All the inquisitor needs to do is use the intimidate skill rather than diplomacy to get the answers they seek. I think that is the purpose for the Inquisitor's bonuses to Intimidate and Sense Motive.

As DM, you may allow a bonus to the check depending on what kind of additional pressure is used, and I seem to remember my DM ruling that the first check requires little time- like a standard action, but if I want to get deep into torture then it requires multiple checks that take time, say 1 hour or more, but the actual methods are hand-waved as you try to break down the target's will. I don't recall if it came from some source, or if it was just his ruling on the fly, but it makes sense to me.

My LN (borderline LE) Inquisitor of Asmodeus has only ever needed to display his "interrogation instruments" (masterwork tools for a +2 bonus) and role play something to the effect of "my divine mandate requires that I use any means necessary to discover the truth of your words, and I will have the truth one way or another." Then its just roll the skill check followed by discern lies or sense motive.


The problem with that court case is this. You can't use a case where the police picked the right person then threatened torture as an example of a positive outcome.

For a theoretical example what if a little white girl went missing in the deep south of the us in say 1957. They find her body around the time a black man is drifting through the area. He's fought arrested and after advance es interrogation techniques confesses. Only he did nor do it and simply confessed under duress.

In the case from Germany what if they just wrested somone who needed mental help (again happens /all/ the time) and the policeman had gone through with it?

Ultimately torture doesn't work as well as other methods at best it will cause pain just ro get somone ro tell you something they already knew at worst of creates false leads as they agree or admit anything to make of stop. It was revealed.

Its basically an ineffective information gathering tool and in a world of magic good people have other methods.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally I think torture is evil, and while a good aligned character doing it once under super extreme circumstance when all magic is expended and there is absolutely positively no other option wouldn't cause a character to immediately lose all divine powers, it should cause a minor alighnment shift or at least keep a GM watchful.

But for an Inquisitor of HERA? Throw her own son off a mountain Hera? Toss vipers into an infants cradle Hera? Make a man crazy and force him to brutally murder his wife and children and then spend the next decade or so sending him on dangerous torturous missions as punishment for killing his family Hera? Torture away my good man, your Goddess is giving you a thumbs up and a high five.


Torture...hmmm...I could hurt you and maybe know if you are lying...or use detect evil, detect thoughts, charm, or one of a hundred under skill/spells that are more likely to work...

Scarab Sages

Torture is not for information extraction, since it is unreliable when compared with spells.

It's for revenge, to inflict pain for it's own sake, or to perform an obedience to your god.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Torture is available as a skill and can be used as your day job check. My sorcerer has it since its a charisma based skill check. Ive never doubted the validity of information that Ive extracted :)


Well pfs is its own issue and it would be profession (torture) and wis based. I do not know where you get the ides it is change based. Secondly in pfs dm barely notice what your day job is. However torture has been explicitly stated as evil..this means any dm who notices is within their rights ro flag your character.as evil.

If for some buzzard reason there is a torture vanity... then I haven't a clue.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

May have mispoken about wisdon/charisma but that really wasnt the point. If profession (torturer) has not been made unavailable via PFS rules then I dont see how any GM can flag a character as evil simply because they have that profession and use it as their day job check. A character being declared evil in PFS has serious ramifications and I dont think its wise to have an available skill auto-declare you as evil and be removed from PFS play.

As it stands, I have a PFS character with profession (torturer) and I'll continue to roll day job checks with it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbranus wrote:

I tend to see it as a problem to look at a fantasy setting that is not a modern scientific world with our contemporary morality.

For example today we know that beating children, even your own ones is a bad thing to do. But in the times that more closely resembled the golarion societies it was normal to do that.

So in terms of morality I give PCs (those I gm for and those I play) more leeway than our modern world-view would allow.

Pathfinder is set in a world with a set of defined and objective moral principles. There is no moral relativism. And the person who decides what's Evil is a modern person (the GM) based on a set of listed principles that very much adhere to modern morality. So what people thought was right at some previous time has no bearing on the morality of Pathfinder.

Umbranus wrote:

To elaborate a little on my earlier posting...

Some years ago a man abducted a child. He was caught by the police but the child could not be found and the man refused to tell where he kept the child. He just grinned and told them that despite having him they can't save the child because he (or she don't remember if it was a boy or girl) would starve.
After some time a high ranking police officer threatened to torture the criminal if he did not reveal the child's location. Eventually he did.
I do not remember if the child could be saved or was already dead. What I do remember is that the criminal brought the police officer to trial who lost his job for threatening to torture him.

This perversion of justice is today. I refuse to use the same moral in fantasy settings. Why should the wellbeing of a criminal be more important than the life of an abducted child?

If it really serves a direct higher goal like saving of an innocent child I'd always ignore the fact that developers with our modern moral views see torture as evil.

The threat of doing something is not the actual moral equivalent of doing the thing in question. I'm fine with the police threatening all kinds of crazy s!&+, as long as they don't actually do it. It's called lying, and at least in the U.S. the police are allowed to lie like rugs.

Also, unlike threats (which have been known to work), torture is an utterly unreliable information extraction tool. People will say quite literally anything their torturer wants to hear under torture...including a whole host of things that aren't even remotely true. It's great for getting confessions (whether the person being tortured is guilty or not), but terrible at extracting actual useful information.


I moved the pfs discussion to here


Torture if part of interrogation if done professionally is unfortunatly quite good in extracting information.
You can get decent information from WW1, WW2, if you are lucky the cold war, and even more recent examples. To work with the informations, or if the poor soul does not have the informations you seek is another story, but....
And I mean professionally, like being done by people who are experts in Psychology, medicine and more.


Another myth. It has not been shown to work better than the other methods available, like misdirection and such. And in several cases, the evidence has been summarily thrown out for being useless.


Torture is always evil. Sometimes neutral characters slip and indulge in it, but they should be required to atone. Good characters must NEVER torture.

A LN inquisitor of Hera? Sure, he might stoop to torture in a dire enough situation, but each instance moves him a step closer to evil. Even Hera didn't support that level of disgraceful and dishonorable behavior.

1 to 50 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.