PDA

View Full Version : Good Interrogation



Gamer Girl
2011-05-19, 05:05 PM
Inspired by the other Interrogation themed thread.

The Plot:The Big Bad is up to something. And the only ones that can stop him are the player characters. They only have a vague idea of what his Big Bad Plan is, but they are determined to stop her. They have fought a couple skirmishes with the Big Bad's Minions, and while she got away, the players did catch her number one assistant.

So now the characters have nothing left to go on, except what the Big Bad's assistant knows. She, of course, refuses to talk. And torture is out of the question. And the character's are of generally low charisma so they can't win an opposed skill check.

So that leaves magic. They can cast a whole slew of charms and compulsions, plus mind reading and otherwise force the Big Bad's assistant to tell them everything.

And that brings us to The QuestionIs it a good act(and OK for their alignment) for good characters to unwilling force a person to tell them information. They know the person will never willing give up the information, so is it alright to 'trick' them into doing so with magic? Is it alright as they are not physically hurt, and the damage done is all in their mind(they have forced the person to break a promise or vow and go against what they want)?

Is it really a good act to force someone to do anything, against their will?

mathemagician
2011-05-19, 05:22 PM
Is it really a good act to force someone to do anything, against their will?

Presumably they've forced a lot of creatures to die against their will.

Or arrested them against their will.


This question needs to be carefully worded.


Is it alright as they are not physically hurt, and the damage done is all in their mind(they have forced the person to break a promise or vow and go against what they want)?

Mental damage can hurt for much longer than physical trauma. So this needs to be evaluated carefully. Breaking promises and vows can be rationalized in a lot of ways, especially if compensation is given. "The BBEG will kill me if he finds out I told" can be countered with witness protection programs, etc.


Just thinking out loud here, but...
Why are the PCs in this situation anyway? If the only way to stop the BBEG is to change alignments, to me, it doesn't seem so far away from "rocks fall and you die."

Gamer Girl
2011-05-19, 05:31 PM
Just thinking out loud here, but...
Why are the PCs in this situation anyway? If the only way to stop the BBEG is to change alignments, to me, it doesn't seem so far away from "rocks fall and you die."

It's just a general question. (I'm a the type that thinks it's OK for good folks to torture)

A lot of people think torture is wrong, yet the are OK with all types of mental assaults, magical assaults and forcing people to do what you want.

dsmiles
2011-05-19, 05:34 PM
Is it really a good act to force someone to do anything, against their will?I think, in this particular situation, that charming or dominating said assistant is a far less evil act than torturing her. It may still not be a good act, per se, but it is definitely far less evil, IMO.

Analytica
2011-05-19, 05:36 PM
In my opinion?

Good and Evil alignments are ill-defined and difficult to use. Still, they serve a purpose within the game system, in that they have consequences. Adress it in that manner. Does doing these things make it more likely for paladins to get the evil sense tingle around you, for Dictum spells to harm you, for celestials to like you? Will doing these things make it harder for you to get a Ur-Priest to teach you, or for some reason make you more or less able to gain levels as a warlock? As long as those questions are answered, you can just use their composite answer and put that on your character sheet. It does become a black box, with some presumably complicated machinery inside, but perhaps there is no non-complex philosophical principle that can yield the same outcome as the rules system and mass of divergent flavour text sections seem to imply.

Regarding the concrete question... a truly, truly exalted good creature would probably feel remorse over any coercion or use of force. They might do it anyway if the alternative was worse, and then they might need to be consoled by their deity to feel better again. Most of us probably wouldn't want to be friends with someone who didn't hesitate in the slightest to use coercion or force on their fellow sentients. Also, most of us probably wouldn't want to be friends with someone who would rather let a billion orphan kittens die than Dominate someone to tell them the password to the doomsday device.

Geigan
2011-05-19, 05:37 PM
I'll say neutral. Harming is evil blah blah blah, any harm etc. etc. Though I'll say for the greater good this is no big deal at all, and it's certainly a less evil option than torture.

Pisha
2011-05-19, 06:20 PM
It's not the Good option, it's the Less-Evil option.

Basically, in a situation like this, they have a few choices. They can:

a) Wring their hands and do nothing while the BBEG carries out his BBE plans. (this allows them to keep their hands clean, but - assuming the BBEG IS doing something nasty - pretty much allows his victims to suffer and die.)

b) Continue to sweet-talk the captive. Hey, maybe with enough tea and scones, she'll come around to their way of thinking and help them voluntarily. (This is the best outcome morally, but is highly unlikely to occur in this situation based on the info you've provided.)

c) Torture her until she talks. (This is not only a Very Bad Thing To Do, it's also - surprisingly - not reliable. Despite what movies and tv shows would have you believe, torture is not an ideal method to get info out of someone. How could you tell if she was telling the truth? How could you tell if she even knew the truth? Maybe the BBEG is a paranoid jerk who keeps even his closest associates on a need-to-know basis. Maybe she's got a high Fort/Will and Bluff, and even though she seems to be begging for mercy, she's still lying through her teeth.)

(Note: to demonstrate the above, someone posted the following thought experiment on a different forum I frequent. It goes like this: imagine you've been captured by people who know you work for the enemy, and who are willing to torture you to get the truth out of you. As soon as the torture starts, you realize you can't take it and want to talk. How do you confess so as to minimize the torture you receive? The answer is that you pretty much can't. Especially if you break early, they pretty much have to assume you're lying to get out of torture, so they're likely to torture you more to get the "real" truth out of you.)

d) Use magic. (Violates the privacy of the person's mind and/or removes their free will, but has the advantage of being likely to work and reliable if it does work.)

Depending on how sure you are that the BBEG really is planning something, and that the captive knows his plans, option D really does seem like the best of a bunch of bad choices. Mind-rape and taking someone's free will away are not good things to do, make no mistake, and a party that used that as their first option would start to shift alignment quickly, but in an extreme situation it's better than sitting on your hands and hoping that it all works out. As long as it really was used as a last-resort sort of thing, I don't think it would affect the alignment of most Good characters (though they may feel slightly dirty afterward.) Depending on his Order, a paladin might need an atonement spell, but after hearing the circumstances I'd expect any Good-aligned cleric to cast it for him without question.

Geigan
2011-05-19, 06:59 PM
I wouldn't say using magic to force the truth out of them isn't quite evil enough for a paladin to fall in and of itself. That's why I'd say neutral. There are certainly different types of magic that would be used though. Mind Rape out of BoVD is most certainly evil, but something like Zone of Truth that's actually on the paladin spell list isn't. Of course you can shut your mouth to a zone of truth but a paladin could cast it without the prisoner's knowledge hoping to get something out before he realizes, and deception isn't inherently evil either. Not to say that those kind of things can't be abused but I'd say that it's all about the context about which it is used in. Kidnapping someone and forcing their worst secrets out of them for your own sick amusement? Evil. Kidnapping and forcing the secrets out of them to possibly save lives? Neutral at the very worst(all IMO of course). Also it depends on how often the tactic is used. If a character uses magical coercion at the drop of a hat then he's definitely going to lean further south on the scale, opposed to someone who did it only when the situation demanded it.

...and of course we can't have a discussion about alignment without getting in-depth on paladins.:smalltongue:

Pisha
2011-05-19, 07:16 PM
Well, of course. The spell used and the way it's used is always going to make a difference. Zone of Truth is pretty benign; other spells may not be.

Everything, especially morality/alignment-based questions, needs to be taken with a grain of salt, because small, subtle changes can have a big impact. It's impossible to create a one-size-fits-all response. That's why I said a paladin might need an atonement spell, and should be able to get one pretty easily if so.

dsmiles
2011-05-19, 07:21 PM
Well, of course. The spell used and the way it's used is always going to make a difference. Zone of Truth is pretty benign; other spells may not be.

Everything, especially morality/alignment-based questions, needs to be taken with a grain of salt, because small, subtle changes can have a big impact. It's impossible to create a one-size-fits-all response. That's why I said a paladin might need an atonement spell, and should be able to get one pretty easily if so.Personally, as a DM, I really don't think I would make a Paladin fall for using a charm or dominate spell to get the info. I'd probably make them fall for using torture (or if they continued the charm or dominate spell for other purposes), however.

Dr Bwaa
2011-05-20, 05:41 PM
Programmed Amnesia solves all problems. Not only do you get the information you want, but you are doing a Good act by turning an Evil person into a Good person (assuming you do that, which you might as well since you're rewriting their character sheet anyway).Of course, it's also one of the most morally-grey spells known to D&D.

erikun
2011-05-20, 07:43 PM
Is it alright as they are not physically hurt, and the damage done is all in their mind(they have forced the person to break a promise or vow and go against what they want)?
I would question if any real "damage" is actually done in this situation. Zone of Truth certainly wouldn't do any damage. Neither would Detect Thoughts. I would consider it highly questionable that Charm Person does anything considered damaging, as it is hardly ever an evil act to use it in battle, or even against random NPCs. Dominate Person might qualify, although I think any mental scarring is limited to months of continuous domination, not a few minutes of Q&A.

I also consider forcing someone to "break a promise or vow" to be not the least bit evil. At the very least, defeating and capturing the minion has already "gone against what they want", and it would certainly be evil to allow the BBEG to slaughter housefulls of orphans just because they vowed they would. Simply preventing someone from doing what they want, or forcing them to do something they don't want to do, isn't evil. Heck, the absolute "allow everyone to do everything they wish without restriction" sounds a lot like Stupid Good.


In brief, using short (non-damaging) magical compulsion to get answers out of an unwilling captive is not evil. It is neutral, at worst, with respect to good-evil. You could certainly use the methods for evil deeds - using the information for evil purposes, or using Dominate to force someone to kill off family - but that doesn't mean that using magic to just gain information is evil as well.

Gensuru
2011-05-20, 08:13 PM
Ah yes the uh "Itīs forthe Greater Good" argument that so conveniently solves all problems. Nice concept really until youīre the one being made to suffer/ being sacrificed for some supposed greater good...THEN the screaming gets loud -_-

No seriously now. If you want to you can play the "well itīs an evil act no matter how you view it" card then frankly:

killing is wrong: donīt even kill monsters.

Causing people pain is wrong: donīt even hit monsters.

respect others: donīt call them monsters simply because their belief-system is different from yours.

Boo effin hoo. Thatīs the type of "hero" whoīll sit rightously on his a** while the world crumbles around him. The pacifist who claims moral superiority even as heīs cut down. It is also, coincidentally, the type of hero to get absolutely nothing done. By then people generally go hire the more questionable type that might break a few eggs but will at least get stuff done.

The problem really is just how far youīre going to push "good" alignment. There is this "lawful good, not lawful nice" argument and frankly itīs right. If you define good by morals like "do no harm, donīt kill, etc." then what exactly do you suggest a hero should do whne confronted with opposition? Discuss things out with them? Does that even work well in our modern, civilized society? Let alone in a fantasy/medieval type of setting? Honestly?


The assistant joined an evil organization that is likely willing to murder an torture countless of people themselves. And for their own selfish gains at that. If she (in this case it was a femal assistant right?) was forced into serving the BBEG then now is her chance to get free. Sheīd help willingly in this case. If she has to be tortured she is a willing part of an organization that pretty likely disregards "human-rights" themselves. Is she seriously supposed to expect better treatment than sheīd inflict on others herself? If the situation was reversed, just what would she do to the heroes? Letīs take the extreme and look at lawful good. By law you are required to prevent a criminal element from utterly destroying the system with whatever grand scheme they have. Itīs illegal so it is your lawful obligation to do something about it. If torture is specifically illegal, get a special warrant or turn her over to authorities that DO have that right for tried criminals. On the good-evil axis you have, like, a city full of uninvolved future, civilian victims vs one woman (and an organization) of people willing to slaughter. You are morally obligated to protect the weak who canīt protect themselves. You are morally obligated to keep non-participants of this conflict out of harms way. Those who willingly join this conflict have had their chance and made their choice. Weight the evil act of torture against the good act of protecting non-participant potential innocent victims. Utilitarism was the term i believe.

See? Works well enough for even the Paladin-lawful good kinda alignment.

Mastikator
2011-05-20, 09:31 PM
Is it a good act(and OK for their alignment) for good characters to unwilling force a person to tell them information.
Torture and other forms of violations are contrary to the good alignment in D&D.


They know the person will never willing give up the information, so is it alright to 'trick' them into doing so with magic?
Trickery is on the chaos side, irrelevant to good/evil. However, you mentioned magic, if the trickery involves violating the mind of the individual then it's contrary to good. A violation is something that alters their personality (even if temporary) or something that digs into their memories. Illusions are on the other hand ok.


Is it alright as they are not physically hurt, and the damage done is all in their mind(they have forced the person to break a promise or vow and go against what they want)?
Promises and vows are on the lawful side, so this would be chaotic ends. The means and the ends are separate and need to be looked at individually.


---

@Gensuru That is half correct. Self defense is a scenario where it's ok in the good alignment to use violence and cause harm

Greenish
2011-05-20, 09:41 PM
And that brings us to The QuestionIs it a good act(and OK for their alignment) for good characters to unwilling force a person to tell them information.It's an exalted spell, so yeah, by definition it's Good with capital G. :smalltongue:

JonestheSpy
2011-05-20, 10:07 PM
This really seems to me like someone is trying to construct a scenario just to get people to justify her real-life political opinion. It sounds like the OP is trying to say "Using magic would be as evil as torture, and since most folks would think using magic is ok that means torture is ok".

There's plenty of options in a scenario like this - supposing the GM isn't just trying to railroad the players into a single course of action. They could try tricking the assistant into giving up info - the hypothetical characters being low CHA, not low INT. They could try letting the assistant "escape", then follow her wherever she leads. They could leak the info out that they have the assistant, and set up an ambush for the rescue attempt. They could try Speak With Dead on slain minions - even if they can't find crucial data about the BBEG, they might be able to get something they can use as a lever against the assistant.

That's just what comes to me thinking about the problem for a couple of minutes. I'm sure there are plenty other options out there -unless the GM is determined to shoot down any idea that doesn't fit into their ethical trap.

Kalirren
2011-05-22, 11:54 AM
Good isn't the opposite of Evil, it's the absence of Evil. Being Evil is being -actively- malicious. Being Good isn't an affirmative thing in and of itself. It's simply not being malicious. Exemplars of Good are simply people who are very prophylactic about not being malicious, and who engender that behavior in others.

Torture as a means of interrogation is malicious, and thereby Evil, because it's a means not typically justified by its end. Other, less harmful means, such as magical compulsion and skillful non-magically aided interrogation, are often more effective than torture is, and I would expect Good characters to use them all the time.

Refraining from using magical compulsions and thought-reading powers out of respect for a person's individual freedoms isn't a Good thing to do, not to first order. It is first and foremost a Chaotic thing to do.

UserClone
2011-05-22, 12:36 PM
I'd say that a lack of evil defines neutrality more than good. good is actively opposing evil with all due force.

dsmiles
2011-05-22, 12:42 PM
I'd say that a lack of evil defines neutrality more than good. good is actively opposing evil with all due force.

Couldn't agree more. (Though there are still "degrees" of good, and varying definitions of "opposing.")

Gamer Girl
2011-05-22, 12:47 PM
This really seems to me like someone is trying to construct a scenario just to get people to justify her real-life political opinion. It sounds like the OP is trying to say "Using magic would be as evil as torture, and since most folks would think using magic is ok that means torture is ok".

Nah, I'm 100% on the Dark Side here.

I was just wondering what other people thought.

A lot of people seem to give magic a free pass, that it's alright to steal a persons thoughts or take control of their mind or otherwise magically force them to do things against their will.

And I do think it's odd that while cutting a prisoner with a dagger is considered absolutely wrong by most, they are just find with taking control of the prisoner's mind.

And after all if the worst part about torture is the physiological effects, then would not a charm or compulsion magic have the same negative effect? So physical torture and magical charms/compulsions would have the same end effect of physiological damage to the prisoner. Yet one is OK and the other is never to be used.

Just look like magical interrogation is a easy out: ''We did not touch a hair on the bad guy..well, except, we did enter and read his mind and steal everything he knows and then we forced him to tell us everything...but he is unharmed...physically''.

Kalirren
2011-05-22, 12:50 PM
I'd say that a lack of evil defines neutrality more than good. good is actively opposing evil with all due force.

I agree with that; my point, poorly stated, I guess, was that without Evil to oppose, and the power to oppose it, it's difficult to nail down what being Good entails. The sense of Good is derived from that of evil, and opposes it. The same cannot be said of evil.

This is the same as saying that altruism exists on a much more shaky ground than malice does.

dsmiles
2011-05-22, 12:55 PM
I was just wondering what other people thought.
Well, I'm personally a member of the dark side, as well.

In this particular situation, as I stated earlier, I believe that, if used solely for the purpose of gaining world-saving information, it's the less evil choice. Especially if this and torture are the only two options. But there is a line, here. If the characters use certain spells (Programmed Amnesia, which strangely isn't in the SRD...) the BBEG's secretary/assistant/minion/peon need never know that it even happened, and there are no lasting psychological effects.

The second it's used for something other than that stated purpose, however, it becomes just as evil as torture.

Geigan
2011-05-22, 01:14 PM
I agree with that; my point, poorly stated, I guess, was that without Evil to oppose, and the power to oppose it, it's difficult to nail down what being Good entails. The sense of Good is derived from that of evil, and opposes it. The same cannot be said of evil.

This is the same as saying that altruism exists on a much more shaky ground than malice does.
Well I've heard this argument from the other side of the river as well as from upstream and down. The other side is just the absence of it's opposite. Good argues that evil is just the absence of the desire to help anyone but yourself and that if you had someone you wanted to help you would be good. Chaos argues that Law is merely the absence of enough energy and excitement to make them sporadic and spontaneous. Law argues that chaos is merely entropy, or what happens when law goes away and that you just fall apart without it. It's a pretty funny insult in an, "I don't even acknowledge that my enemies have a moral ground," sort of way.

pendell
2011-05-22, 01:26 PM
I note that people are defining good and evil. I have to ask, on what do you base these definitions? And are we sure we're talking D&D and not real world morality, which will get this thread scrubbed in a hurry?

I don't have the source books in front of me, but I think of D&D "Good" as being "that which seeks good things for others" -- to , in a word, love others as yourselves.

"Neutrality" is to love yourself and leave others to go their own way, neither actively seeking their good nor wishing them harm.

"Evil" is to love yourself so much that you are actively willing to harm people who get in the way of your needs. That gnome has a candy bar, so I'm going to kill him for it. Those farmers would make good XP. and so on.

"Good" defined in terms of love is not a negative force. It is a force all to itself, and has nothing to do with evil except insofar as when evil confronts it. When good, seeking the welfare of others, is confronted by evil desiring to destroy that welfare for its own ends.

My definition of "Good" -- which might not stand up when measured against Exalted Deeds -- would allow a character to torture under certain well-defined conditions. If you seek the welfare of others, then you'll do what you have to save millions of lives even if that means an orc, for example, is pulled to pieces on a rack or magically compelled to reveal information.

How does one keep from falling to Evil? Well, that's really tricky. Because it IS possible to get so caught up in the welfare of the many that you find "the good" you do gets further and further away while the evil you do to individuals is all to real and present. Like Redcloak in SOD.

The only way I can see out is to find a cleric and be in constant communion with the gods of Good in the D&D world, who objectively know how far you're going and whether you're crossing the line into either neutral or evil territory. When "necessary evil" becomes just plain evil. And do this before they decide to do a Miko to you and turn you beige in front of the entire world.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Geigan
2011-05-22, 01:29 PM
The only way I can see out is to find a cleric and be in constant communion with the gods of Good in the D&D world, who objectively know how far you're going and whether you're crossing the line into either neutral or evil territory. When "necessary evil" becomes just plain evil. And do this before they decide to do a Miko to you and turn you beige in front of the entire world.

Or you know, just ask your DM.:smallwink:

Reluctance
2011-05-22, 01:57 PM
Actual interrogations do include psychological trickery to cause the prisoner to identify somewhat with their captors. If I can replace weeks of good cop/bad cop with a six-second Charm Person spell, that doesn't quite blip my evilometer.

The old "do you torture one terrorist to save a city of millions" question implicitly assumes that you've definitely caught the right guy, and that torture is a guaranteed way to get quick and accurate intel. Neither of these is even remotely true in the real world. Yes, our moral sensors are calibrated based on real-world assumptions that might not necessarily be true in a fantasy world. Creating a D&D-compatible morality that's not just a slapdash vindication of your own is going to be orders of magnitude more difficult than ironclad moral proofs in our own world.

I you really want to posit this in a Paladin's Dilemma form, assume a real-ish scenario (mundane terrorist, mundane WMD, mundane city full of mundane innocents), and add a magic or hypertechnological hat that is guaranteed to pull up instant and accurate information from the subject, with the side-effect of causing them excruciating pain. Then realize that, unless playing under a DM who tries to make everything come across as extra hardass, the magic hat argument is too far from actual torture to draw any useful conclusions.

Solaris
2011-05-22, 03:13 PM
It's just a general question. (I'm a the type that thinks it's OK for good folks to torture)

A lot of people think torture is wrong, yet the are OK with all types of mental assaults, magical assaults and forcing people to do what you want.

How about those of us who think 'none of the above' are good acts? Believe it or not, the real world has addressed these circumstances. There are people whose job is interrogation - that is, extracting information from hostile persons who don't want to give it up (initially). It takes some time, but the really good ones can pull it off in just hours or even minutes. There are methods they use which are evil, and there are methods they use which aren't. Hardly any are actually good; although the intent is good, ends don't justify means.
Certain charms and compulsions do what's effectively the same thing in seconds. Thus, it's the degree that matters. If it's more manipulation, like charm, then it's not evil. If it's mental violation and actually traumatic for the victim, then yeah, it's evil.

That's not to say I don't approve of torture. I'm the sort who thinks death by starvation is an excellent method of execution. Preferably in public. Torture has its uses. Extracting information is just one of the least effective uses.

Talakeal
2011-05-22, 04:53 PM
Lots of gamers, both online and in real life, don't like to be told what their character did violated their alignment. Most of them then use slippery slope logic to say that everyone else is just as bad as they are and therefore they are being unfairly singled out and punished. However these arguments all rely on making huge assumptions that unrelated things are the same.

Torture causes intense tangible physical pain, and if not done with the utmost care will scar or disable the victim for life.
Mind Control or Emotion Influencing magic is not torture. It does not cause physical or mental suffering, at least it is never mentioned as doing so in the game. Nor does it cause any sort of permanent damage unless you use a spell like mind rape (which is evil).
A simple command or dominate spell can be used to perform torture, but that is not the default use. If you are merely forcing someone to speak you are only violating their privacy and their freedom of action. These are things you have already done when you captured them and began interrogating them.
I have never heard of a justice system which objected to searching a captive or to holding a prisoner captive for a short time, clearly these actions are not the same as torture. Yes a person might be unhappy and feel bad that you foiled their evil scheme and forced them to tell their secrets, but they are going to feel bad and be unhappy no matter what you do to foil their evil scheme.

As I said in the other thread:
Command and Dominate type spells are no worse than holding someone captive.
Mind reading spells are no worse than searching someone's belongings.
Charm or suggestion type spells are no worse than using trickery or pretending to be their friend for information.
I would say that spells who change who a person is such as polymorph any object, mind rape, or programmed amnesia are very severe violations of a person's rights on par with rape or murder, although they are not innately analogous to torture.

Quellian-dyrae
2011-05-22, 05:39 PM
And after all if the worst part about torture is the physiological effects, then would not a charm or compulsion magic have the same negative effect? So physical torture and magical charms/compulsions would have the same end effect of physiological damage to the prisoner. Yet one is OK and the other is never to be used.

The problem I have with this theory is that it is operating under the assumption that the mind control does, indeed, have the same negative effect. The psychological repercussions of torture are real, proven things. Magical mind control is fictional, and may or may not cause psychological trauma.

One character's mind control might be a complete mental invasion, shattering the will and suppressing the personality, forcing the target to dance like a puppet and knowing every second that it is powerless to resist. This is indeed on the same level as torture, and I would argue that using such a power is an evil act, regardless of how altruistic one's intentions are.

Another character might simply cause the target to obey reflexively. They have no more control over it than they do over feeling the texture of something they touch. Of course, most people won't like being so compelled, but they wouldn't like being arrested and interrogated, or tricked into revealing a secret, either. In this case, the ability is entirely neutral, and can be used for good or evil purposes.

Another character might even go a step further and say that the mind control not only benignly forces compliance, but also somehow rewards the subject for completing the compelled task while also making it obvious that the target is being compelled and thus not responsible for its actions. Such an effect, showing respect for the target's happiness and well-being, most likely defaults to good. Of course, it can still be used for nefarious purposes, becoming an evil act regardless of how pretty the packaging is.

NichG
2011-05-22, 06:20 PM
Suffering is the main issue here. The reason torture is an evil act is because it is comprised of actions specifically designed to cause suffering to a being - that in some sense is the purpose of the act, even if 'getting information' is a higher strategic goal (the same way that it might be a neutral act to kill a hostile foe, but it would be an evil act to specifically choose to kill them in a way to make them suffer, because of the choice of the method that creates more suffering over the one that creates less).

My personal ordering scheme would be something like (least harmful to most harmful):

- External divination (i.e. commune with a deity and ask what the prisoner knows)
- Subtle extraction (Detect Thoughts, or the Akashic from Arcana Evolved - get the information but don't change the prisoner in any way)

(Neutral line: beyond this point, the actions start to become questionable alignment-wise, but are not outright evil. Exalted characters probably shouldn't cross this line too often, but others won't suffer alignment shift from these unless used excessively.)

- Intimidation/threat-based methods without followup, or tricking the prisoner into revealing information.
- Charm Person. You're actually altering their mental state, so there might be some residual suffering from knowing it was done, but its subtle as these things go.
- Dominate Person. Now they definitely know their will has been interfered with. Still a mostly neutral act up to here though in my book.

(Evil Line: actions beyond this point are generally outright evil regardless of justification)

- Torture that inflicts temporary harm. These are things like starving a prisoner, depriving them of sleep, etc. It causes suffering but not necessarily permanent harm. Still, its past the evil line for me.
- Kill (a captive) and speak with dead. Evil mostly because of unnecessary brutality, but often kinder than torture.
- Torture that inflicts permanent harm. Physical and mental anguish that persists after the extraction is complete. Pretty evil, since it means that after the torture is complete the prisoner is still going to exist with persistent suffering due to the permanent harm.
- Mindrape or other such personality rewrites. Complete destruction of the persona that existed before, basically this is killing them plus perverting their nature, and if they ever somehow wake up from it they have to deal with what their existence has been, so its pretty high on the mental anguish scale.
- Torture by harming things/people the prisoner loves.

Autolykos
2011-05-23, 08:33 AM
The Good way to solve this would be to convince the prisoner to rethink their life, stop their evil ways and try to undo the damage they have done. That's probably not going to happen if they lack any convincing arguments. CHA or Diplomacy does not figure into this, as it's also a way of tricking the prisoner - it is IMHO no more or less evil than Charm Person. Just using it to get the prisoner to listen to you is solidly Neutral, using it to make someone do anything against their will is somewhere south of it (but probably not Evil unless done for no other reason than personal profit/amusement).
IMHO the way Obi-Wan (and other Light-Side Jedi) use their Mind Trick in the Movies are nice examples on how a Good-aligned character is allowed to use similar powers/spells.
Another way to tackle this is to ask yourself what you'd expect a police officer to do in such a situation (or, if you lack the imagination, take a look at the laws in most democracies). Usually they are allowed to use tricks and deception (although outright lies are somewhat of a grey area), and if it were possible in our world, I think no judge would object to use of Charm Person. Information gained using Dominate Person or Mind Reading would probably be invalid in court, but the use of such tricks would not get the officer in trouble if necessary to prevent greater damage (if he could be reasonably sure he got the right person).

supermonkeyjoe
2011-05-23, 09:05 AM
This is why I dislike the objective use of alignment in D&D. defining torture as always evil, assume the following scenarios:-

Bob has captured evil Dave, Evil Dave has set off some evil plot device to blow up the world and only the command word can stop it, Bob is a level 1 Fighter and has no access to magic of any kind. Bob knows Evil Dave is a coward and will easily break under torture and give up the command word.

Bob tortures Evil Dave gets the command word and saves the day, Hurrah! Unfortunately Bob has committed an evil act and is now evil? Lets consider the following scenarios.


Bob reluctantly tortures Dave, he twists his arm and shouts at him a lot, gets the word and saves the day. Bob then breaks down crying and feels like scum for torturing Dave, he vows to make it up to Dave and help him reform.
Bob makes some threats to Dave, he roughs him up a bit, maybe breaks a few bones, nothing that won't heal, he saves the day and then goes home to celebrate.
Bob tortures Dave, he gets the word and then tortures Dave some more. Bob saves the world and then decides to torture Dave some more leaving him a disfigured scarred wreck of a being.


All of these are the same scenario with the same outcome, the difference is, the motive behind it, the method used, and the attitude of those carrying it out. The fact that torture is Evil bears no relevance on the alignment of the person using it.

dsmiles
2011-05-23, 09:10 AM
All of these are the same scenario with the same outcome, the difference is, the motive behind it, the method used, and the attitude of those carrying it out. The fact that torture is Evil bears no relevance on the alignment of the person using it.See? That's exactly where I'm going with the whole magic-use thing. There's a line where it becomes evil. Until you cross that line, it's more acceptable than equivalent physical torture.

hamishspence
2011-05-23, 09:12 AM
The DMG does say that, as a general rule, single acts shouldn't shift a characters alignment (though exceptions might be made for acts of great magnitude).

It's a general pattern of behaviour- that tends to indicate a character is due an alignment shift.

That said, while motive matters, the acts themselves (if committed regularly) might overwhelm the motive.

Hawriel
2011-05-23, 04:02 PM
hmm no one thinks building respect and trust is a good way to flip a suspect? Big shock.

Not only can confronting a suspect with inconsistancies in their story help unraval and then "brake" them. Building a relationship will as well. I dont mean making a guy your friend I mean showing respect and allowing the suspect to see your NOT going to torcher them.

Undersanding a suspects possision can help you find ways of making him talk. What is the guys motivation? Why did he join the thieves guild? Why is he appart of this evil army? What is his cultural background? What are his opinions/thoughts/fears of you?

You can alway buy the information. Offer the suspect mony, helping him with a problem. Protecting his family. For instance. If a soldier in the evil army only joined because I would have been killed, or its the only way he can feed his family, offer to extract the family so they can be safe.

Try thinking about intarogation as not forcing a person to tell you what they know. Instead look at it as a way to convice the person to volenteer what they know.

Also not every guy has valuable information. If some one does not know any thing. Cut him lose. That could be any thing from letting him go, or giving him to higher authorities to be a prisonar of war, prosicuted or what ever.

How your characters treat a prisoner will be known. If it gets out that you are an honorable person, or goup it will be easyer to intarogate peaple later on. Peaple might actualy start approching you on their own to help.

NichG
2011-05-23, 04:09 PM
You can be evil and be a hero. You can be evil and, having saved the day, are under no compulsion to ever repeat whatever acts made you evil. So yes, it might occur that a good character sacrifices their alignment for a greater goal, and the universe marks them as evil for having done so but they don't regret it at all. Those people are called anti-heroes, and they're scattered all throughout literature and modern media.

A fairly strong example of this, there's a TV show called Painkiller Jane in which during one episode the heroes deal with a villain who can reset time to a certain point in the morning if things don't go well for him. During one of the loops, he manages to succeed in assassinating his target, so in order to force him to reset time one of the heroes goes and shoots the villain's mother and sends a video of the act to the guy. He predictably resets time, and the heroes get another chance. At the end of the sequence, the mother is alive but the guy is captured. So in the end a very practical action, and possibly the best and most certain way to get to a good ending, but certainly an evil action by D&D alignment standards (killing an innocent).

That said, the thing that makes the act of torture particularly evil in the Evil Dave example is that there are almost certainly many other ways to get the information that don't involve torture that one could try. The aforementioned Charm Person technique, for instance. Or using trickery or deception. You also see a lot of this in various media, where a character who is supposed to be a straight-up hero flirts with becoming an anti-hero by threatening something fairly dark, but then it turns out to all be a bluff.

dsmiles
2011-05-23, 04:21 PM
hmm no one thinks building respect and trust is a good way to flip a suspect? Big shock.

Not only can confronting a suspect with inconsistancies in their story help unraval and then "brake" them. Building a relationship will as well. I dont mean making a guy your friend I mean showing respect and allowing the suspect to see your NOT going to torcher them.

Undersanding a suspects possision can help you find ways of making him talk. What is the guys motivation? Why did he join the thieves guild? Why is he appart of this evil army? What is his cultural background? What are his opinions/thoughts/fears of you?

You can alway buy the information. Offer the suspect mony, helping him with a problem. Protecting his family. For instance. If a soldier in the evil army only joined because I would have been killed, or its the only way he can feed his family, offer to extract the family so they can be safe.

Try thinking about intarogation as not forcing a person to tell you what they know. Instead look at it as a way to convice the person to volenteer what they know.

Also not every guy has valuable information. If some one does not know any thing. Cut him lose. That could be any thing from letting him go, or giving him to higher authorities to be a prisonar of war, prosicuted or what ever.

How your characters treat a prisoner will be known. If it gets out that you are an honorable person, or goup it will be easyer to intarogate peaple later on. Peaple might actualy start approching you on their own to help.

However, there isn't always time to build a good relationship with the person being questioned. The BBEG isn't going to wait for you to figure out what he/she/it is doing before doing it. They don't want you to stop them.

If you have time, building a good relationship can work, but it doesn't always. What do you do when that fails? What do you do when you don't have time to play around?

Talakeal
2011-05-23, 05:17 PM
However, there isn't always time to build a good relationship with the person being questioned. The BBEG isn't going to wait for you to figure out what he/she/it is doing before doing it. They don't want you to stop them.

If you have time, building a good relationship can work, but it doesn't always. What do you do when that fails? What do you do when you don't have time to play around?

If time is so critical I doubt torture would work, the person knows that they just have to hold out a little longer, or better yet, distract you with a lie until it is too late.

If time was so critical I would use magic, charm, divination, or even necromancy, to get him to talk immediatly if my initial threats didn't get him talking freely and truthfully. If I don't have access to magic I might panic and resort to torture as a last resort, but more likely I would just move on to a different technique, depending on the actual threat.

Another problem with torture is, when do you stop? If he tells you he doesn't know anything, or has already told you all he knows, do you keep torturing him? If not, then how do you make absolutely sure he doesn't know any more. If you do continue to torture after they talk, why would they continue to talk when they know it won't stop the pain?

dsmiles
2011-05-23, 05:22 PM
If time is so critical I doubt torture would work, the person knows that they just have to hold out a little longer, or better yet, distract you with a lie until it is too late.

If time was so critical I would use magic, charm, divination, or even necromancy, to get him to talk immediatly if my initial threats didn't get him talking freely and truthfully. If I don't have access to magic I might panic and resort to torture as a last resort, but more likely I would just move on to a different technique, depending on the actual threat.I was also considering magical coercion as "torture" in this circumstance, since so many other threadgoers were using it as an analogue for torture. Magical coercion would always be my first choice (over physical torture, that is), I'd think it would be more effective.

hamishspence
2011-05-24, 06:03 AM
That's not to say I don't approve of torture. I'm the sort who thinks death by starvation is an excellent method of execution. Preferably in public. Torture has its uses. Extracting information is just one of the least effective uses.

BoED does say that torture's evil when used as a means of execution, as well.

It isn't the only source to portray it that way, either- the Drizzt books Passage To Dawn and Spine of The World portray "Prisoner's Carnival" as an evil institution.

pendell
2011-05-24, 03:44 PM
Been thinking about this. I propose to categorize interrogation methods along two axes:

1) Effectiveness.
2) Cruelty.

From which we derive four basic categories:
1) Not cruel and effective.
2) Cruel and effective.
3) Not cruel and ineffective.
4) Cruel and ineffective.

1) will be used by everyone except evil, who may choose #2 For Teh Evols even if #1 works as well.

2) Is the major point of dispute.

3) and 4) should not be used by anyone. #3 may be used by stupid good or stupid neutral because they've mis-classified a #3 method as #1. Likewise, #4 may be used by evil because they've misclassified #4 as #2.

So the real bone of contention is #2.

Would a "good" character ever use a category 2 interrogation method? It may not be 'torture' in the literal D&D definition, but it is still cruel. Ergo, it should be avoided if possible by good characters.

I can think of two plausible reasons for a good character to use #2.

A) #2 can be improvised, while the corresponding #1 method requires material not readily available. When you're interrogating an orc in the field, your knife is handy but your 1million GP interrogation lab might not be.

B) The question is time critical (ticking bomb scenario), and #2 is faster.

From this, I derive the theorem that a good character should use the least cruel method that is effective . There's no point in unnecessary cruelty , or ineffectual interrogation.

But that can't be the end of the story. Otherwise what's to stop us from ripping the arms off an elementary school student, if that's the "least cruel but effective" method that will work to get him to tell who left a nail on the teacher's chair?

So we have a corollary: The game must be worth the candle . The question we need the answer to must be worth the pain we're inflicting on someone else.

Pluck out a person's eyes to find out where the Macguffin of Doom is that will otherwise destroy the universe in ten minutes if we don't find out in that time? Maybe.

Pluck out a person's eyes to find out where they hid 10 gp? No.

Which brings us to the next followup question: By what metric do we determine that the cost (of inflicting cruelty, magical, physical, or psychological on a subject) justifies the benefit (lives saved/souls saved/poor fed/ etc.)

Thinking on this ... the essence of D&D is inflicting lesser harm to prevent greater harm . Robin Hood is chaotic good because he perpetuates lesser evil (robbing the rich) for a greater good (giving to the poor).

I suppose you could make a fantasy world wherein good characters only perform good actions, and by the sheer force of kumbaya and flowers in their hair increase the natural goodness of the universe to the point that villains give up their vile ways and become good themselves. That seems the logical outcome of the idea that evil deeds empower evil, and good deeds empower good.

There may be a game like that out there. But it ain't D&D. In D&D we break things and kill people for some greater good, saving the world through mass carnage and slaughter.

If "necessary evil" is not a D&D reality, then D&D adventuring is just as wrong as torture.

If "necessary evil" IS a D&D reality, I don't understand why massacring a goblin village is acceptable but torturing Tsukiko to find out where Xykon's phylactery is (assuming she knows where it is, and we need to find it to prevent his growing a new body) is not.

So I contend that a good character in D&D should be one who uses the least cruel means that are effective at the point when the cost of doing harm is less than the cost of doing nothing .

Which probably breaks Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness horribly, but at least has the advantage of being sorta logical.

Agree/disagree?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

hamishspence
2011-05-25, 02:56 AM
Thinking on this ... the essence of D&D is inflicting lesser harm to prevent greater harm . Robin Hood is chaotic good because he perpetuates lesser evil (robbing the rich) for a greater good (giving to the poor).

CG doesn't automatically mean the character believes "the ends justify the means".

It might be less "robbing the rich to give to the poor" and more "returning stolen goods to the robbed- taken by those who claim that their theft is moral and legitimate".

In which case, rather than being a "lesser evil" it might not qualify as an evil deed at all.

That said, a Good character can certainly be "driven to evil deeds from time to time" (Champions of Ruin).

Djibriel
2011-05-25, 03:59 AM
DND introduces Good and Evil as absolute concepts, right? You can detect it, etc.

Humans and other playable races are not paragons of some Good-aligned plane, they're creatures in a world where Good and Evil are absolute... but not necessarily identical to a Human's sense of right and wrong.

If I were to be the judge of a situation like this in my game, it woud be easy. A human, elf, whatever can always lift her own sense of what's 'right' above the powers of Good and Evil. So all that jazz about doing (Evil things, Evil spells, etc.) for a 'greater good' would be a trade-off for the character. The character can either conclude that saving a village is worth the taint of Evil, or let the village suffer/perish yet keep that aura of Good.

A Paladin is interesting, since it's a character that chooses to follow the concept of Good over her own personal or racial sense of right and wrong. A Paladin that casts an Evil spell to save lives would fall in my campaign, but the character may still think it was the better thing to do. A Paladin letting a village get destroyed because he refused to do (Evil act) will carry a tremendous burden, but his Aura of Good will not be affected.

If due to some twists of fate a character would repeatedly do Evil acts for (his perception of) the greater good, that character would turn Evil. He will still act the same, but I'd let him be Evil for Detect Evil purposes, let him wield Evil-only equipment, enter into Evil prestige classes. He won't want to, as those Evil options will not correspond to his sense of right and wrong, probably. But since Evil is an absolute concept, it's part of him like any scar.

hamishspence
2011-05-25, 04:14 AM
if the repeated evil acts are minor, and the Good acts are major- they might be able to maintain a neutral alignment.

A Dread Necromancer from Heroes of Horror is a classic example. According to the PHB "channelling negative energy" (by rebuking undead) is an Evil act even if the character is Neutral- but it may be a very minor one.

A Dread Necromancer whose Evil spells and rebuke attempts, are always directed at protecting others (rebuking undead to get them away from people they are attacking, animating enemies as undead purely to gain the advantage in battle against powerful villains, so as to protect others from those villains) could be a valid Neutral character.

It would be more major evil acts (torturing people to death in order to deter crime, for example) that might cause such a "For the greater good" character to slip all the way into Evil alignment.

A distinction should be made between "necessary harm" and "evil"- the term "necessary evil" is a bit dubious in D&D when applied to acts that do not in fact count as "evil acts".

Killing in defense of others is "necessary harm" but calling it "necessary evil" or "the lesser evil" is problematic for that reason.

pendell
2011-05-25, 08:14 AM
Killing in defense of others is "necessary harm" but calling it "necessary evil" or "the lesser evil" is problematic for that reason.

At this point the discussion is in danger of degenerating into sophistry. Aren't "evil" and "harm" synonyms in a standard dictionary? If you're harming someone, you're doing evil to them. If it's "for their own good" -- like taking away someone's credit card, or shooting someone to stop them from setting off a bomb -- it's "necessary evil" or "necessary harm". But it's still harm or still evil.

Sometimes in the world of D&D or in the real world there are no good choices. There is only bad and worse. To my mind, trying to introduce "necessary harm" as something different from "necessary evil" is a distinction without a difference.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

hamishspence
2011-05-25, 10:32 AM
it matters because paladins fall for committing any "evil act".

So, if a paladin killing an adversary in self defense is "doing evil to them" they would fall.

Which is not consistant with D&D.

Hence, the phrase "doing evil to others" for this kind of "necessary" act, is inappropriate.

pendell
2011-05-25, 02:13 PM
it matters because paladins fall for committing any "evil act".

So, if a paladin killing an adversary in self defense is "doing evil to them" they would fall.

Which is not consistant with D&D.

Hence, the phrase "doing evil to others" for this kind of "necessary" act, is inappropriate.

This raises a DM question.

If a player is running a paladin in the current campaign, is the DM obligated to ensure that there is always some method by which the campaign can be won AND the paladin not fall?

If true, then there is no dilemma. The paladin metagames and takes the 'high road', confident that, unlike the real world, there is some mechanism to make this work. So it's a false dilemma.

If false, then isn't the DM open to charges of deliberately setting up the paladin to fall?

Could a paladin convincingly argue "greater good" as a justification for not falling, performing an objectively evil act if that is necessary to, say, save OOTSverse from the snarl? Or is the letter of the law more important than the spirit of the law? In which case, a paladin might be forced to do what Belkar suggested -- save the world and get used to beige. Deliberately give themselves over to damnation, or blackguardhood, if that's what it takes to keep the universe running.

ETA: OR ... do the act, fall, then get a priest to cast atonement. Would a greater good argument work at that point? To demonstrate that the evil act really was for the greater good, and therefore paladinhood should be restored?

As Hinjo said, there would be no atonement spell if it wasn't occasionally needed.

Sounds like an interesting novel, actually. Any characters like that already?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

NichG
2011-05-25, 02:36 PM
I think in general some campaigns are going to be harder for some characters than others. If you're playing a Ravenloft campaign, its bad to be the rogue. If you're playing a gritty mercenary game, its hard to be a Paladin and not fall.

The main thing that a DM would likely be guilty of is having a predefined 'this is the only way to suceed' pathway in his mind. Most scenarios are open enough that there shouldn't be a point where, if you don't commit an evil act it is impossible to proceed. If its something like 'only evil characters can enter the divine realm where the rest of the plot is happening, and this is by the edict of a greater overdeity, and no there's no way to fool it or circumvent it or anything' then thats pretty bad of the DM.

On the other hand, its perfectly reasonable to create a situation where the obvious and easy path is evil, and there's no obvious good path. That's an invitation for those playing the paragons of good to forge a new path - its basically part of the challenge of the game. The character sneaks in by hiding inside a bag of holding, or Shapechanges into an [Evil] outsider without actually changing their alignment (since the [Evil] descriptor makes you detect as evil AND your regular alignment), or opens a portal to an evil plane and lets the wash of evil energies hide their presence. Or finds a way to seal off the realm on the other side of the Evil Door forever from the outside, so the party doesn't need to go through at all.

Talakeal
2011-05-25, 03:45 PM
Book of Exalted Deeds page 9, fourth and fifth paragraph. That is the RAW reason why arguments about greater good or necessary sacrifice don't work, and paladins should not perform a minor act to save the world.

Its BS and doesn't jive with real world morality at all, but if you play with the BoED (I don't) then those are the rules of the D&D world.

(For those who don't have it, it says that committing evil acts is not a personal choice but a universal one, and any greater good done through evil with empower the universal forces of darkness to such an extent as to make whatever good was accomplished meaningless)

Personally I don't know what a character is supposed to do when both choices are bad except for simply walk away. A "good" character by BoED standards seems to simply be a character who has a strict non interference policy in all situations save those that are black and white, which in a semi realistic campaign world they are not heroes, they are just useless, and about as much an actual force of good as the sculptures of gods and saints found in cathedrals.

Autolykos
2011-05-25, 04:38 PM
Could we just stay with the convention of using a capital E when talking about the D&D concept of Evil, and a small e when talking about the philosophical concept? That would save us a lot of confusion.

OT: In German law we have a concept called "Verhältnismäßigkeit" (you probably have something similar, but I couldn't find a good translation). Basically, an action fits this concept, if:
a) it is an effective solution to the problem
b) any less harmful solution is also much less effective
c) it does not do (much) more harm than leaving the problem unattended
IMHO pretty much anything that meets these criteria is still neutral, while violating one of those (especially on purpose) might push it over to Evil.

Raum
2011-05-25, 05:26 PM
Is it really a good act to force someone to do anything, against their will?"Your freedom to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose." Don't remember who first said it but it's a good principle. Will your actions harm another? Will stopping said actions with force prevent said harm?

In general, I think defense trumps 'do no harm'. That said, I don't believe ends justify the means. That's how a certain road gets paved.

So the real question is, is the act of force defensive or offensive in nature? Is reading a mind essentially harmless outside of a loss of privacy? Or does it cause lasting mental harm?

As a side note, reading up on police interrogation techniques is interesting...and potentially useful for a good aligned group with a prisoner.

hamishspence
2011-05-26, 06:40 AM
Personally I don't know what a character is supposed to do when both choices are bad except for simply walk away. A "good" character by BoED standards seems to simply be a character who has a strict non interference policy in all situations save those that are black and white, which in a semi realistic campaign world they are not heroes, they are just useless, and about as much an actual force of good as the sculptures of gods and saints found in cathedrals.

BoVD and BoED also mention that walking away when there is people in danger may be an evil act, or something that deprives an Exalted character of their powers.

In BoVD, it described "standing by and doing nothing" as "far more evil" than doing something (using lethal force on a deluded person to prevent them from mass murder).

And in BoED, it states that "Go find another person to help you" generally isn't an option for Exalted characters.

They're not going to be useless- Exalted characters will spend most of their time protecting others. However, they have to be very careful when confronted with moral dilemmas.

pendell
2011-05-26, 09:46 AM
In BoVD, it described "standing by and doing nothing" as "far more evil" than doing something (using lethal force on a deluded person to prevent them from mass murder).


So let us imagine a thought experiment where a paladin is in a position where an innocent child is about to be possessed by a ravening world-eating monster.

This thought experiment is based on an episode of El Cazador De La Bruja (http://www.manga.com/titles/el-cazador-de-la-bruja). Episode 23, "A woman divine".

Let us say, for the purposes of the experiment, the Paladin has exactly two choices

1) Kill the child and save the world.
2) Do nothing and let the world die.

NO OTHER OPTIONS. No waiting for other people, no deus ex machina. This is a video game But Thou Must! moment.

If I'm reading you correctly, Hamishpence, in this thought experiment, the paladin is doomed to fall whatever she does. She can either kill an innocent -- an evil act -- or she can do nothing -- which if I understand BoVD is an even more evil act. So she can't avoid falling. She's going to do evil whatever she does, so the thing for a good character to do is to do the least evil option -- kill the child -- and get used to life without bonus feats.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

hamishspence
2011-05-26, 09:49 AM
Sounds about right. Though BoED does say characters can redeem themselves, and regain their exalted feats.

Only Saints can never regain their powers if they fall.

BoED does say that sometimes there is only the "least evil" option- and that characters may end up falling anyway as a result.

Talakeal
2011-05-26, 04:35 PM
When I play an exalted character I usually play a martyr type who will try and make a third option even when it isn't really feasable to do so, which angers the other players and the DM to no end, so I brought this problem up in this old thread:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132561

And the overwhelming response seemed to be that such a character is infact useless and harmful to the game as a whole. However, it seems that the BoED actually encourages that sort of play.

NichG
2011-05-26, 07:39 PM
I'm generally in favor of the third option style. Heck, I'll often go for a third option even when options 1 and 2 aren't really all that bad. Generally its more interesting I think, even if it does sometimes cause trouble.

Mike_G
2011-05-26, 07:41 PM
The dilemma doesn't work quite so well in fantasy, since magic is reliable.

Torture just isn't. Sure, I'll talk if you beat me enough, but how do you know I'm telling the truth? Why would I tell you the truth? We're already enemies, now you've been hurting me. I want you to die in agony when you act on the bad intel I give you and teleport into the volcano instead of the BBEG's lair.

John McCain, after being beaten by the North Vietnamese and questioned about members of his squadron, gave the names of Green Bay's defensive line.

Interrogation can work, and does. But if I can cast Charm on the prisoner, then have the highest CHA guy in the group sit down and play good cop, "C'mon, you don't really want all those people to die when that spell goes off? You can save them. You can be the hero. Think of the glory. The money. The hot babes. You can be the guy who wins the whole thing. Statues of you in every square. So, how's about it? Why not tell us? "

How could you not think that was the best possible answer?

dsmiles
2011-05-26, 07:45 PM
Intelligent reply.Thank you. Not only is it the more effective option, but it it the less evil option.

Geigan
2011-05-26, 08:01 PM
reasonable reply

All true except for one thing


Torture just isn't. Sure, I'll talk if you beat me enough, but how do you know I'm telling the truth? Why would I tell you the truth? We're already enemies, now you've been hurting me. I want you to die in agony when you act on the bad intel I give you and teleport into the volcano instead of the BBEG's lair.

D&D is actually one of the only places that you can make sure they're telling the truth, since you know, magic. There's a reason Zone of Truth isn't for good only. Of course if they're high level enough they could resist, but it'll do for captured mooks. So if you bend them to the point that they're willing to say anything to make it stop you can be sure they'll only be saying the truth.:smallwink:

Solaris
2011-05-26, 09:08 PM
BoED does say that torture's evil when used as a means of execution, as well.

It isn't the only source to portray it that way, either- the Drizzt books Passage To Dawn and Spine of The World portray "Prisoner's Carnival" as an evil institution.

Note I said 'excellent', not 'Good'. Torture to death is quite evil and nightmarish. That's the point.

Mike_G
2011-05-26, 09:43 PM
All true except for one thing



D&D is actually one of the only places that you can make sure they're telling the truth, since you know, magic. There's a reason Zone of Truth isn't for good only. Of course if they're high level enough they could resist, but it'll do for captured mooks. So if you bend them to the point that they're willing to say anything to make it stop you can be sure they'll only be saying the truth.:smallwink:

But if you already have magic, why not just use Charm and ask nicely, instead of breaking fingers in a Zone of Truth?

Unless you're a vinegar filled reservoir in a feminine hygiene product.

So, yeah. Torture is evil. And Evil. Tricking or using spells is what adventurers do.

dsmiles
2011-05-26, 10:15 PM
But if you already have magic, why not just use Charm and ask nicely, instead of breaking fingers in a Zone of Truth?

Unless you're a vinegar filled reservoir in a feminine hygiene product.

So, yeah. Torture is evil. And Evil. Tricking or using spells is what adventurers do.If they're Good. (Personally, I prefer the fingers in the Zone of Truth method, but then again, I'm evil. Possibly Evil. Maybe even EVIL, but I doubt it. :smalltongue:)

Mike_G
2011-05-26, 10:39 PM
Evil characters torturing prisoners is just good adherence to type. It's part of what makes a good Evil character.

I just don't hold with Good characters torturing and then making up excuses. Once the Paladin starts walking slowly toward the captive, wearing a maniacal grin and pulling out a cheese grater, he can start working out his Fall storyline.

If the evil PC realizes he's out of rope and decides to just nail the goblin's feet to the floor to keep him from running away, that's fine.

If you want to wear the white hat, you should try to walk the walk.

dsmiles
2011-05-26, 10:56 PM
I just don't hold with Good characters torturing and then making up excuses. Once the Paladin starts walking slowly toward the captive, wearing a maniacal grin and pulling out a cheese grater, he can start working out his Fall storyline. I dunno. Ever read The Elenium? Sometimes the cheese grater and the maniacal grin are enough to get the low level mook to talk. All you need is a reputation, like the Pandions. :smallwink:

hamishspence
2011-05-27, 03:56 AM
Note I said 'excellent', not 'Good'. Torture to death is quite evil and nightmarish. That's the point.

Oh- I thought you were arguing that, when used as punishment and deterrence of sufficiently vile crimes, it's something to approve of-

and that it "ought" to be a nonevil act (and that BoED saying otherwise, was yet another reason to dislike it).

Solaris
2011-05-27, 05:46 AM
Oh- I thought you were arguing that, when used as punishment and deterrence of sufficiently vile crimes, it's something to approve of-

and that it "ought" to be a nonevil act (and that BoED saying otherwise, was yet another reason to dislike it).

I approve of its use as a deterrence. Doesn't mean I think it's a noble deed, just that I know it's effective.

hamishspence
2011-05-27, 06:17 AM
from what I can tell, it wasn't that much of a deterrent in older times- people still did things despite the knowledge of what would happen if they got caught.

In the context of D&D- Luskan was still crime-riddled, despite the presence of Prisoner's Carnival.

EDIT: that said, after checking- the only arguments I've found saying "it should be a nonevil act, or even a Good act, come from taltamir in this thread:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148305&highlight=Paladin%27s

Talakeal
2011-05-27, 12:10 PM
I am all for harsh punishment as a deterrent, and I believe that in a medieval campaign world it is unrealistic to expect any punishment less than death for most offenses; however, I see no point to using torture as a deterrent, if death or life imprisonment doesn't scare people into behaving I doubt the additional cruelty of torture would serve any additional purpose.

Also, although I am not sure if I believe it, I have been told that psychologists have determined that fear of punishment is not a significant motivation in adult human behavior, and that criminals either don't think they will get caught or are so blinded by emotion / desperation that they honestly don't care.

JonestheSpy
2011-05-27, 12:45 PM
Once the Paladin starts walking slowly toward the captive, wearing a maniacal grin and pulling out a cheese grater, he can start working out his Fall storyline.


Unless they're looking for some serious circumstance modifiers to their Bluff Skill, that is. (http://www.goblinscomic.com/05142008/)




Also, although I am not sure if I believe it, I have been told that psychologists have determined that fear of punishment is not a significant motivation in adult human behavior, and that criminals either don't think they will get caught or are so blinded by emotion / desperation that they honestly don't care.

Look at it this way - the ones who fear punishment aren't the ones psychologically inclined to become criminals, if for no other reasons that they consider the consequences of their actions.

Geigan
2011-05-27, 01:21 PM
But if you already have magic, why not just use Charm and ask nicely, instead of breaking fingers in a Zone of Truth?

Unless you're a vinegar filled reservoir in a feminine hygiene product.

So, yeah. Torture is evil. And Evil. Tricking or using spells is what adventurers do.

I wasn't making an argument that it isn't evil, I was just pointing out that torture can be effective in the context of d&d. Also charm person isn't quite as effective unless comboed with diplomacy. It makes them your friend but friend or not they may not talk if they're too devoted to their master via fear or adulation, especially if they know your goals to stop them. Though with diplomacy they might be more willing to talk now that they consider you a friend for the duration of the spell(and will probably consider you less of a friend after, now that you've used mind magic on him).

Also what was that second thing supposed to mean?

hamishspence
2011-05-29, 06:22 AM
I am all for harsh punishment as a deterrent, and I believe that in a medieval campaign world it is unrealistic to expect any punishment less than death for most offenses; however, I see no point to using torture as a deterrent, if death or life imprisonment doesn't scare people into behaving I doubt the additional cruelty of torture would serve any additional purpose.

BoED does say "Execution for serious crimes is widely practiced and does not qualify as evil" after all.

However, what counts as "serious crimes" in a D&D world might be a bit more severe than in a medieval world.

After all, generally, D&D worlds tend to be less racist, sexist, and so on, than medieval worlds were.

Depending on your campaign, they might also be more egalatarian- less of the law being very severe on commoners, but very light on nobles.

Solaris
2011-05-29, 03:38 PM
from what I can tell, it wasn't that much of a deterrent in older times- people still did things despite the knowledge of what would happen if they got caught.

In the context of D&D- Luskan was still crime-riddled, despite the presence of Prisoner's Carnival.

EDIT: that said, after checking- the only arguments I've found saying "it should be a nonevil act, or even a Good act, come from taltamir in this thread:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148305&highlight=Paladin%27s

I really, really can't say how I know you're wrong on the boards. Well, okay, you're right in the historical context - that's why our legal system is more focused on reformation than deterring, because you really can't deter someone from, say, committing petty theft by promising that he'll lose a hand.

You can deter him from attacking by promising him damnation.

Braxton
2011-05-30, 02:54 PM
Basically, this is an 'do the ends justify the means' type of situation. Lets look at the pros and cons.

Pros
1) You may be saving a lot of people from the big bad's ploy.
2) Mental damage heals, there may be no harm if the best outcome occurs.
3) This is the best alternative. Face it; there are darker paths you could take.

Cons
1) Inflicting evil upon evil is still and evil deed.
2) Worse case scenario; the person will go mad and you will be forced to kill them.
3) When the heroes look back, they may regret their method.


Each side is valid but overall, I say that it is a reasonable method. You are trying to save lives. The heroes are not trying to hurt this person, they will try to bring about the least possible harm.