Interrogation, Torture, and You

[DRD1812]

I think every party goes through this (http://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/interrogation). You've captured an enemy and need to get information out of them. That brings up all sorts of alignment issues, mechanical issues, and comfort levels with graphic violence issues. How do you handle it at your table?

[Unoriginal]

Actual torture doesn't work to get info. If intimidation and showing you're you're serious doesn't work, then something more extreme won't work (since they will just say whatever until you're satisfied).

If you want to make a bad guy talk, tell them they get X nice thing if they cooperate, and Y bad thing if they don't, usually death. If they're open to negotiation, go for it, while firmly reminding them you're the one with the power. If they refuse to talk despite the threat, even once you've shown you were serious, just have them be punished appropriately for their crimes (which will usually be death penalty or another major punishment, since they're not likely to resist the threat if all what they've done is stealing a pie).

[Potato_Priest]

I think every party goes through this (http://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/interrogation). You've captured an enemy and need to get information out of them. That brings up all sorts of alignment issues, mechanical issues, and comfort levels with graphic violence issues. How do you handle it at your table?

Crucifixion and Iron Maiden’s are the preferred methods.

In all seriousness though, we usually have some comical form of torture like public nudity or bad jazz music. See Cool and Unusual Punishment (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CoolAndUnusualPunishment) (warning: TvTropes)

[Talamare]

Zone of Truth

[Crgaston]

Suggestion.

“You really want to cooperate, answer all my questions, and tell me everything about X.”

[LeonBH]

Charm Person or Suggestion are really handy in this case. Or Friends, if you don't want to spend a spell slot.

Enchantment is kind of an evil school when you think about it, because usually it involves taking away an element of free will from your targets. But it's less graphic than torture.

[StoicLeaf]

Charm Person or Suggestion are really handy in this case. Or Friends, if you don't want to spend a spell slot.

Enchantment is kind of an evil school when you think about it, because usually it involves taking away an element of free will from your targets. But it's less graphic than torture.

that's not going to work against a person that's clearly hostile towards you.
Furthermore, just because you're best friends with the guy doesn't mean he's going to spill everything he knows!

[LeonBH]

that's not going to work against a person that's clearly hostile towards you.
Furthermore, just because you're best friends with the guy doesn't mean he's going to spill everything he knows!

For sure, that's why you still have to talk and roll your persuasion/intimidation checks with advantage.

[Potato_Priest]

Actual torture doesn't work to get info. If intimidation and showing you're you're serious doesn't work, then something more extreme won't work (since they will just say whatever until you're satisfied).


In the real world, this is very true. However, in D&D the Zone of Truth spell makes torture much more viable as a method of interrogation, since the torturee can only speak the truth in their attempts to get you to stop. They can’t even give false confessions, a huge problem in modern interrogations, since that would knowingly be a lie. (except in very special circumstances)

[krugaan]

Sort of disturbing topic.

Was playing a bard (with guns, since DM wanted to try them in the campaign). Had to spend a feat on character creation to use them, but backstory is my family was the first to manufacture them.

Found a town where the rich noble was secretly transporting families guns for Zhentarim. Last battle is a firefight in the guys office. Knock bad guy out, take his gun, tie him up naked in his own torture rack, slap him till he wakes up.

"Where are you getting the guns from?"

"I'll never tell!"

/kneecap (chaotic neutral)

"You got a lot of joints and I got a lot of bullets, pal." (/roll intimidation with advantage)

He spilled the beans.

In describing it ... I guess it's sort of demented. But, what the hey? It's not real.

[Talamare]

Suggestion.

“You really want to cooperate, answer all my questions, and tell me everything about X.”

Answering your question is a obviously harmful act
Spell ends instantly

/trollface


He spilled the beans.

Beans may have been spilled, but just like in real life
He could have just told you whatever so that you would leave/stop

[Vaz]

Answering your question is a obviously harmful act
Spell ends instantly

/trollface

Found the 5 year old.

[krugaan]

Beans may have been spilled, but just like in real life
He could have just told you whatever so that you would leave/stop

Yes, if I had been more thorough about it I would have zone of truth / charmed one to get the info, then used rich noble guy to confirm. Or the other way around. Or both.

[Talamare]

Found the 5 year old.

or instead of reacting like a 5 year old yourself, you present an argument?

If a person believes that ratting out a Mob Boss is the most dangerous thing they can think of
Ratting out a Mob Boss is an obviously harmful act
The spell WOULD end immediately

[Lombra]

People could tell you whatever to stop being tortured.

That's why you don't stop torturing them and keep asking question even if they answered. Plus you can use family/precious possessions as leverage, torture is a form of art, it can give you what you want if you try hard enough.

But yeah, you would be evil if you were to torture someone. Even for the greater good.

[Corpus]

Persuasion > Intimidation > Compulsion (magic)

This often gives a number of party members the opportunity to help/try.

If that doesn't work then either you failed all the rolls (target made saves) or the DM doesn't want you to know. Either way you aren't getting the info you want.

[Potato_Priest]

People could tell you whatever to stop being tortured.


Not if they’re being tortured in a zone of truth.

[Talamare]

People could tell you whatever to stop being tortured.

That's why you don't stop torturing them and keep asking question even if they answered. Plus you can use family/precious possessions as leverage, torture is a form of art, it can give you what you want if you try hard enough.

But yeah, you would be evil if you were to torture someone. Even for the greater good.

Good and Evil are subjective

There is - Do the most Good
There is - Do the least Evil

You claim that Torture makes you Evil, which means you believe in Do the least Evil

If the Torture results* in saving of millions, then Do the most Good means that you're a Good person because you Tortured him.
You would be Evil if you refused, since it would be condemning millions for your personal selfishness


Disclaimer
(* I know Torture doesn't work, but we have to assume it does for a philosophical debate)

[Crgaston]

or instead of reacting like a 5 year old yourself, you present an argument?

If a person believes that ratting out a Mob Boss is the most dangerous thing they can think of
Ratting out a Mob Boss is an obviously harmful act
The spell WOULD end immediately

Or, rather than discuss torture methods at a mixed table of casual acquaintances and people who’ve just met each other, you spend a resource to move the story forward.

[Sigreid]

In the real world, this is very true. However, in D&D the Zone of Truth spell makes torture much more viable as a method of interrogation, since the torturee can only speak the truth in their attempts to get you to stop. They can’t even give false confessions, a huge problem in modern interrogations, since that would knowingly be a lie. (except in very special circumstances)

That's why you need multiple torture victims that can't communicate with each other. So you can compare their stories.

Torture can in fact work, but it can't be your only data point. As with any intelligence work it has to be one point independently generated and compared with other data points to draw a picture of what the most likely true scenarios are. Without other data points to compare and contrast to you just have to rely on your insight check to hopefully tell when they've given up on lying to you.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

In a world with as much killing as the campains I play in have a bit of torture is the least of our problems.

[Vaz]

or instead of reacting like a 5 year old yourself, you present an argument?

If a person believes that ratting out a Mob Boss is the most dangerous thing they can think of
Ratting out a Mob Boss is an obviously harmful act
The spell WOULD end immediately

Answering the question isn't harmful, though, otherwise you could argur Chaos Theory renders the spell unable to actually do anything.

'Trollface'.

[StoicLeaf]

Not if they’re being tortured in a zone of truth.

of course they can, they just remain silent until they pass a save and can lie.

[Malifice]

Playing a LG Paladin, obviously I only employ brutal degrading torture on evildoers like Orc children and the like.

Or on human children if its needed for the 'greater good', like stopping Hitler drive a rail carriage into 5 innocents tied to the tracks or something.

[krugaan]

of course they can, they just remain silent until they pass a save and can lie.

Torture is not conducive to "remaining silent". It's not like they just decide to reward the torturer for working so hard, and speak up.

[Mjolnirbear]

of course they can, they just remain silent until they pass a save and can lie.

Just remain silent? Did you forget about the torture part?

It hasn't come up in my games, but I'd rather skip the brutality if it comes up. I like the Enchantment suggestions and Zone of Truth best. A little pain like a punch to the gut will be fine, but bribery, blackmail and intimidation are better.

But personally, the best interrogation tool is Insight. I take Insight on all my characters. Knowing what motivates someone is a powerful tool.

"You know, my large sharp-toothed friend here loves nothing better than hurting people. It's a character flaw we're working on; she hasn't castrated anyone bare handed in days now. But then you have bodies to dispose of and blood to clean up, it's all very messy really." *watches closely* "But I can see you're a tough one. You've got a job to protect, right? And he pays you well enough?" (first data point: look for signs of loyalty; if not, try bribe; otherwise continue)

"Oh I see. Well that's unfortunate, my friend, because I really need this information. I tell you what. Let me try your colleague. He's over there trying to keep his brains from leaking out. He's a bit muddled, so it shouldn't be too hard to get some answers. I wonder, do you talk during your shift? Does he know where I can find your family? They'll want to know where to find your body when I'm gone." (second data point: family is *instant* leverage)

Simply watching for reactions can tell you a LOT about what motivates people. A rambling conversation like this could be run as a skill challenge. You're casually throwing out threats, but not to intimidate; the intimidate will come once you've found a string to pull on. And that will tell you if you can bribe, blackmail, or threaten his children, all without so much as a thumbscrew.

Though such a character just might be a bit of a psycho, it still avoids graphic torture at the table, no? You could run it as a persuasive conversation instead of an intimidating one; emphasise you're sorry you had to hurt the guards, but the doomsday clock is ticking and the evil Lich is about to win. Ask him where he's from, connect with him, then offer a deal. You'll still be looking for data points but this time it's to offer the carrot, not the stick. Let him go to grab his family and run from the approaching army if he helps you bring down the bad guy. And Insight is still your main tool for this.

[Talamare]

the best interrogation tool is Insight

The problem with Insight is that it's a double edge sword

If you fail the roll, then you believe the person

[hymer]

The problem with Insight is that it's a double edge sword

If you fail the roll, then you believe the person

I suppose you can interpret it that way, but I don't think you need to.


Insight. Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone's next move.

You could say that if you fail your check, your character is no wiser than the player. You can still choose to believe or disbelieve, or to keep searching for the truth.

[Talamare]

I suppose you can interpret it that way, but I don't think you need to.



You could say that if you fail your check, your character is no wiser than the player. You can still choose to believe or disbelieve, or to keep searching for the truth.

Across multiple tables I've played on (but admittedly not always) there have been an idea of keeping the game free of meta game knowledge

Basically what you as a player knows, shouldn't be what you as the player knows

If a DM tells information to one of the PC, while your PC was not around then your character shouldn't know that information
So an insight check has often been that it's your characters intuition. So if you fail it, against the opposing Persuasion check.
Then you should believe that the person is telling the truth.

Now, if you have evidence against what he said. Then you really didn't need an insight check.

[Cespenar]

That's why Insight is one of those checks better rolled by the DM in secret.

[Lombra]

Good and Evil are subjective

There is - Do the most Good
There is - Do the least Evil

You claim that Torture makes you Evil, which means you believe in Do the least Evil

If the Torture results* in saving of millions, then Do the most Good means that you're a Good person because you Tortured him.
You would be Evil if you refused, since it would be condemning millions for your personal selfishness


Disclaimer
(* I know Torture doesn't work, but we have to assume it does for a philosophical debate)

Actually what I was trying to say is that a good person wouldn't even think or attempt to torture someone, and would look for different, non-violent solutions to the problem, at least that's how I envision a good-aligned person.

[Lombra]

The problem with Insight is that it's a double edge sword

If you fail the roll, then you believe the person

Technically failing a roll in this edition only means that you get nothing out of it and the situation doesn't change: fail an athletics check to grapple? You don't grapple and you don't get grappled, failed an insight check to understand if someone is lying? You don't know if he's lying or not and you don't necessairly believe/not believe him.

At least that's according to the book, it's a fine ruling to introduce penalties for failing checks.

[Talamare]

Technically failing a roll in this edition only means that you get nothing out of it and the situation doesn't change: fail an athletics check to grapple? You don't grapple and you don't get grappled, failed an insight check to understand if someone is lying? You don't know if he's lying or not and you don't necessairly believe/not believe him.

At least that's according to the book, it's a fine ruling to introduce penalties for failing checks.

Different situation
Grapple vs Freedom check

vs

Persuade vs Check Lie check

Failing your grapple, means the Freedom check succeeded
Failing your Check Lie, means the Persuasion succeeded

Edit - Or I guess in this case... Deception?

[Malifice]

It works better when you get your undead minions to do the torture for you. They can brutally torture and debase your evildoing victim 24 hours a day while you adventure and gain loot to help you in your quest for good.

Its how my Devotion Paladin prefers to gain information from the evildoers.

Summoned Demons also work, but they need to sleep. On a positive you can go even more good, by feeding the evildoers to the Demon after the information gathering is complete. I prefer to use undead though.

[Lombra]

Different situation
Grapple vs Freedom check

vs

Persuade vs Check Lie check

Failing your grapple, means the Freedom check succeeded
Failing your Check Lie, means the Persuasion succeeded

Edit - Or I guess in this case... Deception?
Edit2 - Also, if you're going to use the book as a source, then show what you're referencing.

I misremembered what I read from page 173 under "contests", what I was referring to is what happens in a tie situation, nevermind.

[Mjolnirbear]

Insight is a contested roll to detect lies, but that's not its only function. I used it here specifically to gain insight into motivators. When you mentioned the subject families, you were watching to see if his eyes widened in fear or he jerked in surprise or basically any body language that told you you struck gold.

And if you fail the roll, your character simply didn't notice anything. There is no need to make up falsehoods and force a player to act as he believed it all in this foolish quest against meta gaming. Unless you crit fail, which to be sure is a house rule anyways.

It is literally impossible not to meta game. You character is an extension of you, and their motivations and actions and thoughts are yours. Your knowledge and experience informs your characters actions; your imagination and creativity enable your story. If you, for instance, were raised by wolves, you would not understand a lot of concepts like justice, war, barter, falsehoods, or propriety; you therefore literally could not play a character using these concepts.

The metagame foxhunt is a trap. You can't divorce player knowledge from character knowledge and there's no point in trying, as long as they a character reason to explain it that isn't pure sophistry.

[Cespenar]

The metagame foxhunt is a trap. You can't divorce player knowledge from character knowledge and there's no point in trying, as long as they a character reason to explain it that isn't pure sophistry.

There's a very easy way, and DMs have been using it for decades. It's called secret rolls. Especially in the case of checks like Spot and Insight.

[Talamare]

Insight is a contested roll to detect lies, but that's not its only function. I used it here specifically to gain insight into motivators. When you mentioned the subject families, you were watching to see if his eyes widened in fear or he jerked in surprise or basically any body language that told you you struck gold.

And if you fail the roll, your character simply didn't notice anything. There is no need to make up falsehoods and force a player to act as he believed it all in this foolish quest against meta gaming. Unless you crit fail, which to be sure is a house rule anyways.

It is literally impossible not to meta game. You character is an extension of you, and their motivations and actions and thoughts are yours. Your knowledge and experience informs your characters actions; your imagination and creativity enable your story. If you, for instance, were raised by wolves, you would not understand a lot of concepts like justice, war, barter, falsehoods, or propriety; you therefore literally could not play a character using these concepts.

The metagame foxhunt is a trap. You can't divorce player knowledge from character knowledge and there's no point in trying, as long as they a character reason to explain it that isn't pure sophistry.

What?
You're not your Character
Your Character is ... literally a Character
A false Persona in which you're the actor
Actors are not the people they portray

I wasn't raised by wolves, but I can imagine what someone who was raised by wolves would think of justice, war, barter, falsehoods, and/or propriety
The entire point of DnD is to take characters and imagine what they would do in that situation. So you absolutely can, and should play those concepts

[Gryndle]

Actually what I was trying to say is that a good person wouldn't even think or attempt to torture someone, and would look for different, non-violent solutions to the problem, at least that's how I envision a good-aligned person.

I think this is an oversimplification. there is a pretty large gap between evil action vs what defines an evil/neutral/good person. Where we do seem to agree is on the point that torture is an evil act.
Under normal circumstances a good person wouldn't consider torture an option, and a good person certainly wouldn't make a habit or career of it.
But under unique and desperate circumstances a normally objectively "good" person might cross lines they would normally consider abhorrent. That doesn't make them evil, or neutral. That just makes them desperate.

torture and alignment discussions are always an unpredictable can of worms, but the thing is there are few actions and few people (if any at all) that can be judged as absolutes. good/evil/neutral are concepts that are often subjective-based on perspective, circumstances and personal bias or belief. Trying to tie the complexities of real world morality to the simplistic concepts of in-game alignment is an exercise in futility

[Mjolnirbear]

What?
You're not your Character
Your Character is ... literally a Character
A false Persona in which you're the actor
Actors are not the people they portray

I wasn't raised by wolves, but I can imagine what someone who was raised by wolves would think of justice, war, barter, falsehoods, and/or propriety
The entire point of DnD is to take characters and imagine what they would do in that situation. So you absolutely can, and should play those concepts

Yes. A character played by you, a person. The way your character thinks is informed and influenced by how you think and what you know. Your character is limited by you too. If you can't imagine it, you can't act it. You embody your character and your character is an extension of you. The entire concept for your character rests in your brain, which is unlike any other person's brain.

I could look at your character sheet and try to play your character. But I'm not playing Asha the Barbarian Savant. I'm playing Mjolnirbear's Version of Asha. The character changes because à different person is imagining it and enacting it. I might get close to your version, if I've observed you playing her and try to copy you, but it's still only an approximation of what you envisioned when you created her.

The point though was about metagaming. And here I'll just link you to someone Far Angrier Than I:

http://theangrygm.com/dear-gms-metagaming-is-your-fault/

[Oerlaf]

Suggestion and Dominate person are the easiest way to torture.

[Lombra]

I think this is an oversimplification. there is a pretty large gap between evil action vs what defines an evil/neutral/good person. Where we do seem to agree is on the point that torture is an evil act.
Under normal circumstances a good person wouldn't consider torture an option, and a good person certainly wouldn't make a habit or career of it.
But under unique and desperate circumstances a normally objectively "good" person might cross lines they would normally consider abhorrent. That doesn't make them evil, or neutral. That just makes them desperate.

torture and alignment discussions are always an unpredictable can of worms, but the thing is there are few actions and few people (if any at all) that can be judged as absolutes. good/evil/neutral are concepts that are often subjective-based on perspective, circumstances and personal bias or belief. Trying to tie the complexities of real world morality to the simplistic concepts of in-game alignment is an exercise in futility

I agree it's not a debate that could go anywhere, let's just lable torture as an evil act, rather than labeling characters.

Not all evil acts are performed by evil characters only, and not all good acts are performed by good characters only, which is the reason for which alignment issues can be so entertaining :smile:

[S_A_M I AM]

I want to take a different approach to this than the moral/ practical dimension, not because they're not valid or unimportant just because they've been brought up at the table and this hasn't.

I'm not sure most people (with the possible exception of the Edgelord set. Which is, granted: Pretty common in circles like this.) would actually be comfortable enough with torture to make explorations of it at the table to be a worthwhile investment of peoples time.

I absolutely get people enjoy being transgressive but it mostly seems to be a form of power fantasy. It's not "I am torturing somebody because I enjoy fake sadism." It's "We exist in a culture that enjoys a familiarity with violence in take charge people who are willing to make the hard choices that most people aren't willing to."

The latter of which is actually really easily worked into core combat behaviour and less socially taboo situations. (Like putting a hostage at risk in order to take out the bad guy. Still ethically sticky: Less icky.)

So with that in mind: What utility does torture actually have for the people at the table?


Playing a LG Paladin, obviously I only employ brutal degrading torture on evildoers like Orc children and the like.

Or on human children if its needed for the 'greater good', like stopping Hitler drive a rail carriage into 5 innocents tied to the tracks or something.


It works better when you get your undead minions to do the torture for you. They can brutally torture and debase your evildoing victim 24 hours a day while you adventure and gain loot to help you in your quest for good.

Its how my Devotion Paladin prefers to gain information from the evildoers.

Summoned Demons also work, but they need to sleep. On a positive you can go even more good, by feeding the evildoers to the Demon after the information gathering is complete. I prefer to use undead though.

Just want to point out that these are both genuinely funny ****posts and pretty clever skewerings of the means/ ends false dichotomy and... Six-ish common ethical problems?

I am impressed.

[Mutazoia]

Speak with dead.

Problem solved.

[Gryndle]

"I think, therefore I get really, really annoyed at people who won't."


I am totally stealing this and getting it put on a mug for my wife to take to work.

[Sigreid]

I want to take a different approach to this than the moral/ practical dimension, not because they're not valid or unimportant just because they've been brought up at the table and this hasn't.

I'm not sure most people (with the possible exception of the Edgelord set. Which is, granted: Pretty common in circles like this.) would actually be comfortable enough with torture to make explorations of it at the table to be a worthwhile investment of peoples time.

I absolutely get people enjoy being transgressive but it mostly seems to be a form of power fantasy. It's not "I am torturing somebody because I enjoy fake sadism." It's "We exist in a culture that enjoys a familiarity with violence in take charge people who are willing to make the hard choices that most people aren't willing to."

The latter of which is actually really easily worked into core combat behaviour and less socially taboo situations. (Like putting a hostage at risk in order to take out the bad guy. Still ethically sticky: Less icky.)

So with that in mind: What utility does torture actually have for the people at the table?





Just want to point out that these are both genuinely funny ****posts and pretty clever skewerings of the means/ ends false dichotomy and... Six-ish common ethical problems?

I am impressed.

I think people are just trying to not turn this into another 100 page alignment argument.

[JackPhoenix]

Just want to point out that these are both genuinely funny ****posts and pretty clever skewerings of the means/ ends false dichotomy and... Six-ish common ethical problems?

I am impressed.

Damm. And there I was, hoping that people will leave the troll to starve.

[the_brazenburn]

At my table, I have ruled that a failed Intimidation check means that the opponent's resolve is bolstered and that unless drastic methods are taken (i.e. torture), all future rolls have disadvantage. This drives the players to do more nasty things. They'll start by simply asking their foe, than offering bribes, then offering threats, then smacking him around. From there it is a simple step up to the red-hot pokers and thumbscrews.

[Sigreid]

At my table, I have ruled that a failed Intimidation check means that the opponent's resolve is bolstered and that unless drastic methods are taken (i.e. torture), all future rolls have disadvantage. This drives the players to do more nasty things. They'll start by simply asking their foe, than offering bribes, then offering threats, then smacking him around. From there it is a simple step up to the red-hot pokers and thumbscrews.

There's their problem. Don't torture the guy. Find his wife and daughter and torture them in front of him. Has to be people they love though.

[LeonBH]

There's their problem. Don't torture the guy. Find his wife and daughter and torture them in front of him. Has to be people they love though.

You are in touch with your dark side.

... Excellent.

[Sigreid]

You are in touch with your dark side.

... Excellent.

I heard about the cookies.

[Zene]

There was (what I thought was) a very interesting thread/post a while back about a character concept of a Spanish inquisition-style cleric, specializing in interrogation and confessions _without_ torture. I believe it involved various uses of speak with dead, revivify, gentle repose, and maybe a couple other spells.

I’ll see if I can dig it up. I know it’s not exactly what this thread is about, but it was interesting and seems somewhat relevant.

[Vaz]

Just want to point out that these are both genuinely funny ****posts and pretty clever skewerings of the means/ ends false dichotomy and... Six-ish common ethical problems?

I am impressed.
Think I'll take credit for these. :)

[SiCK_Boy]

Speak with dead.

Problem solved.

In 5th edition, Speak with Dead doesn't force the dead creature to speak, nor to tell the truth.

"the corpse is under no compulsion to offer a truthful answer if you are hostile to it or it recognizes you as an enemy."

The spell is almost useless in "torture" / "enemy interrogation" scenarios now.

[Mith]

In 5th edition, Speak with Dead doesn't force the dead creature to speak, nor to tell the truth.

"the corpse is under no compulsion to offer a truthful answer if you are hostile to it or it recognizes you as an enemy."

The spell is almost useless in "torture" / "enemy interrogation" scenarios now.

I have always liked the threat of "If you don't cooperate, I can always talk to your corpse."

Personally, I may do the old "Hostile spirits speak in riddles." It gives a better chance of getting information if properly done.

[krugaan]

I have always liked the threat of "If you don't cooperate, I can always talk to your corpse."

Personally, I may do the old "Hostile spirits speak in riddles." It gives a better chance of getting information if properly done.

I like both these ideas a lot.

PC 1: "Dead men don't talk."

PC 2: "Wtf are you going on about, they talk in entertaining riddles. Hurry up and slit this guy's throat so we can get at the fun brainteasers already."

Captive: ILL TALK ILL TALK, PLEASE DONT KILL ME

[The_Jette]

What exactly counts as torture? Here's a scenario that I felt didn't involve torture, but I keep getting called out as torturing the guy:

Ran into a room where three orcs (one from a previous encounter) were standing. One orc was patching up the injured one, the last was standing guard. I cast sleep, with enough of a spread to catch all three. Roll high enough that all three fall asleep. Myself and another person kill the two uninjured, and I wake up the third, after tying him up, gently. Upon waking, he finds himself face to face with the party that burned him with alchemist's fire, and both his friends dead, pretty well splattered against the walls, some on him. I told him that I killed them and was getting ready to kill him. If he told me what I'd find as I traveled further into the caves that we were investigating, I would let him live. He told me everything that we'd be facing. So, I rolled him over, and put some bandages on his wounds, and a (bloody) jacket from one of his friends under his head to stay comfortable. I told him that we were going to continue into the cave, and come back to find him once we were done. If he had lied to me, I was gonna kill him. If not, I would give him a healing potion and let him go.

Apparently, he was 'rescued' by some orcs later, and we found him getting patched up again. We killed him that time. But, I had every intention of releasing him at that point, since he'd told us the truth. If he'd just stayed put, he wouldn't have ended up all over a completely different wall. I hold to the fact that no torture was committed. It was simply using the situation to gain a bonus to intimidation. I did, in fact, treat him very gently, when you consider that he and his friends started shooting me and my party with arrows the moment they saw us...

[Vaz]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

"Torture (from the Latin tortus, "twisted") is the act of deliberately inflicting physical or psychological pain in order to fulfill some desire of the torturer or compel some action from the victim. Torture, by definition, is a knowing and intentional act; deeds which unknowingly or negligently inflict pain without a specific intent to do so are not typically considered torture."

Quite clearly torture. However, torture is not a good or evil act, it is merely a degree of acceptability depending on the perception. The one being tortured inevitably finds it unacceptable. A torturer does not enjoy being tortured. Torturing a terrorist to find particular information to prevent harm to others would be considered acceptable to others. A god might e courage torture of certain creatures in certain ways, but not another. It is acceptable to them.

Pelor often tortures sentient undead using the power of radiant damage and sunlight etc, but it is acceptable, if not encouraged under his tenets to do so.

People torture themselves in modern society in order to look a certain way (eating disorders), and often encouraged to do so, by companies in order to profit from it: the same magazines which for 5 months if the year tell you to lose yourself for who you are and eat what you want, followed by 1 month of self engorgement, followed by 6 months of dietary 'advice' and perfect airbrushed people, followed by get fit quick diets that are designed for quick results which go as soon as you let yourself go from torturous exercise, all in the name of psychological 'obey' commands to conform to society.

Your society in dnd is what you make of it, in the same way as a Masai woman with her tatas out is less scandalous than a woman wearing a mesh shirt without a bra in 'western society'. Good and evil is merely terms for what the zeitgeist deems acceptable, and like in Dragon Age Origins approval. Squashing pigeons might earn Shales approval, but Alistair might not like it.

[hamishspence]

Pelor often tortures sentient undead using the power of radiant damage and sunlight etc, but it is acceptable, if not encouraged under his tenets to do so.


That's not torture - it's just his method of attempting to destroy them (or make it easier for his followers to destroy them).

Torture would be a cleric using radiant damage on a tied-down vampire, a little at a time, either to get information from them, or as "punishment" or to gratify the cleric's own sadism.


It has a very specific meaning, and simply "using radiant damage to repel or destroy undead" doesn't always qualify as fulfilling that meaning.

[Vaz]

That's not torture - it's just his method of attempting to destroy them (or make it easier for his followers to destroy them).

Torture would be a cleric using radiant damage on a tied-down vampire, a little at a time, either to get information from them, or as "punishment" or to gratify the cleric's own sadism.


It has a very specific meaning, and simply "using radiant damage to repel or destroy undead" doesn't always qualify as fulfilling that meaning.

Considering that there are many ways to destroy undead, it feels that specifically using the Sun seems an especially cruel way of doing so.

[hamishspence]

Very few undead in fact are harmed by sunlight (vampires are almost the only one- and it kills them fast. In some editions, it's on the order of 6 seconds.)

[S_A_M I AM]

What exactly counts as torture? Here's a scenario that I felt didn't involve torture, but I keep getting called out as torturing the guy:

-Snip-

So I got some training as a security guard a couple of years back because I liked the idea of being paid to spend extended ammounts of time alone in a booth reading and taking short walks around a building. (Nothing came of it. Sadly it seemed that the local security industry was well staffed enough that unless you're in a position to get some kind of defence/ weapons accreditation and/ or a NV1 Security Clearance.)

One of the things that we covered in that was the expected worst case scenario for stock retention (the lawful detainment of people who you've reason to believe to have stolen things) and the treatment of people who you've got a degree of legal power over.

Unless you're explicitly put yourself in a situation to administer a citizens arrest and are about to call the cops or the like. Or you've been on the scene for an assault or something like that:

It is best legal practices to never put yourself between your target and the exit. You aren't supposed to lock the room that you take them to. You're not allowed to box them in with your body as you guide them to where you'd like them to be. You probably shouldn't raise your voice and you should NEVER threaten anybody with violence.

Because in situations where there is asymmetrical power and information: Things like body language and behaviour creating an expectation of violence is undue harm being visited upon another citizen.*

I mentioned that to illustrate the modern, formal/ legal understanding of power dynamics. (At least in Australia.)

And if you disagree with that or have a different set of colloquial definitions/ limitations? That's okay. (Depending on what they are: It might be terrible but that they can be different is 100% fine.)

But I'd say a situation that you described? Where you've got two murder victims who have been providing for him and caring for him, killed in cold blood right next to him. A history of violence visited upon him. An entirely lopsided power dynamic and he's litterally helpless?

That's absolutely information obtained under duress and threat of violence: Information from psychological torture.

*The police have some issues with loosely worded laws, explicit and implicit prejudice and out and out lying that let them get around the limitations that I just mentioned but you actually have a similar legal definition of harm and expectations of proper treatment with them. Unless they're explicitly holding you for questioning or the period before you are charged, you absolutely can just leave.

They WILL use ambiguous language, at minimum, to get around these limitations. Know your rights and be prepared to create/ produce a paper trail. An expectation of violence or detainment is a BIG deal and is not okay.

[guachi]

As a DM, there are two things in my games the PCs will never do - torture and rape. If the PCs attempt to do these things they will no longer be at my table.

That's how I deal with interrogations that devolve into torture.

[Arcangel4774]

But I'd say a situation that you described? Where you've got two murder victims who have been providing for him and caring for him, killed in cold blood right next to him. A history of violence visited upon him. An entirely lopsided power dynamic and he's litterally
helpless?

That's absolutely information obtained under duress and threat of violence: Information from psychological torture.

I enjoy the in depth and experienced insight. I know its a common copout when conparing our world to the dnd world, but for the sake of discussion i like to question it more closely. At what point does the world of dnd not close enough represent our own?

As different people have different views, its hard to say for sure. Some people may say that a threat of violence to the orc is not even a threat to him, as violence was a forgone conclusion. Others may say that in the dnd world itself violence is so common as to be considered normal for many poeple behong the brutish orc. Yet others might suggest that a threat to killl the orc is a sign of respect, and that not threatening him devalues him. Theres so many ways to look at it; im just curious where you draw thebline between real and dnd worlds.

[Ivor_The_Mad]

I like to play evil or neutral so I usually have no problem with torture or interrogation. If i'm good I try to use non violent methods. the_brazenburn came up with a alignment chart for our group so we do something evil but we are good we change alignment.

[KorvinStarmast]

As a DM, there are two things in my games the PCs will never do - torture and rape. If the PCs attempt to do these things they will no longer be at my table. That's how I deal with interrogations that devolve into torture. As long as the players know this up front, this seems a very good solution. :smallcool:

[Sigreid]

As a DM, there are two things in my games the PCs will never do - torture and rape. If the PCs attempt to do these things they will no longer be at my table.

That's how I deal with interrogations that devolve into torture.

Eh, not had rape come up but for torture it's been handled with a roll. No long descriptions. That doesn't bother me.

[Asmotherion]

Well, like everything in my D&D it's RP dependent.

There is a limited amount of things I do not play on screen in my games (some downtime activities for instance), the rest of them are all to be performed on screen and followed by a full description.

You want to intimidate someone? Describe how you go about it, roll the die, and depending on the result I'll give you how it went.

Want to torture someone? Same as above.

Now, since I generally play in a group with people I know, everyone is ok with graphic violance. In case we have new people, I make sure to inform everyone from session 0, so that everyone is on board that the game we're playing is not some PG13 game. I never had any complains, but if I did, I'd make sure to appologise about not being clear enough on the nature of the game (which would have been the issue), and try to tone down the aspects of the descriptions that seem to disturb them in good faith, if they wish to remain in the campain; I do value my players more than a choped head, and if they were up-front with me, I'd try to compromise for both our enjoyment's sake.

[Sigreid]

Well, like everything in my D&D it's RP dependent.

There is a limited amount of things I do not play on screen in my games (some downtime activities for instance), the rest of them are all to be performed on screen and followed by a full description.

You want to intimidate someone? Describe how you go about it, roll the die, and depending on the result I'll give you how it went.

Want to torture someone? Same as above.

Now, since I generally play in a group with people I know, everyone is ok with graphic violance. In case we have new people, I make sure to inform everyone from session 0, so that everyone is on board that the game we're playing is not some PG13 game. I never had any complains, but if I did, I'd make sure to appologise about not being clear enough on the nature of the game (which would have been the issue), and try to tone down the aspects of the descriptions that seem to disturb them in good faith, if they wish to remain in the campain; I do value my players more than a choped head, and if they were up-front with me, I'd try to compromise for both our enjoyment's sake.

When a character scored with a lovely woman we didn't detail that either.

[jojo]

As a DM I tend to avoid limiting what my players are and aren't permitted to do as much as possible. That being said shockingly enough if you don't go out of your way to shoe-horn torture, interrogation or similar encounters into your campaign my experience suggests that players and PCs will find dozens of more creative and less "edgy" ways of getting the information they need.

The vast majority of campaign settings are "realities" in which a guy can turn another guy into a woman for s**ts and giggles or create water from thin air. Resorting to crudely yanking out someone's fingernails or lopping bits of them off is just kind of sad and seriously lacking creatively.

As a Player I've seen these things and usually my PC just walks off shaking his or her head in disgust for exactly the same reasons, because it's not a challenging moral dilemma, it's just boring and uncreative. Even in "evil" parties a wealth of superior options exist in a world where magic is real and players can literally charm the pants off of their enemies to gather whatever requisite information they need.

[krugaan]

When a character scored with a lovely woman we didn't detail that either.

I play womanizing bard. Am male.

My friend is DM. Also male.

Another player at table is female. Also wife of DM.

My character never bothers trying to score, because awkward RPing in front of wife.

Eventually becomes just a bard.

[War_lord]

If DM didn't insist on bad guys being strangely immune to "tell us about the evil plot or we'll kill you" I wouldn't need to torture them. For some reason it never occurs to them that the baddies usually want to live.

[Mith]

I like both these ideas a lot.

PC 1: "Dead men don't talk."

PC 2: "Wtf are you going on about, they talk in entertaining riddles. Hurry up and slit this guy's throat so we can get at the fun brainteasers already."

Captive: ILL TALK ILL TALK, PLEASE DONT KILL ME

To me, it means that a party looking for information can always get it one way or another. Depending on how they go about it depends on the quality of the information.

[krugaan]

To me, it means that a party looking for information can always get it one way or another. Depending on how they go about it depends on the quality of the information.

I prefer thinking about it like a reverse sphinx situation:

"Tell me good riddles about the information I want, or I'll kill you and rip out those riddles with magic."

... That's very weird and potentially unnerving enough to make the person fess up.

[The_Jette]

So I got some training as a security guard a couple of years back because I liked the idea of being paid to spend extended ammounts of time alone in a booth reading and taking short walks around a building.

Okay, I understand where you're coming from, as I actually worked in security, myself. In fact, I joined a security company after leaving the military. So, I'm absolutely familiar with all the concepts you've brought up. However, those are the rules for dealing with people in America. Go one country to the south, and you'll find completely different training. And, my character is not an American. He's also not a security guard. He's an adventuring Wizard who is clearing out the evil humanoids who have taken up residence in an ancient dwarven city that was abandoned due to dragon attack. I'm not dealing with someone spray painting on a wall, or trying to steal a pair of pants. This orc tried to kill me, and my party. His allies were killed in the most efficient and quick manner. Any of them could have offered up the information, but he was injured. Thus, he was the weakest. Waking up to find his allies dead when they were stronger than him gave us a leg up to get information to make the rest of the game easier. No nails were pulled out. No further injury caused. You call it psychological torture. I call it "the stick or the apple."
Also, in my party there's a guy who took the jaw bone of an orc we defeated and turned it into a necklace. So, it gets pretty tiresome that my non-violent questioning of an orc keeps getting brought up like it makes my character evil, when others are left to make jewelry with body parts like it's normal.

[denthor]

One person asking questions

Invisible mage, in room

esp spell running

No need to get graphic Prisoners say I not talking thought betray them

[Sigreid]

I think this needs to be here.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOFeVSTO6sk

[S_A_M I AM]

I enjoy the in depth and experienced insight. I know its a common copout when conparing our world to the dnd world, but for the sake of discussion i like to question it more closely. At what point does the world of dnd not close enough represent our own?

As different people have different views, its hard to say for sure. Some people may say that a threat of violence to the orc is not even a threat to him, as violence was a forgone conclusion. Others may say that in the dnd world itself violence is so common as to be considered normal for many poeple behong the brutish orc. Yet others might suggest that a threat to killl the orc is a sign of respect, and that not threatening him devalues him. Theres so many ways to look at it; im just curious where you draw thebline between real and dnd worlds.

Lets start with two premises, two ethical and one metatextual:
1. The manner in which people expect to be treated does not determine the logistically or moral best way to treat them.
If somebody was raised in an abusive situation or as a slave or something and expects to be beaten for breaking a mug: That doesn't make it right to hit them.

2. Group morality is a series of logistical issues between different people about appropriate behaviour. Its entirely probable to have very different values from a cultural norm within the society that you're in as it is with another society. Morality across cultures doesn't necessarily function in a different way to morality between two people: Its just a larger dissonance between what values are emphasised as a part of that ongoing discussion.

An anarchist* in Australia today could have functionally the same issues with the social norms of their home as a republican** would have looking at a culturally distinct monarchy. This can be true without the republican being a hypocrite.

3. There is no way and no reason to treat a work of fiction as a discrete cultural space in its own right. It was created as a direct response to the cultural expectations and moral values it was written within. Even to say that it's drawing on a certain literary tradition is just removing the discussion one step away from the actual creation process of that work of fiction, it doesn't resolve the issue.

Why is Harry Dresden kinda sexist and objectifying towards women in Storm Front? Because the author decided to embrace the sexist behaviour of people within Noir/ Hardboiled/ Pulp fiction. Why are the genera conventions he's drawing on kinda sexist? Because they're being written in a sexist time for a sexist audience and were often pretty pander-y to boot.

Harry has no agency. The orcs aren't real.

This approach does have limitations when you're talking about the value set expressed through the art of another culture. Particularly when it has been specifically keyed to speak to the values and prejudices of another audience: It makes it VERY difficult to actually draw useful information about that people without extra textual information.

Specific example that I hope doesn't offend anybody: I would expect that the first artistic touchstone for Westerners as to the cultural experience of a modern Afgani would be The Kite Runner and I think it's fair to say that a sense of fidelity to friends and family are as close to a universal theme as you can get. But it doesn't address, at all, a sense of hurt or resentment that could be felt towards America (and by extension: Its prospective audience.)

The realpolitik machinations of Russia and America are directly causal to the plot. In direct terms: The empowerment of fundamentalist groups by The American Government puts children into the hands of a paedophile. That's a strong moral statement.

But that's not stated in the text. At all.
In fact: I'd go so far as to say that "America as caring sanctuary for the family" is a core thematic choice.
And that doesn't mean that Khaleed intentionally cut things out of his manuscript in order to sell better or anything like that. I'm just trying to illustrate that what is explicitly stated about a hypothetical scenario is often entirely inadequate to express the moral complexities of any given situation, including things that do not draw on real world issues and cultures so completely.

So the treating of any kind of person or culture in fiction is inherently the same kind of overt oversimplification.

I kinda feel that this answer to your question has gotten away from me a little. :smallredface:

I guess all of that^ is defining terms and trying to illustrate what I feel is a useful mindset with which to approach textual analisis. (If you feel like I've treated you like an idiot by stating the obvious or anything like that: Please tell me?)

Okay.

Orcs are people.
(If you feel like I've treated you like an idiot by stating the obvious or anything like that: Please tell me?)

But more importantly: The issues and cultural moors of a fantasy world aren't set in stone, they are plastic to what the creators want to achieve and communicate with a particular work.

So if an Orc has a cultural expectation of harm: How does that change how the characters are supposed to behave in accordance with best moral practices? It doesn't really. (Which doesn't mean that they can't do bad things.)

I would never be comfortable describing what is discovered by the "ongoing negotiation between different value sets" that make up ethics as discovering objective truths. That doesn't mean that the more appropriate behaviour that we negotiate towards isn't better; more optimally keyed towards the values that are held as being good.

And I feel like that applies to interpreting fiction as well: There is a long, long list of grey situations where you should look at fiction in the value set of a fictional culture. That doesn't mean that black and white situations don't exist OR that a viewpoint that looks at it as a production of artistic and metatextual intent is invalid or in some situations: More valid. Different analytical tools produce different results.

(How badly did I lose the plot here? I actually set out trying to talk about how the Arthurian Myths are pretty fashy as a way of illustrating cross cultural values. That disappeared immediately after mentioning the anarchist.)

*Somebody who has issues with hierarchical systems. Not the fake, Objectivist-y kind.
**The anti-monarch kind. Not the Objectivist kind.

TL:DR: Different approaches produce different results that can be simultaneously valid and contradictory. I would give weight to lenses that bias a more through understanding of real world issues/ real people.

Unfortunately people (including myself) are barely able to effectively engage with a single, highly simplified real world issue at a time thanks to a lack of time, understanding and knowledge of literary theory/ philosophy/ politics or not wanting to or being able to engage fully with a certain issue.

It actually becomes harder to effectively engage with a single fictional issue because so much context is communicated through inference and a presumed cultural shorthand rather than facts.

Any kind of hard and fast rule that applies equally to all works of fiction is at best, unhelpful.

I am pretentious.


Okay, I understand where you're coming from, as I actually worked in security, myself. In fact, I joined a security company after leaving the military. So, I'm absolutely familiar with all the concepts you've brought up. However, those are the rules for dealing with people in America. Go one country to the south, and you'll find completely different training. And, my character is not an American. He's also not a security guard. He's an adventuring Wizard who is clearing out the evil humanoids who have taken up residence in an ancient dwarven city that was abandoned due to dragon attack. I'm not dealing with someone spray painting on a wall, or trying to steal a pair of pants. This orc tried to kill me, and my party. His allies were killed in the most efficient and quick manner. Any of them could have offered up the information, but he was injured. Thus, he was the weakest. Waking up to find his allies dead when they were stronger than him gave us a leg up to get information to make the rest of the game easier. No nails were pulled out. No further injury caused. You call it psychological torture. I call it "the stick or the apple."

I mentioned above that morality is best looked at as an ongoing negotiation towards a series of goals but I didn't mention why I think that way has utility. It's because, even with differing values, you can look at a series of different situations and the way people should behave within them as something close to an objective puzzle: "What achieves these goals as they have been set by cultural values?" instead of "What is good?"

So I'm not saying that you're wrong or anything like that, just that the question somebody could be asking is "How do I get the information I need while visiting minimum harm upon these people?" is a better question than "How do I threaten one of these people in the most effective manner?"

You literally just said yourself: Your character targeted the weakest, most vulnerable person because it made your positional power greater. Your character murdered two people who had, as far as you know, visited no harm upon anybody in cold blood while they were absolutely no threat to you.

How does "We did not visit further harm upon him" mean that "We had not already visited harm upon him to get what we want and were threatening more."

I'm not calling your character evil or anything like that. Normal behaviour isn't equivalent to the behaviour people exhibit under pressure and as you'd been shot at: He was having kind of a bad day. :smalltongue:

(But we do place a different onus of behaviour on real people and real harm than fictional people.)

But but I don't think that "The character behaved in the most effective way" is an effective counter to "Did the character behave in the manner that was the least harmful?"

And you've actually removed one of the most effective arguments in favour of pragmatism: You were not at greater risk if you HADN'T been kinder.

Hypothetically, do you think it would be likely that doing exactly the same thing while only murdering one of the caregivers would have achieved the same goal? (And that still wouldn't be "Behave in a manner that visits least possible harm.")


Also, in my party there's a guy who took the jaw bone of an orc we defeated and turned it into a necklace. So, it gets pretty tiresome that my non-violent questioning of an orc keeps getting brought up like it makes my character evil, when others are left to make jewelry with body parts like it's normal.

I'm not sure I get your point here.

So some of those people might have also called that character evil too: What does that change about your characters behaviour?

Somebody could stand "Charlie: The Shinkicker" next to "Alex: Baby Murderer" and she would have still kicked people in the shins.

[Vaz]

Okay, I understand where you're coming from, as I actually worked in security, myself. In fact, I joined a security company after leaving the military. So, I'm absolutely familiar with all the concepts you've brought up. However, those are the rules for dealing with people in America. Go one country to the south, and you'll find completely different training. And, my character is not an American. He's also not a security guard. He's an adventuring Wizard who is clearing out the evil humanoids who have taken up residence in an ancient dwarven city that was abandoned due to dragon attack. I'm not dealing with someone spray painting on a wall, or trying to steal a pair of pants. This orc tried to kill me, and my party. His allies were killed in the most efficient and quick manner. Any of them could have offered up the information, but he was injured. Thus, he was the weakest. Waking up to find his allies dead when they were stronger than him gave us a leg up to get information to make the rest of the game easier. No nails were pulled out. No further injury caused. You call it psychological torture. I call it "the stick or the apple."
Also, in my party there's a guy who took the jaw bone of an orc we defeated and turned it into a necklace. So, it gets pretty tiresome that my non-violent questioning of an orc keeps getting brought up like it makes my character evil, when others are left to make jewelry with body parts like it's normal.

You tortured someone. Call a spoon a spoon, and accept it. It is all a matter of acceptance anyway. your character seems to be okay with it. Others seeing it might not be. Your god may be okay with it.

[Malifice]

You tortured someone. Call a spoon a spoon, and accept it. It is all a matter of acceptance anyway. your character seems to be okay with it. Others seeing it might not be. Your god may be okay with it.

It's clearly lawful good.

If done for altruistic reasons, or your victim is 'evil'.

[Vaz]

No such thing as Good and Evil, mate, just degrees of acceptance. Good and Evil is just a way of describing with ease a typical thoughtset.

No such thing as Cosmic Good. No such thing as Cosmic evil, and trying justify one or the other based on that, essentially invalidates comments as jingoistic bull****.

What matters is acceptance. How people are okay with watching the news on Syria, but get up in arms about a minor event elsewhere, such as the Manchester bomb this year. That was my home town, where I'd been to gigs, boxing matches, paraded, and other events, and it targeted kids. I was less okay with that, than I am sat watching the events in Aleppo. People in Libya might have been a little less sympathetic to Lockerbie than we were.

What matters is perspective, and how okay you are with it, not some 'goodevilometer' that came up to streamline the process.

[LeonBH]

No such thing as Good and Evil, mate, just degrees of acceptance. Good and Evil is just a way of describing with ease a typical thoughtset.

No such thing as Cosmic Good. No such thing as Cosmic evil, and trying justify one or the other based on that, essentially invalidates comments as jingoistic bull****.

What matters is acceptance. How people are okay with watching the news on Syria, but get up in arms about a minor event elsewhere, such as the Manchester bomb this year. That was my home town, where I'd been to gigs, boxing matches, paraded, and other events, and it targeted kids. I was less okay with that, than I am sat watching the events in Aleppo. People in Libya might have been a little less sympathetic to Lockerbie than we were.

What matters is perspective, and how okay you are with it, not some 'goodevilometer' that came up to streamline the process.

Vaz, this question is out of context. But are you suggesting all perspectives are valid, even the one that says "bombing Manchester was a good thing"?

[LeonBH]

Also, this is a question directed at Vaz, Sam, Malifice, Jette, and anyone else participating in this part of the discussion.

Which schools of thought do you belong to?

1) "You must do the thing that achieves the greatest good for the most number of people" or "you must always do the right thing, regardless of the consequences"

2) "Morality is subjective" vs "Morality is objective"

[krugaan]

Also, this is a question directed at Vaz, Sam, Malifice, Jette, and anyone else participating in this part of the discussion.

Which schools of thought do you belong to?

1) "You must do the thing that achieves the greatest good for the most number of people" or "you must always do the right thing, regardless of the consequences"

2) "Morality is subjective" vs "Morality is objective"

1) the former, if i know, the latter, if i don't
2) the latter, if i know, the former, if i don't

Spoiler Alert: Most of the time, I don't know.

[War_lord]

There are creatures that are the literal manifestations of Good and Evil in D&D. Good and Evil existing as objective concepts in D&D is not something that's up for debate. Anything outside of D&D is both irrelevant and straying dangerously close to politics. This why alignment threads are toxic, there's always someone who can't keep to the D&D discussion.

[Temperjoke]

XGtE has the 6th level spell Soul Cage which would work amazingly well for getting information from someone if you don't care about the ethical ramifications of killing someone then imprisoning their soul for 8 hours or 6 "uses" (the spell has several ways that you can exploit the captured soul, including information).

[Laserlight]

Generally some combination of Deception and Charm or Suggestion will do. If things have to get physical, it happens offstage. Madbear takes the captive away; DM rolls; Madbear comes back without captive and says "The password is Swordfish."

Our (female) druid will occasionally seduce a woman, usually with an ulterior motive. That's usually (roll) "She takes you into her office and you close the door behind you. You both emerge an hour later. (roll) You have a large stain on your left shoulder and arm from knocking over the inkwell on her desk. (roll) And you know that you get to the senior alchemist's lab by going through the secret door behind a bookcase."

[Vaz]

There are creatures that are the literal manifestations of Good and Evil in D&D. Good and Evil existing as objective concepts in D&D is not something that's up for debate. Anything outside of D&D is both irrelevant and straying dangerously close to politics. This why alignment threads are toxic, there's always someone who can't keep to the D&D discussion.

Alignment threads are toxic because people discuss alignment. Gotcha. It is nowhere near politics, noone has brought up politics except you.

Good and Evil as a Concept is uttedly flawed. Is there a uniting concept of what good and evil are? Where are they? Is it 'killing is bad'? In that case, why exists the Solar? Is it murder is bad? In that case why is murder different than killing? And what if murder is used to avert more 'evil'?

Three aspects to action: Intent, the Action, and the Result.

Did you intend good or evil, did you do a good or evil action, and were the results good or evil. That is 8 different permutations.

Can you have actions that are neither good nor evil, or can they be both good and evil?

Who or what judges Good or evil? Do they have an agenda?

And is there a defined list of what is immutably good, and immutably evil? At what stage does the buck stop with commiting evil or good?

Whose perception matters regarding good and evil? If you kill an Orc Barbarian, what about her husband and children? What if they grow up to become murderers and kill more people in payment for having their mother killed? What about all those clerics who bring people back to life, and those people go on to kill thousands or more people?

Then you've got the meta concept of Good and evil itself and how amorphous it is. As a Human, the likelihold of you eating meat is high. And yet in the eyes of a Vegan, you are evil. In the eyes of the creature farmed, slaughtered, its children taken away from it, you are almost certainly evil. Do they not matter? Or does it only affect sentient creatures? In which case can you do the same to a sentient baby, as that is not yet sentient? Or can younot, because it may become sentient? In which case what about Awaken?

These are why alignment threads are toxic, because there's always one individual who cannot actually keep to the discussion.

[Sigreid]

I play womanizing bard. Am male.

My friend is DM. Also male.

Another player at table is female. Also wife of DM.

My character never bothers trying to score, because awkward RPing in front of wife.

Eventually becomes just a bard.

We just did a "fade to black".

Edit: In another campaign we had a player with a low CHA and WIS fighter that hit on every woman in clumsy and ineffective ways. Even in front of their husbands and such. It was very entertaining for everyone.

[War_lord]

Good and Evil as a Concept is uttedly flawed. Is there a uniting concept of what good and evil are? Where are they? Is it 'killing is bad'? In that case, why exists the Solar? Is it murder is bad? In that case why is murder different than killing? And what if murder is used to avert more 'evil'?

Killing is obviously not bad if done to defeat evil, otherwise the gods would not have created Angels.


Did you intend good or evil, did you do a good or evil action, and were the results good or evil. That is 8 different permutations.

Thoughts don't cause alignment changes. Actions do.


Can you have actions that are neither good nor evil, or can they be both good and evil?

Self interest is neutral. An action cannot be both good and evil.


Who or what judges Good or evil? Do they have an agenda?

The gods judge. Their agenda is their alignment.


And is there a defined list of what is immutably good, and immutably evil? At what stage does the buck stop with commiting evil or good?

Celestials are good, Fiends are evil.


Whose perception matters regarding good and evil?

The Sprite literally has an ability that acts as an infallible alignment detector.


If you kill an Orc Barbarian, what about her husband and children? What if they grow up to become murderers and kill more people in payment for having their mother killed? What about all those clerics who bring people back to life, and those people go on to kill thousands or more people?

Orcs don't have any concept of marriage. Resurrecting a known murderer is an evil act.


Then you've got the meta concept of Good and evil itself and how amorphous it is. As a Human, the likelihold of you eating meat is high. And yet in the eyes of a Vegan, you are evil. In the eyes of the creature farmed, slaughtered, its children taken away from it, you are almost certainly evil. Do they not matter? Or does it only affect sentient creatures? In which case can you do the same to a sentient baby, as that is not yet sentient? Or can younot, because it may become sentient?

The Vegan is not a god, so their opinion is irrelevant. Animals are unaligned non-sentients. Babies are by definition innocent, so it's obviously evil to kill one.

[/QUOTE]

[sir_argo]

Ok, I read this thread because I was hoping to find some reasonable mechanics for torture and didn't see any messages that fit.


Characters will torture bad guys they capture.
Bad guys will torture characters they capture.

My problem is the disparity of how this is handled.

Character: Tell us what we want to know!
Bad guy: Never!
Player: My character breaks his kneecaps.
DM: [does something/rolls some dice to determine if that compels bad guy to talk]

vs.

Bad guy: Tell us what we want to know!
Character: Never!
DM: He breaks your kneecaps.
DM again: [does something/rolls some dice to determine if that compels character to talk]


The disparity is that players expect bad guys to roll some dice to determine if they break and talk. However, they expect to control their characters actions and always just say, my character says nothing. I call BS on that. We need to have a mechanic/dice roll to determine if the victim talks. And that works both ways... for characters and bad guys.

Personally, I think Torture should be a skill. Nobody is normally proficient in it, but there are some who are... so they would get to add their proficiency bonus to it. It could be one of your two background skills (Torturer!). I'm leaning toward the skill be CHA, but it might be INT or WIS. I think the DC is the victims CON. But those are just my suggestions. Primarily, I'm after a two-way mechanic. One that works for both the characters and the bad guys. Any good ideas out there?

[krugaan]

Ok, I read this thread because I was hoping to find some reasonable mechanics for torture and didn't see any messages that fit.


Characters will torture bad guys they capture.
Bad guys will torture characters they capture.

My problem is the disparity of how this is handled.

Character: Tell us what we want to know!
Bad guy: Never!
Player: My character breaks his kneecaps.
DM: [does something/rolls some dice to determine if that compels bad guy to talk]

vs.

Bad guy: Tell us what we want to know!
Character: Never!
DM: He breaks your kneecaps.
DM again: [does something/rolls some dice to determine if that compels character to talk]


The disparity is that players expect bad guys to roll some dice to determine if they break and talk. However, they expect to control their characters actions and always just say, my character says nothing. I call BS on that. We need to have a mechanic/dice roll to determine if the victim talks. And that works both ways... for characters and bad guys.

Personally, I think Torture should be a skill. Nobody is normally proficient in it, but there are some who are... so they would get to add their proficiency bonus to it. It could be one of your two background skills (Torturer!). I'm leaning toward the skill be CHA, but it might be INT or WIS. I think the DC is the victims CON. But those are just my suggestions. Primarily, I'm after a two-way mechanic. One that works for both the characters and the bad guys. Any good ideas out there?

Isn't that pretty much intimidation? You can just call torture roleplay that may or may not give advantage to the roll.

Did not fully read quoted post before posting...

[hamishspence]

An action cannot be both good and evil.



Sure it can. Using "Good" spells to commit murder, in 3.5, would be both "good" (casting the spell) and Evil (committing the murder).

A fiend murdering another fiend, would also qualify, based on BOVD "Killing a fiend is always good" and "Murder is evil".

[krugaan]

Sure it can. Using "Good" spells to commit murder, in 3.5, would be both "good" (casting the spell) and Evil (committing the murder).

A fiend murdering another fiend, would also qualify, based on BOVD "Killing a fiend is always good" and "Murder is evil".

Given that good and evil are cultural constructs, I'm not sure why we keep having these philosophical arguments.

... wait a minute.

[S_A_M I AM]

It's clearly lawful good.

If done for altruistic reasons, or your victim is 'evil'.

I feel like you're not putting as much effort into this as you were. :smalltongue:



What matters is acceptance. How people are okay with watching the news on Syria, but get up in arms about a minor event elsewhere, such as the Manchester bomb this year. That was my home town, where I'd been to gigs, boxing matches, paraded, and other events, and it targeted kids. I was less okay with that, than I am sat watching the events in Aleppo. People in Libya might have been a little less sympathetic to Lockerbie than we were.

What matters is perspective, and how okay you are with it, not some 'goodevilometer' that came up to streamline the process.

Could I ask you to elaborate please? I'm always kinda cagey about this approach because people sometimes seem to treat it as a moral ideal* rather than a combination of chauvinism and dangerous apathy.

Not accusing you or anything but if there is an approach that I'm not familiar with that is still coherent, I'm curious about it.

*People should take care of themselves and this not our problem.


Also, this is a question directed at Vaz, Sam, Malifice, Jette, and anyone else participating in this part of the discussion.

Which schools of thought do you belong to?

1) "You must do the thing that achieves the greatest good for the most number of people" or "you must always do the right thing, regardless of the consequences"

2) "Morality is subjective" vs "Morality is objective"

1) One of the fun things about ethics is that the way certain questions are phrased resolves the conflict between different ethical schools. And the way you've phrased them here are not mutually exclusive. :smallsmile:

But to actually address the content of your question instead of being a prick about it?

Both Kantian ethics (Never do wrong) and Utilitarian ethics (The greatest good for the greatest number) break down under certain circumstances that make full adherence to them while still doing good kinda iffy.

The examples I'm most familiar with are the means/ ends dichotomy and the Kantian restriction towards lying. (Both of which aren't actually issues in some schools of thought but are effective at illustrating the point in a general sense.)

Kantian ethics views lying as a small harm that is visited upon somebody because its based around an understanding of personal freedom/ agency where making somebodies decisions for them is a form of harm. So if your friend is terrible at the violin and you encourage them, in order to save their feelings, a form of harm has been visited upon them because they can no longer make an informed choice about something that is important to them. (I don't fully agree with this assessment but its important to argue against the strongest version of an argument possible.)

Where this breaks down is when this stipulation against harm is used to resolve people from responsibility from the forseeable consequences of their actions (Like not protecting somebody from a murderer by lying) or from being unwilling to commit wrong within a social order that is committing violence, functionally defending tyranny and inequity.

Utilitarian ethics instead, breaks down thanks to the limitations of power and logistical problems that prevent good from being done in the favour of certain groups. Like, for example, if a country is prospering through the exploitation of slaves or a distant underclass of people, so long as that labour is being used to produce a greater good (in this instance: Living conditions or material wealth or lifespan. Something like that.) than its cost to the people who are being exploited, it can be justified and perpetuated through a utilitarian system.

This is known as a means/ ends dichotomy. Drawing an arbitrary distinction between current injustices, violence and inequities in service of a potential future good that MAY NEVER COME. It is also often used to suppress minority voices now (and so commit an unnecessary harm) in favour of the benefits that harm has done to them.

There's also the whole "Murder 999 people to save 1000 people" thing but that's a kind of reductive way to look at people as discrete units, so I prefer the means/ ends dichotomy.

So I find it difficult to get fully behind either of them and I haven't formalised my own ethical standards at any point. (Probably never will either.)

2. The values that we use to determine what is morally right or wrong are subjective. The methods we can implement to achieve them are objective in their effects and subjective in their utility. (What moral goods they choose to emphasise over others. The most famous of which is probably the freedom/ security false dichotomy.)


There are creatures that are the literal manifestations of Good and Evil in D&D. Good and Evil existing as objective concepts in D&D is not something that's up for debate. Anything outside of D&D is both irrelevant and straying dangerously close to politics. This why alignment threads are toxic, there's always someone who can't keep to the D&D discussion.

I know we're not actually chatting but would you be more comfortable if I lay off and start talking about alignment and stuff instead?

[Vaz]

Resurrecting a known murderer is an evil act. you mean that thing Gods do all the time through their divinely sponsored Clerics?

How many things have your Characters killed in games? I literally cba by responding in depth to your post, (and deleted what I'd already written) because of how stupid that particular comment was - which is amazing how stand out bad it was against the rest of the drivel posted.

What defines evil - the stat block says so. give the wee man a round of applause, he can read, now to get it to comprehend.

[War_lord]

I know we're not actually chatting but would you be more comfortable if I lay off and start talking about alignment and stuff instead?

It has nothing to do with comfort. My objection is on two grounds. Firstly, it's off topic. Really world philosophy doesn't have any connection to D&D, since much of real life philosophy (at least pretends to) concern itself with right and wrong, what is just and unjust ad the like. Secondly Good and Evil in D&D aren't subjective terms that require "rational" discussion. They're objective, a Devil is "evil" in the same way that a dog is a "mammal". In D&D, when a Cleric calls a Pit Fiend a spawn of evil, they're not making a subjective judgement on the creature's moral standing or choices. The nature of evil in D&D is defined and its presence is measurable.

Theology would be a better analogue, and even that's only remote, because theologians in most D&D settings could get an interview with an actual servant of the divine if they were willing to expend the resources.


you mean that thing Gods do all the time through their divinely sponsored Clerics?

How many things have your Characters killed in games?

Killing evil beings isn't murder. If it was, there'd be no Angels, Clerics or Paladins. Obvious stuff. I get that that robs you of a chance to be an edgelord, but I'm sure you'll deal with it.

[Malifice]

Also, this is a question directed at Vaz, Sam, Malifice, Jette, and anyone else participating in this part of the discussion.

Which schools of thought do you belong to?

1) "You must do the thing that achieves the greatest good for the most number of people" or "you must always do the right thing, regardless of the consequences"

2) "Morality is subjective" vs "Morality is objective"

In the Real World? Im an Agnostic (borderline Existentialist). I think pretty much everything is subjective. I question the objective existence of everything. Subjectively I think murder, rape and torture are evil.

In the Game World (at least all published game worlds)? Those worlds have the existence of 'cosmic good and evil' with literal Gods and beings inhabiting planes of existence comprised of cosmic good and evil. Souls exist and are judged accordingly. Objective good and objective evil exist.

Torm doesnt care why you engaged in torture, murder or rape. You might genuinely subjectively view yourself as a good person, doing what needs to be done in the pursuit of some greater good. Its irrelevant however. On death, you are judged faithless by Kelemvor and walled into the Wall of the Faithless (unless you strike a bargain with a Devil while awaiting your final judgement). You dont go to Heaven. Youre evil.

[Malifice]

Killing evil beings isn't murder.

It certainly is, or at least it certainly can be.

Sneaking into an 'evil' person (a murderers) home at night, and shooting him in the head is murder. It's an evil act.

As would be waking him up and torturing him first.


If it was, there'd be no Angels, Clerics or Paladins.

It doesnt work that way. Good and Evil arent both violent murderers and torturers, separated only by their choice of victims.

Paladins and Angels carry swords because their foes use violence. Some of those foes are mindless evil monsters, that cant be reasoned with or stopped in any other way other than violence. A Good aligned outsider or Paladin should only be resorting to violence in self defence, or the defence of others, when no other option reasonably presents itself.

[War_lord]

It doesnt work that way. Good and Evil arent both violent murderers and torturers, separated only by their choice of victims.

Paladins and Angels carry swords because their foes use violence. Some of those foes are mindless evil monsters, that cant be reasoned with or stopped in any other way other than violence. A Good aligned outsider or Paladin should only be resorting to violence in self defence, or the defence of others, when no other option reasonably presents itself.

From the Monster Manual:

"An Angel slays evil creatures without remorse"

"As the embodiment of Law and Good, an Angel is almost never mistaken in its judgements"

"The angel never acquiesces or gives way. When an angel is sent to aid mortals, it is sent not to serve but to command. The gods of good therefore send their angels among mortals only in response to the most dire circumstances."

I'm not sure where you're getting a technical pacifism vibe from that description. Reads to me like an angel would totally behead that murderer. And in fact is so certain to do so that the gods recognize that sending angels to aid mortals comes with complications.

[Eric Diaz]

I've written extensively about what I do in my table, I'll paste here so you don't have to click.

Since I am less concerned of advertising other people's blogs, I'll like to this one with a great ideas to AVOID torture.

http://blogofholding.com/?p=6601

Here is mine:

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2016/08/torture-should-it-have-game-mechanic.html

Torture: should it have a game mechanic?

"Interrogating goblins by torture seems to be creepily prevalent in D&D games. Anyway, it’s not necessary, because goblins will always tell you everything when threatened with torture, no Intimidate check necessary. They’ll mix in 20% malicious lies, but they’d do that under torture as well." (source above)

I don't like player characters torturing people in my games (I don't allow torture against them, too, but that is not what this post is about). It's not that I have a weak stomach for the suffering of fictional characters; I enjoy splatter films as much as the next guy (and FWIW I even think there might be a good argument of gory violence being more responsible to put on film than some kind of sanitized PG-13 violence when bad guys get shot and die without bleeding or suffering, as if violence was a nice, clean thing to do).

The problem is that torture quickly becomes a pointless, gruesome exercise.

A player character can torture another character for three main reasons: sadism, punishment/revenge, or information gathering. I have never seem the first one in my games; the second one is rare, and usually ends quickly; the third one is the problem.

In any brutal, lawless setting, medieval or otherwise, there will be plenty of PCs that are willing to resort to torture to get information, specially against foes that have attacked or murdered other people in the past, or might do so in the future.

The justifications are not that important; once the line is crossed, torture becomes just another tool for the PCs.

After that, every time a prisoners is captured, you go through the same process: torture is described until the GM thinks it is enough and then the NPC talks (true or not) or clearly demonstrates he will die before talking. Where is the fun in that? There is little creativity, no excitement, no risk, no surprises.



Of course, there are plenty of reasons for the characters to avoid torture:

A) Someone in the group (player or GM) is uncomfortable with it, or it goes against the tone of the campaign; so it is just forbidden (maybe not even villains can torture, or player characters must all be people that would never do that).
B) A character has some kind of alignment or personal code of honor (or, I don't know, basic human decency) that prevents it.
C) Torture is a crime and has legal consequences even when murder is not (during wartime, for example).
D) Many NPCs are immune to torture, and they prefer to die than to tell any secrets about the guy they work for.
E) Torture brings some kind of mystical corruption or the wrath of the gods against those who perpetrate it.
F) Torture causes mental problems to the torturer.
G) There are other social consequences for torture - you will lose face (and allies), and now your enemies now will be more willing to torture your loved ones if they get captured.
H) Torture is useless because after a while most victims will say almost anything to avoid suffering, even if they have to lie or invent things they know nothing about.
I) Torture may kill the victim, making information impossible to recover (or maim the victim in unintended ways, making the crime very easy to prove).

Not all of those work for my group.

"A" is a very personal matter; in my "Game of Thrones"-like setting, villains are not above torture, for example, and everybody in the group is okay with most fictional violence (of course, you should be SURE that everybody on the table is on board before messing with such themes). "B" depends on the characters; it may work for most of the group, but not necessarily for all the characters all the time, and specially not for all the character concepts one might be willing to try. "C" depends on how willing characters are to obey the law - and, in most of my campaigns, the answer usually is "not very much". "D" is a bit ridiculous (unless used for special cases) - where does anyone finds thieves and villains that are so loyal and courageous?

"E" may be a bit of a cop-out - does humanity need some outside force to learn the obvious fact that torture is evil? - but the idea could still be interesting as horror; maybe the tortured souls come back as undead, or awaken demons that lie below. The players should be aware of the possibility beforehand, though, or it will fell like you're trying to teach them some lesson.

"F" is potentially more interesting, specially in character-driven campaigns where violence and madness play a significant part, like Call of Cthulhu and other games with sanity mechanics (check this for D&D - it is meant for the victim, but torture would surely affet the torturer somehow...). The best game about the subject that comes to mind is Unknown Armies, where perpetrating any kind of violence will make you more resistant to it, but also more callous (and, eventually, psychopathic). Still, these kind of mechanics are not for every game, and not for every setting.

"G" works quite well for my games. Even though it is also an "external" force to the individual character (but not to humanity itself), it makes players consider other aspects of the setting - NPCs, reputation, honor, and so on. Torture becomes a reason for shame, as it should be: it now must be kept secret, and torturers will be shunned. Villains get a tool the heroes cannot use without becoming villains themselves in the process (on the other hand, allies may turn a blind-eye if the tortures have other uses). And even foe may now claim the moral high ground over the PCs.

In short, resorting to torture makes the character less self-confident; it becomes a power other people may have over them.

"H" is also interesting to consider. If the victim is highly motivated to tell exactly what the torturer wants to hear, how can the PCs know the victim is telling the truth (or even knows it) at all? Most NPCs should quickly tell anything a torturer wants to hear to avoid further harm (in many books and movies, the character will allow himself to suffer significantly before lying, in order to make the lie more believable).

The only situation where torturing a character could yield useful results is when the truth can be checked before the prisoner is released ("Where is the treasure? If we don't find it, you'll suffer more!"). But this is not much different than intimidation; the pain only makes the threat more imediate and credible.

There are another, more interesting ways of making threats, specially by knowing the person being threatened. For a self-righteous man, blackmail could be worse than physical torture, for example. Or, if you captured an exotic monster, showing it to a captive might make him talk in no time - even if the creature is actually harmless. Deception may work well too. An example that comes to mind is what Jaime Lannister does to Edmure Tully in the book A Feast for Crows (or in the Game of Thrones TV show).

Again, this makes the characters engage with the characters and setting instead of just randomly cutting body parts until everyone is bored or sickened.

This way, torture becomes a tool of intimidation - so you don't necessarily need a specific game mechanic for it. This is how torture is handled in the Book of Vile Darkness, for example.



"I" is where game mechanics might becomes useful.

Now, you certainly don't need to have torture in your games, but if you do allow it, it seems to me it should include the possibility of real harm. This reminds the players that torture is gruesome and dangerous, but also includes a risk-reward mechanism to it: the more violent the torture, the more effective the intimation, but the higher the chance of death (or permanent injury, if the victim is someone who must be kept alive).

It also opens the possibility of having villain NPCs specialized in torture (which is to say, specialized in causing pain WITHOUT harming the victim), torture devices, or smart PCs that can threaten effectively WITHOUT using torture by resorting to creativity, deception, etc.

If you want to resort to die rolls, here are some mechanics to go with it.

Old-school D&D (or any other version):

There is a very easy method for this: the "subduing dragons" rules in AD&D. Decide the damage you want to inflict - say, 3d6 - and roll for it. If you take 50% of the victims HP, he has 50% chance of talking. If you roll too high, the victim dies before taking. Repeated attempts, if allowed, should be progressively harder.

Or just bypass HP completely: choose a number form 1% to 99%, and roll twice: the first to see if the victim survives, and the second to see if the victim talks.

In any case, even in failure the victim still gets a death saving throw to avoid death, and a spell saving throw to avoid talking.

D&D 5e:

From the torturer's point of view, you may gain advantage in the Intimidation roll, but roll Medicine to avoid killing the victim in the process.

From the victim's point of view, you may make a Constitution saving throw to avoid a failed death save (or permanent damage, etc), and a Wisdom saving throw to avoid compliance (succeeding three times means you will never break in the present situation).

Combining these two ideas: make the saving throws as described above, and BOTH the DCs is defined but how violent the torture is (i.e., it is the same DC). The Constitution save gets a bonus equal to the torturer's Medicine skill, and the Wisdom save gets a penalty equal to the torturer's Intimidation skill (or Deception, if using lies instead of pain).

Give advantage or disadvantage according to the nature of the secret being kept (and loyalty, etc) and the "creativity" of the torturer (for example, showing snakes to someone with ophidiophobia will be very efficient).

Should you roll or describe?

Making it a simple die roll allows you to use this without describing it (and thus making it happen on the background); I personally prefer to be gory and make clear that this is an ugly thing than to pretend it is a clean, efficient thing to do. If this problem comes up, I would use both descriptions and dice rolls (to add danger and unpredictability), but you mileage may vary.

[Malifice]

From the Monster Manual:

"An Angel slays evil creatures without remorse"

"As the embodiment of Law and Good, an Angel is almost never mistaken in its judgements"

"The angel never acquiesces or gives way. When an angel is sent to aid mortals, it is sent not to serve but to command. The gods of good therefore send their angels among mortals only in response to the most dire circumstances."

I'm not sure where you're getting a technical pacifism vibe from that description. Reads to me like an angel would totally behead that murderer. And in fact is so certain to do so that the gods recognize that sending angels to aid mortals comes with complications.

I never said they were pacifists. Im saying they're not bloodthirsty murderers.

Angels can and do resort to violence. Demons and Devils and undead monsters cant be reasoned with. But they dont resort to murder, torture and other evil means to achieve their goals.

An Angel (like a LG Paladin) wont kill unless absolutely necessary, and as a last resort, in self defence, or the defence of others. If required (and no other option reasonably presents itself) they'll use lethal force. Those swords arent there for show. Both realise the truth that the world is full of evil monsters, that no amount of reason or compassion is going to stop. You cant reason with a Balor or a Zombie hoard no matter how hard you try.

Nothing evil about a police officer shooting dead an armed bank robber threatening to kill him or someone else. Its unfortunate, but not evil.

If that police officer tracks the suspect down to his home, and shoots him in the head while he sleeps, he's evil.

[War_lord]

A bank robber isn't evil by D&D standards, a bank robbery does not necessarily kill anyone and the money taken isn't bread out of a peasants mouth. A bank robber who makes a habit of deliberately killing hostages to prove his or her point would be evil. Eliminating such a person before they could commit any more evil acts would not be an evil deed. Particularly in a world with no formal prison system, which would be most setting that aren't flush with modern elements.

[Malifice]

A bank robber isn't evil by D&D standards, a bank robbery does not necessarily kill anyone and the money taken isn't bread out of a peasants mouth. A bank robber who makes a habit of deliberately killing hostages to prove his or her point would be evil. Eliminating such a person before they could commit any more evil acts would not be an evil deed.

Yes, it would be evil. It would be very evil.

Unless you were doing it in self defense, or the defense of others, and no other option reasonably presents itself.

If a police officer tracked down a murderer and shot him in the head as he slept, he would be tried and convicted of murder. He would be no better than the man he shot and killed. He would be a murderer.

It's a different story if our police officer tracked the murderer down and during the course of trying to apprehend the killer, was forced to resort to lethal force in self defense or the defense of others. Our police officer is not a murderer, nor is he committing an evil act.

Torm doesnt advocate his Paladins going around torturing and murdering people. He opposes torture and murder.

That said, Im sure he has Paladins that think that 'the ends justify the means' and are prepared to use torture and murder on 'evildoers' Punisher style. They view themselves as LG champions of good, doing what needs to be done for the greater good.

They're not LG, despite them thinking they are. Theyre actually (likely) LE. On death they get judged by Kelemvor and walled into the Wall of the Faithless.

[Malifice]

War Lord, youre applying your own subjective reasoning to the debate here. To you, killing a murderer isnt evil.

Thats probably because your own alignment/ morality doesnt conform to DnDs version of 'Good'. More likely you're Neutral.

In DnD 'EVIL' is implied to be 'harming and killing others'. 'Good' is implied to mean 'compassion, mercy and altruism'.

A 'Good' person in DnD will start at a postion of compassion, mercy and altruism, and avoid harming and killing others. He might resort to killing others, but only as a last resort, and in the defence of others (or himself) from similar harm.

[S_A_M I AM]

It has nothing to do with comfort. My objection is on two grounds. Firstly, it's off topic. Really world philosophy doesn't have any connection to D&D, since much of real life philosophy (at least pretends to) concern itself with right and wrong, what is just and unjust ad the like. Secondly Good and Evil in D&D aren't subjective terms that require "rational" discussion. They're objective, a Devil is "evil" in the same way that a dog is a "mammal". In D&D, when a Cleric calls a Pit Fiend a spawn of evil, they're not making a subjective judgement on the creature's moral standing or choices. The nature of evil in D&D is defined and its presence is measurable.

Theology would be a better analogue, and even that's only remote, because theologians in most D&D settings could get an interview with an actual servant of the divine if they were willing to expend the resources.

I'm not gonna get into the text of DnD morality as I've been enjoying what you and Malifice are doing but I would like to attempt to argue against the non-applicability of other ethical systems within the context of the fantasy game.

"Real world" philosophy is just an organising principle that we put around certain ideas and their relationships to each other. It's like how physics is the study of a single atom while chemistry is the study of the relationship between atoms: As is meta ethics the study of discrete, moralistic ideals while ethics is the study of moralisitic ideals in conflict with each other.

So viewed through this lens; a story or the exposition that is being sold by WOTC to act as a framework around which a story is told, is a way to frame the moral strictures around which that stories core assumptions are being made.

It's a similar error to when people say that a story is apolitical. (Where politics is another organising principle for ideas) A story is only apolitical and aphilosophical if it contains no ideas. No relationships between people, no depictions of governments, no social behaviour, no weapons and their use, no production of goods.

The fact that DnD formalises its moral framework with labels of "good, evil, chaotic, lawful, neutral." Is already a statement that requires parsing. Even without having to go into what describes something as good and evil: What constitutes morally neutral behaviour and what makes that distinct from the other two behaviours that are also described as without good or evil qualities?

And DnD, thanks to its nature as a finite product and the fuzzy, multisided nature of ideas in general cannot necessarily provide those answers. Yes; it possibly could but I genuinely have no idea if they're answerable within its own ethical system.

Bringing in other philosophical or political or ethical systems isn't dismissing the value of the framework that's within DnD: It's highlighting the content of that framework by, metaphorically, showing where the edges and curves are.

[Temperjoke]

Ah, nothing like the normal alignment arguments that repeat themselves and turn a thread toxic.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Just popping in to say that Dominate Person is completely effective and less of a hassle, as long as you can get the target to fail the save. No squicky torture needed.

ZoT + Torture (for those willing) are highly complementary, as torture covers ZoT's weaknesses and vice versa. You really don't have to be that specific about the torture; if you're willing to go through with it, people will talk*. The ZoT is there to ensure that the talking is truthful. For those not willing, intimidation is a decent substitute; I'll also point out you don't always have to roll for intimidation. Sometimes it can just succeed, like with someone who's cowed already. You just have to be careful to order the intimidated target not to resist the ZoT and you're set.

*If the PCs want to be Big Damn Heroes and not necessarily talk under extended torture, there can be a will save v intimidation or the like, but the same would apply to Big Damn NPCs.

[Potato_Priest]

Just popping in to say that Dominate Person is completely effective and less of a hassle, as long as you can get the target to fail the save. No squicky torture needed.


Yep, nothing like a bit of mind-slavery to spare your group those tough ethical questions.

I completely agree that zone of truth and torture go perfectly together. You just need to use a form of torture that takes less than 10 minutes.

[LeonBH]

Yep, nothing like a bit of mind-slavery to spare your group those tough ethical questions.

Agreed, nothing like circumventing ethics concerns by unethically seizing control of someone's free will.


I completely agree that zone of truth and torture go perfectly together. You just need to use a form of torture that takes less than 10 minutes.

Flaying a portion of someone's skin and then rubbing salt into it would work and take less than 10 minutes, I think.

[War_lord]

Yes, it would be evil. It would be very evil.

No, it wouldn't be.


Unless you were doing it in self defense, or the defense of others, and no other option reasonably presents itself.

Killing someone who is very definitely an unrepentant serial murderer, who will kill again if not stopped, is defense of others. Medieval level societies don't have the luxury, yes luxury, of locking someone up for 40 years at the realm's expense on the off chance they might be reformed by the time they're 60. Thus medieval justice is entirely punishment based.


If a police officer tracked down a murderer and shot him in the head as he slept, he would be tried and convicted of murder. He would be no better than the man he shot and killed. He would be a murderer.

"Police officers" as a concept didn't even exist till some 200 years after the era most D&D settings are based on. Law enforcement in Medieval times was either organized by the community (essentially a posse), a side duty of the knighthood, or the private retinue of a wealthy person. There's no professional police force to offload responsibility onto.


It's a different story if our police officer tracked the murderer down and during the course of trying to apprehend the killer, was forced to resort to lethal force in self defense or the defense of others. Our police officer is not a murderer, nor is he committing an evil act.

Lets try to actually pretend you're talking about D&D.

Lets say Paladin is a good stand in for "police officer".

The Paladin tracks the killer to his hideout, catches the villain sleeping next to the body of his latest victim, and instead of slaying the murderer, hands him in to the Bailiff... who has the murderer hung in the public square in the morning while the relatives of the victims jeer and throw filth at the dying man.

At best the outcome is the same either way, at worst you condemned the man to a far worse death than a quick beheading by a trained swordsmen.


Torm doesnt advocate his Paladins going around torturing and murdering people. He opposes torture and murder.

Killing an evil doer is community defence, not murder.


They're not LG, despite them thinking they are. Theyre actually (likely) LE. On death they get judged by Kelemvor and walled into the Wall of the Faithless.

There's a certain irony in your firm conviction that killing and torture are always evil, being underlined by the threat of an agonizingly slow and painful torture until one loses their mind. Particularly since said punishment is also levied on good people for nothing more then not worshiping a god. That's pretty hypocritical.


War Lord, youre applying your own subjective reasoning to the debate here. To you, killing a murderer isnt evil.

Actually, your repeated references to "police officers" and "shootings" show that the one clouding their mind with subjectivity is you. That's real world modern references leaking into your thought process,


Thats probably because your own alignment/ morality doesnt conform to DnDs version of 'Good'. More likely you're Neutral.

You realize D&D alignments have nothing to do with real morality right? You can't sum up moral beliefs into 9 broad categories.


In DnD 'EVIL' is implied to be 'harming and killing others'.

No, that's not implied at all. Paladins and Clerics have several abilities and spells open to them that can ONLY be used for killing and harming others. Evil in D&D terms is killing selfishly and capriciously, for no reason other then personal gain.


'Good' is implied to mean 'compassion, mercy and altruism'.

There's nothing more altruistic and compassionate then protecting people from evil. Particularly when those people then use the safety you've given them to rail against the battles fought on their behalf.


A 'Good' person in DnD will start at a postion of compassion, mercy and altruism, and avoid harming and killing others. He might resort to killing others, but only as a last resort, and in the defence of others (or himself) from similar harm.

Avoiding harming others to the point that you're allowing innocents to come to harm is, at best, Lawful Neutral. A stance of total pacifism is only possible if you're either A. willing to see others come to harm when you could have intervened or B. are relying on the protection granted by others to safely condemn violence.


So viewed through this lens; a story or the exposition that is being sold by WOTC to act as a framework around which a story is told, is a way to frame the moral strictures around which that stories core assumptions are being made.

It's a similar error to when people say that a story is apolitical. (Where politics is another organising principle for ideas) A story is only apolitical and aphilosophical if it contains no ideas. No relationships between people, no depictions of governments, no social behaviour, no weapons and their use, no production of goods.

The fact that DnD formalises its moral framework with labels of "good, evil, chaotic, lawful, neutral." Is already a statement that requires parsing. Even without having to go into what describes something as good and evil: What constitutes morally neutral behaviour and what makes that distinct from the other two behaviours that are also described as without good or evil qualities?

And DnD, thanks to its nature as a finite product and the fuzzy, multisided nature of ideas in general cannot necessarily provide those answers. Yes; it possibly could but I genuinely have no idea if they're answerable within its own ethical system.

Bringing in other philosophical or political or ethical systems isn't dismissing the value of the framework that's within DnD: It's highlighting the content of that framework by, metaphorically, showing where the edges and curves are.

The study of the moral assumptions underpinning the alignments of D&D isn't unimportant. But it's unimportant for a discussion of alignment within D&D. Within the multiverse of D&D "good" and "evil" aren't subjective terms backed by arbitrary personal codes, they're cosmic forces with physical embodiment in the form of Celestials and Fiends.

One can never entirely divorce their perceptions from their morals and politics, but that doesn't mean you can't do your best. D&D, and fantasy in general has a number of... traditionalist assumptions underpinning it that, in the real world, I don't agree with. But it doesn't bug me, because most fantasy worlds are largely divorced from ours. If we were still in medieval times, our ethics would be different, if undisputed representatives of the gods walked the earth, our ethics would be different. As a DM I'm interested in applying Alignment as if it's an actual force that exists in the world, not as an extension of my personal beliefs.

[Vaz]

As a DM I'm interested in applying Alignment as if it's an actual force that exists in the world, not as an extension of my personal beliefs.

But you are. You are divorcing your personal beloefs from the literal nonsense you are creating in your mind, and replaci g it with another, while simulataneously being unable to discuss anything that isn't explocity stated in the book.

You have nothing to back up your statements apart from calling on what other people have said is good, which is a social zeitgeist.

You are saying that animals are not sentient. Why are they not sentient? They can be, through application of magic. Babies are innocent, by dint of being nonsentient themselves, and thus cannot be good, and cannot be evil. But supposedly they sill grow up to be good or evil thanks to some predisposition according to a book.

You are equating nouns with Adjectives. Killing people is evil, but killing demons is okay, ecaise they are evil. Thus, killing demons must be a good act, and thus by killing demons, you must be a good person, like an Angel. But devils have killed more demons than angels thanks to the Blood War and Pact Primeval, so must ultimately be good creatures.

Killing a Orc Chieftain who allows his tribe to pillage and kill a valley is a good act, no? But what happens if that Chief was the strongest opponent to a rival chief, preventing them from uniting: his absense creating a power vacuum through which thousands of people die.

Their deaths are on your hands, because without your action, the orcs would not have united and swarmed.

Guns don't kill people, bullets do. Guns don't kill people, people do. But what causes someone to kill another? There is always a reason for one action.

You're not very good at this moral thing, perhaps you can you should step out. Your argument is so full of holes I don't know where to begin, plus I'm writing on a phone, so it's difficult, and I know you'rehidebound by 'the book says, so I don' t need to think' so is there really much point in engaging in something thats clearly out of your league of discussion.

I mean, we're all there to have fun at a table, (i enkoy just randomly killing thousands of people in video games without concern for ethics) and to some people, ethics might not seem as fun, but I enjoy it, but you seem pretty close minded, and unwilling to talk about it, rather than proseletyze.

[War_lord]

edge

Maybe if that wasn't riddled with spelling errors I'd pretend to take it seriously. Go back to derailing threads with dead baby analogies. It's far more up your street then pretending to have a coherent position.

As much as you might hate it, Good and Evil are objective in D&D, if you don't like it, no one is forcing you to participate.

[Vaz]

If you can't read that "beloefs" is meant to say "beliefs" as a spelling error due to typing on a phone, you're gonna struggle with something as difficult as ethics.

Thanks for competing sunshine. I'd say it's been a pleasure, but you've kind of made me want to wash my eyes with bleach to erase the after image of your idiocy.


I'm sure you do plenty of that already while boasting about how much of an amoral badass you are.

Doesn't even make sense lol.

[War_lord]

I'm sure you do plenty of that already while boasting about how much of an amoral badass you are.

[MadBear]

The whole debate on good/evil is completely muddled by the fact that we all end up equivocating many different issues at once.

1. There is whether an act is good (this is not the same as the act being not-evil)
2. There is whether an act is evil (this is not the same as the act being not-good)
3. There is whether the individual's intention was good (this is not the same as the act being not-evil)]
4. There is whether the individual's intention was evil (this is not the same as the act being not-evil)
5. Committing an evil or good act does not necessarily make someone good or evil. There must be some scale, however you balance it, to weigh the amount of good and evil that is done. Of course some actions weight more heavily then others, but they all count in the end.

Now one problem when talking about good and evil and viewing them solely as a scale, is that it negates the fact that many/most actions are neither good nor evil. If I paint my goblin miniature dark green as opposed to light green, that is neither a good nor an evil act. It's not good, and it's not evil.

The reason that's important is that many actions adventurers take fall into this category.

I actually agree with GoodbyeSoberDay that dominate person is probably the best way to get information out of a captured goon. Sure, you're taking away their freedom for a brief bit of time, then again, you permanently took away the freedom of all his friends you just killed. This would fall into an action that was probably slightly evil done for good intentions (actually that's a big assumption on my part. If you're just raiding their lair for treasure, it's also evil intent. But if this is the lair where a world ending sacrificial spell is being cast, it's with good intention). In that case, I'd weigh the action as being fairly neutral, all things considered.

Killing is not inherently good nor inherently evil. In fact a paladin proactively killing a sleeping Demon (who are the embodiment of evil with no chance at being good) would fall into a not-evil action, done with good intent.

Torturing is most definitely an evil act. The intention could easily be good or evil. Still, if we're talking about saving a town, then the act itself probably still weighs out as evil, if only slightly so.

1 evil act, does not an evil person make, nor does 1 good act a good person make. It just so happens that committing heavily weighted evil acts is far easier then committing heavily weighted good acts.

[krugaan]

Ah, nothing like the normal alignment arguments that repeat themselves and turn a thread toxic.

"I once asked my Russian friend to explain the concept of perestroika to me. He produced two metal buckets, one full of potatoes, and proceeded to pour the potatoes from one bucket to the other.

Confused, I said 'But nothing is happening?'

My friend, still pouring, said. 'ah, but the noise it makes...' "

[S_A_M I AM]

Maybe if that wasn't riddled with spelling errors I'd pretend to take it seriously. Go back to derailing threads with dead baby analogies. It's far more up your street then pretending to have a coherent position.

I'm sure you do plenty of that already while boasting about how much of an amoral badass you are.

Mate? Not cool.

I know that its tempting to just start taking potshots at people when a conversation/ argument goes on long enough but I feel th-


Ah, nothing like the normal alignment arguments that repeat themselves and turn a thread toxic.

Yeah. Okay.

I think I'm gonna bow out: I've gotten badly off topic and this is... Maybe the third or fourth warning about the fraught conversational path I and/ or we are on. Probably should have listened earlier.



Vaz? Malifice? You're alright. :smallsmile:

[Temperjoke]

Mate? Not cool.

I know that its tempting to just start taking potshots at people when a conversation/ argument goes on long enough but I feel th-



Yeah. Okay.

I think I'm gonna bow out: I've gotten badly off topic and this is... Maybe the third or fourth warning about the fraught conversational path I and/ or we are on. Probably should have listened earlier.



Vaz? Malifice? You're alright. :smallsmile:

Message wasn't directed at anyone in particular, it's just that this argument is like mashed potatoes: sure the gravy might change the flavor a little, but it's still the same mashed potatoes underneath.

[Malifice]

No, it wouldn't be.

Killing someone who is very definitely an unrepentant serial murderer, who will kill again if not stopped, is defense of others.

Can you cite me one real world example of where it's OK for a Police officer (or anyone for that matter) to sneak into a murderers home, shoot him dead while he sleeps, and not be punished for it? Can you name me one legal system where this kind of thing is condoned?

Even if you can find me an example, its an outlier. All of Europe, Asia, the Americas, Africa, Australia, New Zealand etc all clearly condemn such an act, make it a crime (specifically: murder) and impose sentences of up to life (or in the USA and parts of the third world, death).

Real world cultures almost universally view killing another person as evil, and place heavy sanctions on it through their legal codes. The noteable (and universal) exception is when the killing is necessary in self defence (or the defence of others) when no other option reasonably presents itself.

This condemnation of killing (unless in self defence) is near universal.


"Police officers" as a concept didn't even exist till some 200 years after the era most D&D settings are based on. Law enforcement in Medieval times was either organized by the community (essentially a posse), a side duty of the knighthood, or the private retinue of a wealthy person. There's no professional police force to offload responsibility onto.

DnD isnt medieval. Certainly none of its established settings are (barring perhaps Cerillia). Its laws and politcial systems are highly advanced and more akin to real world polities and societies.

Even then, in medieval times in Europe (and elsewhere) it was still a crime to break into someones home (even someone you knew or suspected to be a murderer) and kill them as they slept. Specifically it was the crime of murder. And again, this was near universal.

DnD is probably more akin to 1800's in terms of its legal system and culture (Think: Wild west, colonial Australia). And again, rounding up a posse, heading to a murderers home, and killing him as he slept would result in the killers being charged for murder. They'd be hung as murderers themselves.


Lets say Paladin is a good stand in for "police officer".

Presuming your medieval analogy, a Paladin is not a police officer. Real world examples/ analogies of Paladins include the Templars, Hospitalliers and Teutonic Knights.

They were not police officers. They were military orders of the Holy See. They had no rights to act as police, and if a Templar, Knight Teuton or Hospitallier entered the home of a freeman (even one he suspected of murder), and ran him through as he slept, he would be charged with murder.


The Paladin tracks the killer to his hideout, catches the villain sleeping next to the body of his latest victim, and instead of slaying the murderer, hands him in to the Bailiff... who has the murderer hung in the public square in the morning while the relatives of the victims jeer and throw filth at the dying man.

At best the outcome is the same either way, at worst you condemned the man to a far worse death than a quick beheading by a trained swordsmen.

You see it that way. A LG Paladin certainly wounldnt.

In fact he would likely urge clemency from the Bailiff, so the perpetrator could have a chance to make amends to the victims family.


Killing an evil doer is community defence, not murder.

No it is not 'community defence'. It never has been. Going into the home of a person (even an 'evildoer') and stabbing them to death as they sleep, has always near-universally been murder.

Youre arguing against historical fact here.


There's a certain irony in your firm conviction that killing and torture are always evil, being underlined by the threat of an agonizingly slow and painful torture until one loses their mind. Particularly since said punishment is also levied on good people for nothing more then not worshiping a god. That's pretty hypocritical.

Kelemvor is LN, not LG. He metes out punishments, damnation (and eternal rewards) without fear of favor, as dictated by Ao.

The faithful go to their afterlives, as determined by their actions in life. The faithless become wallpaper (unless the sell their souls to the Devils patrolling the Fuge plane).


You realize D&D alignments have nothing to do with real morality right?

They do in a sense, in that you (as DM) are the one determining what is objectively evil in your game world.

You view the murder of a defenceless sleeping man (himself a murderer) as: 'not evil and not murder'.

Ergo in worlds you DM, murdering sleeping 'evildoers' is perfectly 'good'. A person who devotes their lives to the murder (of murderers), remains LG, and goes to the Nine heavens on death.

OTOH I view murder (even of other murderers) as evil and wrong. My take (and one that has been historically consistent in all legal codes, near-universally throughout history and across cultures) is that the only time it is OK to kill a person, is when that killing is done in self defence or the defence of others, when no other options reasonably presents itself.

Ergo in games I DM, your 'murderer of murderers' PC goes to Hell (or Hades or wherever, or is turned into Wallpaper). His alignment is evil.


Evil in D&D terms is killing selfishly and capriciously, for no reason other then personal gain.

Source?

Your definition certainly doesnt match this one:


Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)#Good_vs._evil

[War_lord]

Can you cite me one real world example of where it's OK for a Police officer (or anyone for that matter) to sneak into a murderers home, shoot him dead while he sleeps, and not be punished for it? Can you name me one legal system where this kind of thing is condoned?

Even if you can find me an example, its an outlier. All of Europe, Asia, the Americas, Africa, Australia, New Zealand etc all clearly condemn such an act, make it a crime (specifically: murder) and impose sentences of up to life (or in the USA and parts of the third world, death).

That's completely irrelevant to D&D.


Real world cultures almost universally view killing another person as evil, and place heavy sanctions on it through their legal codes. The noteable (and universal) exception is when the killing is necessary in self defence (or the defence of others) when no other option reasonably presents itself.

This condemnation of killing (unless in self defence) is near universal.

That's an utterly naive statement, most decently sized countries have a military, and the purpose of that military is to kill people that the nation has deemed an enemy. Most modern militaries are volunteer forces, a soldier who finds himself in a combat zone is not killing in self defense. The pilot flying a bomber is not killing in self defense. The drone pilot many many miles from the combat zone is certainly not killing in self defense.

The only widely condemned form of killing is murder, which is actually a very specific charge.


DnD isnt medieval. Certainly none of its established settings are (barring perhaps Cerillia). Its laws and politcial systems are highly advanced and more akin to real world polities and societies.

That's just factually incorrect.


Even then, in medieval times in Europe (and elsewhere) it was still a crime to break into someones home (even someone you knew or suspected to be a murderer) and kill them as they slept. Specifically it was the crime of murder. And again, this was near universal.

If you knew someone was a murderer, you would report it to the local authority and the local authority would round up a group of men and go after them. And the punishment for murder was usually death. You know, killing them.


DnD is probably more akin to 1800's in terms of its legal system and culture (Think: Wild west, colonial Australia). And again, rounding up a posse, heading to a murderers home, and killing him as he slept would result in the killers being charged for murder. They'd be hung as murderers themselves.

D&D is medieval.That's not even a controversial statement. The difference is that in the 1800's there was a concept of an absolute government monopoly on force, that they simply lacked the means to enforce effectively in remote places. In a setting based on the legal understanding of the 1800's, being an "adventurer" would be illegal and probably get you arrested as a vagrant.


Presuming your medieval analogy, a Paladin is not a police officer. Real world examples/ analogies of Paladins include the Templars, Hospitalliers and Teutonic Knights.

They were not police officers. They were military orders of the Holy See. They had no rights to act as police, and if a Templar, Knight Teuton or Hospitallier entered the home of a freeman (even one he suspected of murder), and ran him through as he slept, he would be charged with murder.

The LG Paladin is an impartial officer of Law and Good. That's the closest thing D&D has to the modern concept of a police officer.


You see it that way. A LG Paladin certainly wounldnt.

In fact he would likely urge clemency from the Bailiff, so the perpetrator could have a chance to make amends to the victims family.

There's no "making amends" for mass murder. Only a spectacular moron would think that.


No it is not 'community defence'. It never has been. Going into the home of a person (even an 'evildoer') and stabbing them to death as they sleep, has always near-universally been murder

Killing a murderer is community defence. That's why hanging existing, to kill evildoers. You have this weird mental block where you can't understand that the baron executing someone for murder is literally the same act as the adventuring party executing them. Under your logic, every PC is evil, a good character sits at home and makes wicker baskets.


Kelemvor is LN, not LG. He metes out punishments, damnation (and eternal rewards) without fear of favor, as dictated by Ao.

The faithful go to their afterlives, as determined by their actions in life. The faithless become wallpaper (unless the sell their souls to the Devils patrolling the Fuge plane).

Under your own logic Kelemvor is evil (tortures and kills) and the other gods are, by extension, evil for going aalong with it.


They do in a sense, in that you (as DM) are the one determining what is objectively evil in your game world.

No, they really don't. Because then it would stop being an objective feature of the world, and would turn into political screed. I specifically don't bring my personal morals into it, because I live in a totally different world to that of any D&D character. You obviously can't do that, making you an awful DM. You personally might be able to preach non-violence from behind a wall of rough men "ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us.", but the majority of the people actually living in the setting can't.


Ergo in worlds you DM, murdering sleeping 'evildoers' is perfectly 'good'. A person who devotes their lives to the murder (of murderers), remains LG, and goes to the Nine heavens on death.

What do you think a Paladin of Vengeance does exactly? Are all Paladins Redemption Paladins in your D&D?


OTOH I view murder (even of other murderers) as evil and wrong.

I don't care about your views, you live in a world where you can afford to assume someone else will take care of it.


My take (and one that has been historically consistent in all legal codes, near-universally throughout history and across cultures) is that the only time it is OK to kill a person, is when that killing is done in self defence or the defence of others, when no other options reasonably presents itself.

The consistent take across history has been that murder is wrong. Different places and different times have had different thoughts on what constitutes murder. Even in modern times there's great controversy on the questions of what the line between self defense and murder is.

Does the right to self defense include property? Can you stand your ground or do you have a duty to retreat? Can you carry a weapon for the purpose of self defense or is that a sign of intent to harm others? Does self defense have to be strictly proportional to the attack on your person? What constitutes a reasonable belief that a life is in danger? These are questions that governments, legal scholars and public opinion can't reach consensus TODAY. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that these things have been consistent for ALL HISTORY. If we apply modern sensibilities to D&D, by the expressed laws of my country if an Orc attacked a PC, and that PC killed the Orc with a sword, it would be murder, because carrying a blade without a good explanation is a sign of intent and voids self defence.


Ergo in games I DM, your 'murderer of murderers' PC goes to Hell (or Hades or wherever, or is turned into Wallpaper). His alignment is evil.

And quote "turning people into wallpaper" isn't somehow? Under your own logic, that's evil.


Source?

PHB page 122

Lawful Good creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.

Chaotic Evil creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred on by their greed, hatred or bloodlust.

If anything, your conception of Good as the defence of mass murderers against justice because of an absolutist stance against killing is Lawful Neutral.

[KorvinStarmast]

(* I know Torture doesn't work, but we have to assume it does for a philosophical debate) You don't actually know that. The problem with torture is that it doesn't always work, and the answers are not necessarily reliable. If it simply didn't work it would not even be considered as an option. (All moral and ethical considerations left aside, since we are dangerously close to getting into RL moralizing. PS: I was the beneficiary of the US Military's training school for "what happens when you get to be a PoW." ) That said, the stuff on the TV show 24 was ... gag-worthy.

In a world with as much killing as the campains I play in have a bit of torture is the least of our problems. Yeah. But it is a problem for a character, in a world with consequences (I would hope).

Playing a LG Paladin, obviously I only employ brutal degrading torture on evildoers like Orc children and the like. Or on human children if its needed for the 'greater good', like stopping Hitler drive a rail carriage into 5 innocents tied to the tracks or something. It's almost like you had a ready made answer. :smallbiggrin:

[Vaz]

PHB page 122

Lawful Good creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.

Chaotic Evil creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred on by their greed, hatred or bloodlust..

Which society? You mean, it's not objective?

You'd struggle to pour water out a shoe with instructions on the heel.

[War_lord]

One doesn't have to assume it works. In fact the best argument against torture is that it doesn't inherently provide information better or more reliable then that you could get through more "acceptable" interrogation methods.

Let's say the villain's evil plot is to plant a bomb in a public place. The party has narrowed it down to three locations, the theatre, the fair or the arena. And they've captured one of the big bad's goons. Using physical means to get the information doesn't mean you get accurate information. The prisoner might be a fanatic, willing to give false information even under threat of pain and death to ensure the plan's success. They might have outdated information, and the location was changed after their capture. Or others in their group might have given them false information, because this person was considered a weak link. Or they genuinely might not have been told about the full plan.

And one might say "Zone of truth", but if you already have access to the full suite of magical compulsion, detection and divination, why exactly would you need to get your hands dirty anyway?

That's the route I'd go if my players broached the subject, I think it's a far better route to go then stamping my feet and flat out forbidding anything.


Which society? You mean, it's not objective?

The gods, who are objective, this isn't hard. If you love philosophy so much go look up Aquinas.

[Vaz]

Gods are not objective. Just because they have a different subjectivity to you doesn't mean they are objective.

[War_lord]

Gods are not objective. Just because they have a different subjectivity to you doesn't mean they are objective.

No, the gods are objective. A Lawful Good god does not tend towards being Lawful Good, they are in their essence Lawful Good. Much like how a Devil does not choose to be Lawful Evil, they are Lawful Evil in their essence. If a devil "somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil" (PHB 122)

"Lawful" and "Evil" are not opinion statements in D&D, they're as objective as gravity.

[Vaz]

No, the gods are objective. A Lawful Good god does not tend towards being Lawful Good, they are in their essence Lawful Good. Much like how a Devil does not choose to be Lawful Evil, they are Lawful Evil in their essence. If a devil "somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil" (PHB 122)

"Lawful" and "Evil" are not opinion statements in D&D, they're as objective as gravity.

That's not what objectivity is.

I refer you earlier shoe and water struggles.

[Sigreid]

One doesn't have to assume it works. In fact the best argument against torture is that it doesn't inherently provide information better or more reliable then that you could get through more "acceptable" interrogation methods.

Let's say the villain's evil plot is to plant a bomb in a public place. The party has narrowed it down to three locations, the theatre, the fair or the arena. And they've captured one of the big bad's goons. Using physical means to get the information doesn't mean you get accurate information. The prisoner might be a fanatic, willing to give false information even under threat of pain and death to ensure the plan's success. They might have outdated information, and the location was changed after their capture. Or others in their group might have given them false information, because this person was considered a weak link. Or they genuinely might not have been told about the full plan.

And one might say "Zone of truth", but if you already have access to the full suite of magical compulsion, detection and divination, why exactly would you need to get your hands dirty anyway?

That's the route I'd go if my players broached the subject, I think it's a far better route to go then stamping my feet and flat out forbidding anything.



The gods, who are objective, this isn't hard. If you love philosophy so much go look up Aquinas.

Torture can sometimes provide a data point. Proper, effective intelligence work never uses one point. You evaluate a collection of data points and put forth your best guess.

[Eric Diaz]

Okay, since I got no replies I'll make it short:

Torture = intimidation* + medicine

*or persuasion I guess.

No need for gruesome detail in my table. If you get creative (i.e., hits your foe in their flaws, ideals, bonds, etc.) you get advantage on your roll.

Medicine is needed to control harm - causing pain without causing harm, or saving a foe from dying too early.

Too much pain can kill you due to shock.

Most subjects of torture will say ANYTHING to stop the violence. Anything you want to hear. They will lie as often as they will tell the truth. It will probably be harder to tell truth and lie apart under these circumstances.

Of course, it might be useful if you can check the information right away - you need to open a safe that is present at the moment, etc.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/security.png

About alignment stuff, eh... nobody can agree on that.

Is torture evil? I certainly think so. But if good is preserving life, it says nothing about causing pain.

If "Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.", most societies before Cesare Beccaria (and lots of societies after that too) will think torture is the right thing to do to get confessions, save one's soul, use criminals as examples, make other armies afraid, etc.

So there is no right answer to that... I don't really use alignment in my games, but if I did, I would consider it evil I guess.

[Sigreid]

Okay, since I got no replies I'll make it short:

Torture = intimidation* + medicine

*or persuasion I guess.

No need for gruesome detail in my table. If you get creative (i.e., hits your foe in their flaws, ideals, bonds, etc.) you get advantage on your roll.

Medicine is needed to control harm - causing pain without causing harm, or saving a foe from dying too early.

Too much pain can kill you due to shock.

Most subjects of torture will say ANYTHING to stop the violence. Anything you want to hear. They will lie as often as they will tell the truth. It will probably be harder to tell truth and lie apart under these circumstances.

Of course, it might be useful if you can check the information right away - you need to open a safe that is present at the moment, etc.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/security.png

About alignment stuff, eh... nobody can agree on that.

Is torture evil? I certainly think so. But if good is preserving life, it says nothing about causing pain.

If "Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.", most societies before Cesare Beccaria (and lots of societies after that too) will think torture is the right thing to do to get confessions, save one's soul, use criminals as examples, make other armies afraid, etc.

So there is no right answer to that... I don't really use alignment in my games, but if I did, I would consider it evil I guess.

I believe there is a torturer's toolkit

[krugaan]

I believe there is a torturer's toolkit

"Tiny tarts and a feather?"

"Guess so ... taunt him with the tarts while we tickle him with the feather?"

"No, no, we poke him in the eye with the feather while throwing the tarts at his face."

"Tickle with tarts, throw feather."

"Eat tarts, tickle eye, poke face."

"... you guys, you're looking through my component pouch. Those are my reagents for Tasha's Hideous Laughter."

[War_lord]

I believe there is a torturer's toolkit

The 3.5 grappling rules? YOU MONSTER!

The last guy they did that to still does into screaming fits every time he sees a flowchart.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Yep, nothing like a bit of mind-slavery to spare your group those tough ethical questions.IMO it's far more important to avoid making a player at the table uncomfortable than for a character to avoid doing something questionably ethical. Characters doing questionable things is half the fun.

[Potato_Priest]

IMO it's far more important to avoid making a player at the table uncomfortable than for a character to avoid doing something questionably ethical. Characters doing questionable things is half the fun.

Oh, that's definitely correct. Player fun>character ethics all the way. I just thought that using the erosion of free will as an "ethical" replacement for torture was amusing.

[KorvinStarmast]

Torture can sometimes provide a data point. Proper, effective intelligence work never uses one point. You evaluate a collection of data points and put forth your best guess. Effective interrogation never confines itself to a single method of information extraction nor of questioning. See also "good cop" / "bad cop" interrogation methods for a crude example of that. There are many, many more means toward that end.

"Tiny tarts and a feather?"
"Guess so ... taunt him with the tarts while we tickle him with the feather?"
"No, no, we poke him in the eye with the feather while throwing the tarts at his face."
"Tickle with tarts, throw feather."
"Eat tarts, tickle eye, poke face."
"... you guys, you're looking through my component pouch. Those are my reagents for Tasha's Hideous Laughter." Bravo. well played. :smallbiggrin:

IMO it's far more important to avoid making a player at the table uncomfortable than for a character to avoid doing something questionably ethical. Characters doing questionable things is half the fun. Well said, and IIRC there is an rpg meme about "fade to black" and "the veil" that are useful tools at any table.

[Sigreid]

Effective interrogation never confines itself to a single method of information extraction nor of questioning. See also "good cop" / "bad cop" interrogation methods for a crude example of that. There are many, many more means toward that end.
Bravo. well played. :smallbiggrin:
Well said, and IIRC there is an rpg meme about "fade to black" and "the veil" that are useful tools at any table.

Yep, there are lots of ways to get information and psychological abuse is a good one. Knew a guy in my A school that Naval Intelligence decided to break. By the time they were done he was convinced his family reported him as a risk. I was merely pointing out that saying torture never provides useful information is ridiculous.

[KorvinStarmast]

I was merely pointing out that saying torture never provides useful information is ridiculous. Bingo.

The "torture never works" meme is a political statement that grew out of the major public debate that arose recently due to a RL war ... and I am going to stop there.

[Malifice]

No, the gods are objective. A Lawful Good god does not tend towards being Lawful Good, they are in their essence Lawful Good. Much like how a Devil does not choose to be Lawful Evil, they are Lawful Evil in their essence. If a devil "somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil" (PHB 122)

"Lawful" and "Evil" are not opinion statements in D&D, they're as objective as gravity.

Which of course ignores the fact that canonically, angels and devils have changed alignment. In the case of angels, more than a few of them have fallen to evil (and become Devils).

In other words, they also have free will to choose.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Oh, that's definitely correct. Player fun>character ethics all the way. I just thought that using the erosion of free will as an "ethical" replacement for torture was amusing.True, I certainly didn't mean to imply that mind control was a particularly ethical alternative, only lower-hassle and less squicky.

[Mutazoia]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66tQR7koR_Q

[krugaan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66tQR7koR_Q

Is it bad that I still like that song?

[Mutazoia]

Is it bad that I still like that song?

Watch the full 10 hour loop, and get back with us....

[GlenSmash!]

It's threads like this that make me so glad my players have not ever brought up torturing anyone. Maybe they will one day.

[War_lord]

Which of course ignores the fact that canonically, angels and devils have changed alignment. In the case of angels, more than a few of them have fallen to evil (and become Devils).

In other words, they also have free will to choose.

Book says that if a Devil changes alignment "somehow" (which implies its not an easy or common thing) it would cease to be a devil. It says that in plain English.

[TMac9000]

Something I’ve tried:

After the initial attempt to intimidate fails, say something like, “You’re right — whatever we can do pales by comparison. So here’s how this is going to work. You cooperate, and you can slip out the back door quietly. You don’t, and we walk out the front door, slap you in the back with a hearty thanks for all your help, and put a bag of gold in your hands. Now, you might be able to convince your boss you said nothing. You just might. You might even have some skin left. So ... what’ll you have?”

[Crgaston]

Something I’ve tried:

After the initial attempt to intimidate fails, say something like, “You’re right — whatever we can do pales by comparison. So here’s how this is going to work. You cooperate, and you can slip out the back door quietly. You don’t, and we walk out the front door, slap you in the back with a hearty thanks for all your help, and put a bag of gold in your hands. Now, you might be able to convince your boss you said nothing. You just might. You might even have some skin left. So ... what’ll you have?”


Perfect.

Brilliant.

You win this whole thread!