Can two forces be in conflict, both believing themselves to be good?

[Beginning of the End]

To torture an evil person for information to save your child's life is evil to you and you feel that the paladin should give up his titles?

I think there's one thing we can all agree on: The philosophical debate between the absolute morality of certain actions vs. ends justifying the means is not going to be resolved on a gaming messageboard.

With that being said, I will also make this observation: Absolute, objective alignments and detect alignment spells don't make this sort of question easier. Quite the opposite, in fact.

"Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity. The less they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty."

... but apparently I can't resist factual inaccuracy.

Information gained by torture in my opinion has to be evaluated in the same way that any information gained by any means has to be evaluated. Now the question is, why is it considered unreliable? Because the person can lie to get out of torture? Lying takes place outside of torture also, that is no reason not to use torture.

This is inaccurate. According to every study ever done on the matter, people under torture are MORE likely to lie. And torture precludes the use of interrogation techniques which have proven to be more effective and reliable.

What you're saying here is functionally equivalent to saying, "The question is, why is driving 150 mph on icy roads considered unsafe? Because your car can be in accident? Accidents can happen when your car is parked on the side of the road. That is no reason not to drive 150 mph on icy roads."

...in the same way that the most effective way to prevent crime is by punishing those who commit the crime.

This is also a highly questionable assertion. For example, locking your car door will do more to reduce your risk of having your car stolen than increasing the legal penalty for stealing a car.

Rulers would do well to study Machiavelli and his book The Prince.

You mean the book that was written as a satire specifically to mock people who believe the things you're professing here?

You might want to pay a little more attention next time you crack the cover on that one.

 

[Alexander123]

As far as I know, Machiavelli's book is not a satire.

I personally doubt that a fat man could stop a train in it's tracks although depending on the 5 persons who were trapped there and whether I could get away with it I might do so. For instance if a loved one were trapped there and I knew with certainty that my action was going to save the loved one, then yes I would do so. If it was just 5 workers I would not because there is no reason in my view to do so because then the question becomes happiness of the greatest number as opposed to the individual happiness. Another question is whether I am willing to go to jail for having pushed than man in front of the train. Most likely only in very extreme circumstances would I be willing to do such a thing, such as if a loved one was in front of the train. Otherwise I would simply watch those 5 workers get hit by a train.

Of course prevention is the best cure, but if there were no consequences for crime, the crime rate would skyrocket because many potential criminals do not become criminals because of the punishment for crime.

My own personal opinion on the matter is this. Those who say that torture is ineffective say it because of public opinion and not because it is true.

I do have very definite ideas about good and evil, and of course, for me there will always be a good side and an evil side. I was more talking about conflicts where both sides believe they are good. Not that both of them are in fact good. Usually in D&D games the evil side accepts that the other side is the good side and that they are evil. (such as the gods of evil for instance, they don't consider themselves good and the other side evil.) Although I do have a question about good and evil in D&D. Why are liches considered to be evil? I know many liches do evil things but why does their being a lich in itself make them evil? Why does their seeking eternal life through undeath make them evil? I would think that if a lich violated another person's individual rights they would become evil as anyone would but becoming a lich itself does not violate anyone's individual rights.

 

[The Shaman]

How does a ruler from Greyhawk read a book written in our world?

iPad of scrying.

 

[Umbran]

As far as I know, Machiavelli's book is not a satire.

There is some debate on the matter: The Prince - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My own personal opinion on the matter is this. Those who say that torture is ineffective say it because of public opinion and not because it is true.

And you are welcome to your opinion. I tend to think that they say torture in ineffective because they listen to experts who have said it is ineffective and unreliable compared to other interrogation methods available.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I tend to think that they say torture in ineffective because they listen to experts who have said it is ineffective and unreliable compared to other interrogation methods available.

I'd be in that category.

Seriously, do a search for info on "false confessions" and you'll find lots of RW data from a variety of organizations detailing the hows and whys of people lying when being interrogated.

This bit from The Innocence Project details many of the common factors, including duress and "threat of violence." IOW, torture.

Do enough digging, and you may even be able to find the data showing a decline in the incidence of false confessions since the US made physically coercive interrogation illegal decades ago (though we're still cleaning up the mess).

 

[Neonchameleon]

Information gained by torture in my opinion has to be evaluated in the same way that any information gained by any means has to be evaluated. Now the question is, why is it considered unreliable? Because the person can lie to get out of torture? Lying takes place outside of torture also, that is no reason not to use torture.

No. The reason to not use torture is because it gives them many incenties to lie. There are two basic reasons to lie. First because you get something out of it. Second because you hate the bastards you are lying to.

If you are being tortured, you will hate the bastards torturing you. Lying to them is a way to fight back. If you aren't torturing them then they may already hate you, they may not. And interrogating them will probably annoy them. But they probably won't hate you for it unless you torture them.

Also, torture breaks people. Torture me enough and I will confess to being the second gunman on the grassy knoll, the snake in the garden of eden, and anything else you care to name just to get the torture to stop. Ask me for a name and I will give you one. Preferably someone who is actually helping you because I hate you. (The French ran into this a lot in Algeria). But I will give you whichever name you want just to make the torture stop. This is completely independent of whether it is true. The lie will buy me time not being tortured.

In short there are two major reasons to lie to people. The second you have broken out the torture you turn both up to 11 on the torture victim. Therefore you massively increase the number of lies you are listening to.

Finally, how the hell do you know you have an innocent person? They claim to be innocent? So would a guilty person. They don't give you useful information? That's just evidence they are lying to you. And it just means that if the guilty held out long enough they could prove themselves innocent. At that point the torture will not only make them hate you - it will be entirely ineffective.

If a person knows something, torture is the most effective method of getting him to reveal it in the same way that the most effective way to prevent crime is by punishing those who commit the crime.

Wrong on both counts unless 'in the same way' was meant to imply that. Punishing those who have committed a crime does not prevent the crime - therefore it does absolutely nothing to prevent crime. You might as well bolt the barn door after the horse has bolted.

Crime prevention normally requires a means/motive/opportunity triangle. Punishment doesn't affect the means at all and doesn't affect the opportunity at all. Also almost no criminal thinks they are going to be caught (the only people with an actually accurate belief in their capabilities are, I believe, clinically depressed). So the punishment is strongly discounted in terms of motive because people believe it won't happen to them. Taking away current physical needs by relieving poverty is far more effective. And the single biggest way of reducing reoffending is to make sure that former prisoners have some means of employment. Or you can take away means or opportunity to commit the crime. But punishment doesn't work.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, punishment DOES have an effect- at the very least, it prevents THAT criminal from committing THAT crime again for a period of time...unless you're talking about crimes against persons, which are crimes that can be committed in prison. But even then, you still have the distinction between violence (largely) against other criminals versus against innocent members of society.

Still, though:

1. Prevention is the cheapest & most effective form of crimefighting
2. Torture is the least effective method of interrogation (there are reasons why torture proponents oppose Alan Dershowitz's torture warrants legislation...)

 

[JacktheRabbit]

You might have to explain how a paladin (or anyone) opposed to torture could be considered evil.

An evil necromancer has been captured. He has recently enacted an elaborate ritual that on the next new moon will cause every corpse for 10,000 miles to animate. The death toll will be in the thousands or possibly tens of thousands, expecially among the common peasantry and townfolk.

The ritual can be stopped but only by some secret method known to the necromancer.

The local Paladin order opposes torture at all times and no matter the reason. They would rather see thousands die at the hands of the rising dead instead of beat the answer out of the necromancer.

When your moral code is more important than the lives of innocent people that is evil.

 

[Crothian]

When your moral code is more important than the lives of innocent people that is evil.

Except, there is no guarantee that it will work. The Paladins could torture the guy, not get the right info, and thousands still die. In a D&D world there are always other options unless the DM is specifically trying to make your paladin lose his paladinhood.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Except, there is no guarantee that it will work. The Paladins could torture the guy, not get the right info, and thousands still die. In a D&D world there are always other options unless the DM is specifically trying to make your paladin lose his paladinhood.

Torture under a Zone of Truth solves that problem quite nicely. If no magic is available then you torture for an answer, test the answer, rinse repeat until it works or the new moon arrives. But the idea that you do nothing between now and the New Moon because the necromancer refuses to talk seems rather dumb to me.

Your comment brings up another thought.

A paladin can save lives but to do so requires an act that will make him lose his paladinhood. Wouldnt holding of your code to be more important than the lives of innocent people be an incredibly evil and arrogant idea and thus ground for loss of status anyway?