Alignment Question on a tricky char : ( Marv from Sincity)

[Kahuna Burger]

So Basiclly a good char cant torture?
Even if doing so is the only way he can get vital info for a good cause?

well, I haven't seen the movies but people have been talking about him enjoying torturing people he doesn't like, so in this case, no way he's good. I'm sketchy on neutral.

I don't think a good character can torture. Use of torture dehumanizes the torturer as much as the victim. A neutral character could use torture when absolutely neccassary, but if you enjy it you're evil.

 

[Zappo]

Basically, no, a Good character ideally should never torture, regardless of circumstances. Remember, D&D morals are absolute. You can make a case for torture being sometimes a necessary evil, but it is still evil. A Good character that is forced to torture someone should feel extremely bad about it, regardless of the reasons or the subject (though, naturally, isolated evil acts don't automatically make you Evil).

Marv, instead, enjoyed torturing. He does not qualify torture as a necessary evil. While the action may be the same, this fact alone is an extreme push towards Evil.

I categorize him as Neutral because of self-sacrifice, which is a very non-Evil action, and because he feels righteous anger at evil for evil's sake.

Also, IMHO, killing is virtually never a Good action, except for Evil outsiders, undead and similar creatures. Killing ordinary evil people is a Neutral action, and then only if the killing is arguably necessary to prevent them from committing further evil. See any of the N threads about paladins attacking anything that blips on their evilmeter.

It could be debatable that killing ultra-psychopaths such as the guy Elijah Wood played, or the bishop, is a Good action; I have no opinion on that. But killing run-of-the-mill criminals is Neutral at best. Ideal Good behaviour would be to redeem or confine them. If that sounds impractical - tough luck. There's a reason for which there aren't many saints around. Ordinary Good characters commit Neutral actions all the time.

 

[Sejs]

So Basiclly a good char cant torture?
Even if doing so is the only way he can get vital info for a good cause?

I have even read somewhere cant ( remember ) of clerics bringing transporting vampires in there coffins at day time when they were helpless to some order of paladins for interogation and execution....

Common misperception of alignment, actually. Good characters are perfectly capable of performing evil acts without losing their alignment. Here's the deal, however: don't make a habbit of it, or you are at risk. Essentially, a single action does not an alignment make, but regular and repeated actions do.

Outside of paladins, who have special rules, a good character can torture a prisoner for interrogation purposes. The character, by their nature, however, would find the very act distasteful. They wouldn't enjoy it. It's the kind of thing that'd likely to cause the character to have a moral crisis, or at the very least, some degree of internal contemplation.

Conversely, a neutral person could do it if there was an actual need for it and an evil person could do it just for the hell of it. Generally speaking, torture with a purpose that's necessary could be construed as neutral. But enjoying torture? That's right smack on into capital 'e' Evil territory. Real textboox villain stuff.

Edit/Cairification: Good characters can torture, but doing so is never a good act regardless of the reasons. It's bad. Possibly (and in fact very likely) evil. However, good character are capable of performing evil acts the same as anyone else.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Common misperception of alignment, actually. Good characters are perfectly capable of performing evil acts without losing their alignment. Here's the deal, however: don't make a habbit of it, or you are at risk. Essentially, a single action does not an alignment make, but regular and repeated actions do.

I think it depends on the circumstances. A single evil act may not make a consistently good characer ungood, but how the decision to take that evil act is reached (even if they don't end up completing it) may cause me to tell the player that their chaacter wasn't good to begin with.

Particularly in D&D where there are almost always more effective methods of getting info available, if a character's very first idea on needing to gain info from a prisoner is "lets torture him!" that character simply isn't good in my view. If the need to gain info comes up once and a good character reluctantly accepts torure as the only way, I would expect them to follow that incident up with investing in magic or alchemal/poison items that could be used "next time" even if the players don't think there will ever be a next time.

 

[Sejs]

I think it depends on the circumstances. A single evil act may not make a consistently good characer ungood, but how the decision to take that evil act is reached (even if they don't end up completing it) may cause me to tell the player that their chaacter wasn't good to begin with.

Fully agree with you. Motive counts as much as (and possibly more than) method. The 'why' is very important.

Particularly in D&D where there are almost always more effective methods of getting info available, if a character's very first idea on needing to gain info from a prisoner is "lets torture him!" that character simply isn't good in my view. If the need to gain info comes up once and a good character reluctantly accepts torure as the only way, I would expect them to follow that incident up with investing in magic or alchemal/poison items that could be used "next time" even if the players don't think there will ever be a next time.

Yup, though I'd put a qualifier on that, that essentially says 'depending on availability'. The magic/alchemical solution may not be available, but ultimatly that's more a campaign issue than anything else.

Nah, ultimatly we're on the same page, I think.

 

[lukelightning]

Good people can torture...but the torture is an evil act. A paladins who tortures someone should lose their status.

It's the fact that he takes an inordinate amount of pleasure for inflicting severe and grotesque torture. There is no possible way that torturing someone to death can be anything but EVIL.

The dragging someone in a car might be "neutral torture" since it is more psychological and I'd consider that more intimidation. The using various items purchased from a hardware store to bring an excruciatingly painful prolonged death is about as evil as you can get.

So Basiclly a good char cant torture?
Even if doing so is the only way he can get vital info for a good cause?

I have even read somewhere cant ( remember ) of clerics bringing transporting vampires in there coffins at day time when they were helpless to some order of paladins for interogation and execution....

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Nah, ultimatly we're on the same page, I think.

I'd say so, I just wanted to pull out the distinction between "taking a single evil act makes a good character non-good" and "deciding on an evil course of action (even once) may cause the DM to rethink your claimed alignment".

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Good people can torture...but the torture is an evil act. A paladins who tortures someone should lose their status.

It's the fact that he takes an inordinate amount of pleasure for inflicting severe and grotesque torture. There is no possible way that torturing someone to death can be anything but EVIL.

The dragging someone in a car might be "neutral torture" since it is more psychological and I'd consider that more intimidation. The using various items purchased from a hardware store to bring an excruciatingly painful prolonged death is about as evil as you can get.

So.... would it be fair to say that if I hated Payback and spent half the movie hoping someone (anyone!) would kill off Mel Gibson's character and get it over with, that I probably won't like this film either? Because before this thread I would have watched it if it was available to me.

 

[Sejs]

So.... would it be fair to say that if I hated Payback and spent half the movie hoping someone (anyone!) would kill off Mel Gibson's character and get it over with, that I probably won't like this film either? Because before this thread I would have watched it if it was available to me.

Based on that statement?

No, Sin City wouldn't be up your alley, KB.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Based on that statement?

No, Sin City wouldn't be up your alley, KB.

damn, I'm a big bruce wilis fan.... :\