Interrogation, Torture, and You

[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.

[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.

[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.

Spoiler: For Length

Show

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.

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.

(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]