Vivisection for science

[Sorti]

I have a rule of thumb (the rule of "ewww") - if PCs do anything that makes anyone go "eww!" or "WTF?!" then that should draw the dark powers attention....

You should change it to "anything that would make somebody living in the 16th century go ewwww, and only if against a moral being", it would probably be more consistent with the setting and, IMHO, the concept of Power Check.

[ewancummins]

I have a rule of thumb (the rule of "ewww") - if PCs do anything that makes anyone go "eww!" or "WTF?!" then that should draw the dark powers attention....

You should change it to "anything that would make somebody living in the 16th century go ewwww, and only if against a moral being", it would probably be more consistent with the setting and, IMHO, the concept of Power Check.

I, too, am rather leery of 'presentism' in fantasy gaming.
Of course, Ravenloft isn't Medieval or Early Modern Europe.

[Sareau]

An argument that keeps coming up is the validity of 21st century values in ancient societies. This is false, as torturing animals is not looked upon kindly-the butchers, leatherworkers, and ratcatchers in a European setting are just doing their jobs, but in India and Asia, they were Untouchables.

Thus, in Sri Raja and the oriental domains, there may well be a Terror Track for these events. Europe was more callous, but I would point out the old nursery rhyme "Ding Dong Dell/ Pussy's in the well" wherein the wanton cruelty of tossing a cat in water is ascribed to a "naughty" boy-and "naughty" went a bit further in that era.

Hogarth's "Four Stages of Evil" begins with cruelty to a dog and a horse and culminates in a murder before going to an autopsy, so there is a debat there as to the cruelty to animals meriting a
powers check.

All in all, it's personal taste, but I would warn my players if I would require such.

[HuManBing]

But vivisection has been performed on human beings, and I thought that was the initial intent of the question. How many of you don't feel revolted or disgusted inside after reading [about vivisection]?

Mere revulsion or disgust is not enough, in my mind, to warrant a Powers Check. Many medical practices are inherently revolting, but very necessary. If you get a piece of shrapnel in your eye, as a combat medic I have to go digging in your socket with a knife and no anaesthesia to get it back out before it turns septic and gangrenous. Pretty much everybody around is going to feel revulsion or disgust, but nobody's going to argue with the medical necessity of what I'm doing. If I cut open a doomed mother's womb to try to save her unborn infant, that act has a clear goal completely separate from the causation of pain.

Likewise, vivisection by itself is not the same as torture. Torture is the goal in and of itself - the infliction of pain with no other benefit in mind. Vivisection also has a higher goal of advancing scientific knowledge. Granted, at some point you may draw a line and say the benefits (abstract knowledge) do not outweigh the costs (pain and suffering), but to claim that all vivisection is immoral is just as crude as claiming scientific endeavor justifies all manner of cruelties.

It has also been stated that torturing animals is a well-documented first step towards doing the same to humans. True or not, this is irrelevant to the issue of Powers Checks. You incur the Powers Check when you take action against another sapient creature (mere sentience is not enough - it must be sapient: e.g., a demihuman, thri-keen, what have you), not against an animal.

Taken to its absurd extremes, this slippery slope argument means you could incur Powers Checks for drinking beer, simply because somebody somewhere thinks that's a well-documented first step towards assault or rape.

[Ail]

Yes, HB, you convince me on most. But notice please that the reason for the revolt or disgust I mentioned for the wikipedia article were actually due to moral reasons rather than technical ones. Read again the section on what Japanese did to their prisoners of war, if you want me to be more specific.

So, ok. Let's probably redefine this as: Power-Checks are granted for goals, and not for the means they are enacted with. In this case, PC is for torture or brutal physical assault, and vivisection is the road to get there.

[HuManBing]

So, ok. Let's probably redefine this as: Power-Checks are granted for goals, and not for the means they are enacted with.

I think this is a good summary of a difficult topic. Certainly, the designers themselves had trouble with it even back in 2nd Ed.

If you look back at the "Forbidden Lore" expansion of 2nd Ed. Ravenloft, the designers bring up the question of moral relativity and whether it applies to powers checks. I think the example they brought up was grave robbing - do you go with the PC's morality (where it might not be too bad) or the local culture's morality (where it might be the ultimate offense)?

Ultimately it's a call the DM should make. Clearly, some darklords do fail powers checks even if they're "doing it for science" in their own subjective thinking (Mordenheim, Markov). But in those cases it looks like they crossed an important line of objective negative effects first - it wasn't merely their activities, but more the fact that their activities had such bad effects on others around them that it outweighed any benefit it might have brought.

Somebody else also mentioned an important point: the darklords do not accept subjective rationalizations like "I had a hard childhood" to discharge one's moral guilt (Petrovna, Aderre, Hazlik). All this suggests there is a balancing test between the subjective justification of the harmful act vs. the objective detriment to others. Again, another issue that's up to the DM to customize for each campaign.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

Let's probably redefine this as: Power-Checks are granted for goals, and not for the means they are enacted with. In this case, PC is for torture or brutal physical assault, and vivisection is the road to get there.

That's not really consistent with the rules, though. For example, Necromancy spells merit powers checks, even if used with good intent. IMHO, that indicates the Dark Powers care more about the means than the ends.

[Zettaijin]

The problem here is that we perceive the DP as above the usual human fallacies regarding morality. Sometimes we wish to punish the means, other times the intent, and all sort sof contextual factors may sway us toward leniency or harshness but consistency isn't humanity's strong suit, and apparently the DPs aren't that much better.

[ewancummins]

Mere revulsion or disgust is not enough, in my mind, to warrant a Powers Check. Many medical practices are inherently revolting, but very necessary. If you get a piece of shrapnel in your eye, as a combat medic I have to go digging in your socket with a knife and no anaesthesia to get it back out before it turns septic and gangrenous. Pretty much everybody around is going to feel revulsion or disgust, but nobody's going to argue with the medical necessity of what I'm doing. If I cut open a doomed mother's womb to try to save her unborn infant, that act has a clear goal completely separate from the causation of pain.

Likewise, vivisection by itself is not the same as torture. Torture is the goal in and of itself - the infliction of pain with no other benefit in mind. Vivisection also has a higher goal of advancing scientific knowledge. Granted, at some point you may draw a line and say the benefits (abstract knowledge) do not outweigh the costs (pain and suffering), but to claim that all vivisection is immoral is just as crude as claiming scientific endeavor justifies all manner of cruelties.

As a real-life combat medic, all this was pretty convincing for me. Well, except that I wouldn't use a knife to dig around in a human eye! Of course, if I were a medieval barber-surgeon...


BTW, I've participated in a goat lab. It was a way to sharpen our skills so that we could become better able to save human lives. We used appropriate medications to reduce the suffering of the animals.

[HuManBing]

As a real-life combat medic, all this was pretty convincing for me. Well, except that I wouldn't use a knife to dig around in a human eye!

I can believe that!

I talked with one U.S. soldier who'd been injured in an IED attack on tour in Iraq. The conversation went like this.

Him: There was something like 52 pieces of shrapnel in my eyes, they said. They had to go digging around the sides and behind my eyes with Q-tips. I didn't like that at all.

Me: Did they get it all out in the end?

Him: Oh yeah. I felt better right away. But all the same I didn't enjoy it and I would hate to be the medic who's gotta stick something in your eye...

[cure]

Likewise, vivisection by itself is not the same as torture. Torture is the goal in and of itself - the infliction of pain with no other benefit in mind.

While I suspect that ultimately this is the goal of professional torturers (of whom there are many in our world), it is not evident that such is the unambiguous raison d'être of torture. There can be torture to save one's eternal soul, i.e., confess one's sins, renounce the Devil, and die with some prospect of not going to Hell. There can be torture to the end of preserving civil order as a type of official punishment within a well codified, non-arbitrary system of law that includes, among other punishments, execution, i.e., Renaissance Italy among other places. There can be torture to stop "ticking timebombs", a notion ushered into the world by Israel and adopted, at least covertly, by the US and the UK. There can be torture to gather information on "enemy threats" generally, used covertly by those same three countries and scores of others.

For my money, parallel situations in Ravenloft are all Power check worthy, not because of the absence of supposed benefits beyond the infliction of pain for its own sake, but rather despite the existence of the supposed benefits. The means are damnable, regardless of the ends.

Hence vivisection is not less troublesome than torture on the grounds that the latter is simply an end in itself while the former is not.

Perhaps vivisection that becomes an end in itself thereby becomes damnable and Power Check worthy. But the case of torture doesn't shed light on that as torture is damnable and Power Check worthy by its very nature.

Once, however, vivisection progresses from animal subjects to human subjects the distinctions between torture and vivisection threaten to collapse. Were vivisection done on human prisoners who have been fairly condemned for crimes against their fellow citizens, then it is looking very much like torture. Yes, an operation may be a species of vivisection. But when you or I visit a doctor, any risk that is taken with our health, must be to the end of improving our health. Vivisection on prisoners is pursued with, at best, perfect disregard for their health. The vivisection may be intended as punishment or to gather information, of one sort or the other, but it is a species of torture.

Vivisection is not then a species of torture when its subject freely consents to it, as in surgery or medical research, or when its subject is an animal along the lines argued by Rotipher. For the Dark Powers this is good enough. Of course precisions might well be added. A wild animal on Rotipher's argument can have no expectation of humane treatment. But what about a domesticated animal? Or more to the point, a pet? And that is not even to mention an awakened animal or a familiar. Granted, for us, this answer may not be satisfying. But Ravenloft is not our world. As Mangrum suggests, there is no evidence to suggest that the Dark Powers have a bone to pick with trappers.

[cure]

Likewise, vivisection by itself is not the same as torture. Torture is the goal in and of itself - the infliction of pain with no other benefit in mind.

While I suspect that ultimately this is the goal of professional torturers (of whom there are many in our world), it is not evident that such is the unambiguous raison d'être of torture. There can be torture to "save" one's eternal soul, i.e., confess one's sins, renounce the Devil, and die with some prospect of not going to Hell. There can be torture to the end of preserving civil order as a type of official punishment within a well codified, non-arbitrary system of law that includes, among other punishments, execution, i.e., Renaissance Italy among other places. There can be torture to stop "ticking timebombs", a notion ushered into the world by Israel and adopted, at least covertly, by the US and the UK. There can be torture to gather information on "enemy threats" generally, used covertly by those same three countries and scores of others.

For my money, parallel situations in Ravenloft are all Power check worthy, not because of the absence of supposed benefits beyond the infliction of pain for its own sake, but rather despite the existence of the supposed benefits. The means are damnable, regardless of the ends.

Hence vivisection is not less troublesome than torture on the grounds that the latter is simply an end in itself while the former is not.

Perhaps vivisection that becomes an end in itself thereby becomes damnable and Power Check worthy. But the case of torture doesn't shed light on that as torture is damnable and Power Check worthy by its very nature.

Once, however, vivisection progresses from animal subjects to human subjects the distinctions between torture and vivisection threaten to collapse. Were vivisection done on human prisoners who have been fairly condemned for crimes against their fellow citizens, then it is looking very much like torture. Yes, an operation may be a species of vivisection. But when you or I visit a doctor, any risk that is taken with our health, must be to the end of improving our health. Vivisection on prisoners is pursued with, at best, perfect disregard for their health. The vivisection may be intended as punishment or to gather information, of one sort or another, but it is a species of torture.

Vivisection is not then a species of torture when its subject freely consents to it, as in surgery or medical research, or when its subject is an animal along the lines argued by Rotipher. For the Dark Powers this is enough. Of course precisions might well be added. A wild animal on Rotipher's argument can have no expectation of humane treatment. But what about a domesticated animal? Or more to the point, a pet? And that is not even to mention an awakened animal or a familiar. Granted, for us, this answer may not be satisfying. But Ravenloft is not our world. As Mangrum points out, there is no evidence to suggest that the Dark Powers have a bone to pick with trappers.