Questioning Dangerous Prisoners

[Epametheus]

A character with a really good diplomacy check could do it (DC 50 to change the attitude of someone from Hostile to Friendly), assuming your DM actually permits it.

Suggestion spells are good -- "answer all questions asked of you to the best of your ability." Depending on how much of an ass the DM is, you might have to word it like everyone seems to be required to word Wishes, but you should get good results once the target finally fails the save.

Oh, yeah -- place Bestow Curse on the target a few times: -4 to all checks (including saves), -6 to Wisdom, and 50% failure rate of attempted actions makes things a lot harder on the prisoner without actually doing physical harm.

 

[Chrisling]

Cavalier Attitudes About Torture and Mutilation

Being a reasonably humane guy, I'm of the opinion that torture is in all times and all places evil. As is mutilation. But this story isn't about me, so much . . . .

I've gamed in Nevada, California, South Carolina, Texas and Maine -- places I've lived. Save in Nevada, where I grew up and "trained" my players, hehe, in every other place I gamed I found it was pretty routine for the players, when capturing an "enemy" magician to torture and mutilate the magician. They'd go, "Well, in order to prevent him from casting spells, we've got to cut off his hands, gouge out his tongue and pluck out his eyes." Then they'd get confused when I was horrified, telling them that this would certainly get their characters into evil alignments, particularly given the cavalier attitude they seemed to have towards this horrific torture and mutilation.

They'd give me the old, "Well, he's a magician. If we don't do this, he'll escape." Which is, perhaps, true. But it's true of any character, really. I mean, a good rogue is at least as likely to escape as a magician -- so is it okay to routinely mutilate rogues you've captured? The same is true of <I>monks</i> -- many monks laugh at attempts to hold them. Should we go around mutilating monks?

Eventually, the players shut up. Some of them even see the point -- but a lot of them don't. They don't see that torturing people to prevent them from escaping is completely wrong; that it's evil.

The same holds true of prisoners that get captured. After knocking out a person they're fighting, the usual response is, "We'll kill them, otherwise we'll just have to fight them, again." It's much easier not to take them prisoner at all! Again, I usually get these blank looks when I say murdering helpless people -- even if they're you're enemies -- is evil. Geneva Convention, anyone? There are laws, built on solid moral principles, that say killing helpless enemy combatants is just WRONG. This is also standard in any police force in any country anyone wants to live in; it's illegal and evil to "finish off" even the most reprehensible people. Yet, despite this being out there -- not to mention all my players living in a society whose dominate religion is Christianity, which has this bit about "thou shall not murder" -- and known, I still get these blank looks when I say that finishing off foes that are down is evil.

*finishes rant*

 

[TSL]

Torture is about pain, both physical and psychological. Having 'regeneration' or healing present doesn't make the act less morally repugnant.

Several have suggested that tortue might be o.k. depending on the stakes. But you know what one of the most fundamental arguments on good and evil is?

Do the means justify the ends or do the ends justify the means?

Evil types tend to believe that the ends justify the means.

Good types believe that the means justify the ends.

I would think that, in a magical universe, Charm Person would be fairly useful for those not wishing to sully themselves with more, er, visceral persuasions.

A final thought, I presume some of you watch Justice League on Cartoon Network? There was a fairly entertain example of interrogation by good types a few weeks ago. Superman was trying to shake down a thug, and failing miserably. The bad guy was like "Oooohh, what are you gonna do boyscout?" After the police take the guy away, Superman mutters "How does he do it?" refering to Batman.

Answer - Superman, clearly Lawful Good - Batman - Arguably Neutral, but cultivator of a Neutral Evil reputation.

 

[Zenon]

Zone of Truth is useless. While it compels the truth, it does not compel a response to the question asked. If I have a Zone of Truth up and ask my prisoner "Did you assassinate the king?", said prisoner can respond with "The sky is blue" or "Swords tend to be sharp." While these answers are truthful, barring something weird on your world, they do not answer the question asked

When you are lower level, sometimes you just have to deal with people lying to you and you believing them.

Have a Bard or Rogue with a good Sense Motive Skill, and use Diplomacy or Intimidate (or a combination of both).

However, when you get to be higher level, things change. Questioning can happen using the following:

From the SRD:

Mark of Justice

Transmutation
Level: Clr 5
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Permanent (see text)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes

When moral suasion fails to win a criminal over to right conduct, the character can use mark of justice to encourage the criminal to walk the straight and narrow path.

The character draws an indelible mark on the subject and states some behavior on the part of the subject that will activate the mark. When activated, the mark curses the subject. Typically, the character designates some sort of criminal behavior that activates the mark, but the character can pick any act the character pleases. The effect of the mark is identical with the effect of bestow curse.

Since this spell takes 10 minutes to cast and involves writing on the target, the character can cast only it on someone who is willing or restrained.

Like bestow curse, mark of justice cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed with a break enchantment, limited wish, miracle, remove curse, or wish spell. Remove curse, however, works only if the caster is at least as high level as the character's mark of justice. These restrictions apply regardless of whether the mark has activated.

You can draw the MOJ on the restrained "evil bad guy" with no Saving throw involved. You can state the behavior that triggers the MOJ "Answer all of my questions directly, completely and truthfully". If the subject doesn't, then pow - just like a Bestow Curse. Target something like, say, CON with the -6 and watch them squirm. Repeat as necessary. (You won't kill them, stats cannot go below 1 with Bestow Curse) When you come back the next day, I bet you get your questions answered.

You have not tortured or caused pain. The subject has chosen to inflict this upon himself by avoiding, lying, etc. in answering your questions.

Even if you let him go and then catch up to him in a year, unless he has had the MOJ removed, it is still in operation (permanent until discharged), so if you ask him more questions, you should still get truthful answers.

Slick spell, doesn't get enough use IMO.

 

[SableWyvern]

I personally don't believe that torture is necessarily evil.

But, I do agree with TSL, that the ability to regenerate/heal damage inflicted during interrogation is irrelevant to the good/evil question.

One of the points of torture for the purpose of interrogation is to inflict as much pain as possible, while still keeping the victim capable of providing information.

Are any of you going to tell me that you wouldn't bear a grudge against someone who messed with your entrails for half an hour, as long as he fixed you up properly afterwards?

 

[Nail]

Are any of you going to tell me that you wouldn't bear a grudge against someone who messed with your entrails for half an hour, as long as he fixed you up properly afterwards?

Excellent. Very quotable, SW.

As fer th' questions:

How do you deal with good players trying to get information from evil prisoners?

As a DM, I make sure that consequences follow from their actions. If they chose torture....the consequences down th' road might not be pretty.

For those of you avocating torture use (healing spells are irrelevant), check yer alignment badges. They've just changed color.

What changes if the prisoners are spellcasters / psions / shapeshifters?

A good question. Back in 2e, th' PC would always suit 'em up in armor......

Now-a-days, you'll need to strip 'em down, truss 'em up as well as possible, and then <gasp!> guard 'em. After you've taken th' reasonable precautions, you leave it up to th' DM....if he wants that villian to escape, there's not much PCs can do to stop him.

The Power of the Plot compels you!

If you have access to th' spells, bestow curse, mark of justice, or one of the charm-type spells might be a good bet.

What changes if the world provides ready access to magical regeneration / restoration / healing?

No changes what so ever. Magic does not change morality or ethics in any way.

 

[Roland Delacroix]

In adventure movies a common thing for the good guys to do is untie the bad guy and punch him around a few times. He's untied so he has a chance to throw a few, but usually the good guy wins. The bad guy then realizes he's beaten, spills everything, etc.....

I think this is something a paladin would be very likely to do. Give the captured bad guy a chance at a fair fight. When the paladin wins, by the will of his god of course , i'd probably let him make an Intimidation roll with a big bonus. I suggest you don't try this with a monk though.

There are plenty of other ways to get info out a person while being 'Good'. Its not as easy as just breaking out the knives and hot irons, but with a litte thought can be pulled off.

 

[Dr. NRG]

Shades of Grey

...Magic does not change morality or ethics in any way.

I would take issue with this statement. I think that we can all agree that it is a bad thing (leave sin and evil aside) to let a person whose life you could have saved die. I would also contend that it is not as bad a thing to let a person whose life you could have saved die if you then resurrect them.

Imagine, if you will, two scenarios where a powerful good artifact will be permanently destroyed if you take the time to save the life of the acolyte guarding it. In scenario 1, you have no capacity to raise the acolyte; if you let him die, he is gone for good. In scenario 2, you have true resurrection memorized. Pick a course of action, and analyze it under each scenario, and I think you'll conclude that magic actually does change morality and ethics in a significant way.

It is also relevant to point out that direct comparisons with our own society/justice system break down very quickly. 1st world countries (the USA in particular) are very focused on imprisonment as a form of punishment, basing large parts of their justice systems upon it. It simply isn't practical for powerful spellcasters (especially divine ones!) to be imprisoned. Admittedly, there are exceptions, but how many judges can cast 9th level spells like imprisonment? I would add that PCs are often in positions where there is no practical way to take and/or hold prisoners (in the field operations, if you will), and that a more accurate moral comparison might be taking a look at what field combat troops do with enemy prisoners... particularly enemy prisoners that they cannot disarm (spellcasting).

I would even make an argument that there are cases where torturing is a form of self defense. For example, if you know that your captive has information about a weapon of mass destruction (say an evil artifact) that will soon kill a whole society. Is torturing him morally wrong? At least one first-world country (Israel) has answered this question with a "no."

Saying "torturing is wrong" is far too simple. It's like saying, "killing is wrong," which is generally true, but with several relevant exceptions.

My 2 cents and more, sorry for the ramble,

NRG

 

[Chrisling]

Re: Shades of Grey

I would even make an argument that there are cases where torturing is a form of self defense. For example, if you know that your captive has information about a weapon of mass destruction (say an evil artifact) that will soon kill a whole society. Is torturing him morally wrong? At least one first-world country (Israel) has answered this question with a "no."

Saying "torturing is wrong" is far too simple. It's like saying, "killing is wrong," which is generally true, but with several relevant exceptions.

This is a specious justification for torture. The reason is pretty simple. The first is, y'know, it doesn't happen. The second reason is even if it did happen torture just wouldn't work.

The scenario is you think you've got someone who can tell you what you need to know to stop a horrible thing from happening. So, the person only needs to hold out against torture for a short period of time in the first place. In the second place -- and this is the general problem with torture as an information gathering tool -- torture victims don't tell the truth. They tell the torturer what the victim thinks the torturer wants to hear. Anything. To stop the pain. So the information that is gotten from torture <i>is not reliable</i>. You're torturing someone for information that is a gamble, rather than doing something else to defuse the situation.

Which is the other weakness -- it isn't as though torture is the only thing you can do. There is no proof whatsoever that torture is more useful than other methods used to solve the problem -- such as finding and defusing the bomb or "evil artifact."

All of this presumes that the person tortured actually has the information needed <i>and that his torturers believe him</i>! Both of which are problematic.

So, when a person choses torture, they're risking torturing a person who simply doesn't know the information they need (in which case they'll not only fail but be a torturer of an innocent), that they'll believe the information when given, that they can act on it efficiently -- all of which are extremely presumptuous.

I've never heard of a scenario under which torture is an acceptable, much less a good, option. I defy someone to come up with one.

<I>And</I>, for the record, yeah, Israel tortures people. Not only have they justly been condemned by numerous international organizations, <i>it has not helped their situation</i> -- indeed, their enemies use the fact of their barbarities to drive people against Israel.

 

[Chrisling]

Torture and society, a bit

Here's something else to think about when you think of torture as a viable investigative technique. Who does it? I mean, torture requires skill to do to do it right and in such a fashion that it doesn't merely incapacitate the victim.

If a culture is going to use torture, they've got to have torturers. People who specifically study how to inflict pain on people and who are in fact willing to do so. You have to live in a society where a person can say, "I'm a torturer" not not draw horrified shrieks. Having torture in society means, well, living in the sort of society where people train, promote and use torture.

Who wants to live there?