Questioning Dangerous Prisoners
- Thread starter Nifft
- Start date
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Re: Cavalier Attitudes About Torture and Mutilation
Interesting. In my observation, it's increasingly uncommon for people to actually believe in good and evil IRL. It shouldn't really be unexpected for that to carry over into gaming.
As to the exectution of prisoners and the Geneva convention/the testimony of the tradition of Western Law, you're repeating a common misconception. The following is from military historian Victor Davis Hansen's pieces on terrorism from about six months ago:
There is a reason that the Geneva Convention technically applies only to its signatories and even then requires legitimate military combatants to wear uniforms and not to hide among civilian populations. In D&D villains typically fall under the category of latrunculi who do actually hide among civilian populations and do not wear uniforms (to identify them as combatants). As such, according to most historical rules of law, they would actually be subject to summary execution.
Of course, this does not regard torture at all but I've found that most of my DMs' bad guys have been more than willing to spill their guts when it's made clear to them that the just punishment for their actions is death and that their execution is scheduled for 30 seconds from now unless they decide to cooperate. Zone of Truth, Detect Thoughts, and Detect Lies come in quite handy for corroberating the facts in such instances. Heck, in a society where Marks of Justice are common things, a simple Arcane Mark can work as a low level substitute
Chrisling said:
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*
Interesting. In my observation, it's increasingly uncommon for people to actually believe in good and evil IRL. It shouldn't really be unexpected for that to carry over into gaming.
As to the exectution of prisoners and the Geneva convention/the testimony of the tradition of Western Law, you're repeating a common misconception. The following is from military historian Victor Davis Hansen's pieces on terrorism from about six months ago:
There is a reason that the Geneva Convention technically applies only to its signatories and even then requires legitimate military combatants to wear uniforms and not to hide among civilian populations. In D&D villains typically fall under the category of latrunculi who do actually hide among civilian populations and do not wear uniforms (to identify them as combatants). As such, according to most historical rules of law, they would actually be subject to summary execution.
Of course, this does not regard torture at all but I've found that most of my DMs' bad guys have been more than willing to spill their guts when it's made clear to them that the just punishment for their actions is death and that their execution is scheduled for 30 seconds from now unless they decide to cooperate. Zone of Truth, Detect Thoughts, and Detect Lies come in quite handy for corroberating the facts in such instances. Heck, in a society where Marks of Justice are common things, a simple Arcane Mark can work as a low level substitute
Last edited:
I've never had to torture my PCs, but if I did, I'd use the following:
Torturer's check --> Profession(Torturer), which takes 10 minutes. Anything less than that and you're just hitting the guy for damage and shouting "Talk! TALK!"
Possible synergy bonuses from Intimidate and Sense Motive, as well as having a well-stocked torture chamber.
The DC is set at the Torturer's check -10. (A novice with 4 ranks who rolled a 20 would set a save DC of 14).
Victim gets a Fortitude save. Each time he passes, he's fine.
When he fails a Fortitude save, he has to make a Will save. If he passes that, he's still fine.
When he fails the Will save, he starts blubbering and will say anything they want.
Each hour gives the Victim a -1 on his saves, but the Torturer also gets a -1 penalty as he begins to tire. Unfortunately for the Victim, most Torturers work in pairs, letting one rest while the other does his work...
If the Victim passes three consecutive saves by 5 or more, he need no longer make saves against torture committed by that torturer for one day. He has seen through the suffering the torturer has inflicted upon him and laughed in the face of pain.
- - - - -
As for PCs doing the torturing, I'd classify it as bad. I wouldn't tell them not to do it, but they'd slide a few ticks toward evil. Of course, in some cases, sliding a few ticks toward evil is an acceptible loss compared to the consequences of not finding out.
If I had a child, and someone had my child buried alive and running out of air, I would do whatever I had to do to get that someone to talk. Hey, I used to be Catholic. I can always go to confession.
In D&Dland, I'd say that Greater Command, Quest, and Charm Person spells can work pretty well. Depending on how you rule Dominate Person, that would work fine as well. Some people rule that Dominate just turns you into a puppet, but the DMG uses an example where a dominated person is ordered to hand over their most valuable item, and does so -- which implies that the dominator has access to the brain. So you could Dominate them and say, "Answer this man's questions truthfully and unambiguously to the best of your ability."
-Tacky
Torturer's check --> Profession(Torturer), which takes 10 minutes. Anything less than that and you're just hitting the guy for damage and shouting "Talk! TALK!"
Possible synergy bonuses from Intimidate and Sense Motive, as well as having a well-stocked torture chamber.
The DC is set at the Torturer's check -10. (A novice with 4 ranks who rolled a 20 would set a save DC of 14).
Victim gets a Fortitude save. Each time he passes, he's fine.
When he fails a Fortitude save, he has to make a Will save. If he passes that, he's still fine.
When he fails the Will save, he starts blubbering and will say anything they want.
Each hour gives the Victim a -1 on his saves, but the Torturer also gets a -1 penalty as he begins to tire. Unfortunately for the Victim, most Torturers work in pairs, letting one rest while the other does his work...
If the Victim passes three consecutive saves by 5 or more, he need no longer make saves against torture committed by that torturer for one day. He has seen through the suffering the torturer has inflicted upon him and laughed in the face of pain.
- - - - -
As for PCs doing the torturing, I'd classify it as bad. I wouldn't tell them not to do it, but they'd slide a few ticks toward evil. Of course, in some cases, sliding a few ticks toward evil is an acceptible loss compared to the consequences of not finding out.
If I had a child, and someone had my child buried alive and running out of air, I would do whatever I had to do to get that someone to talk. Hey, I used to be Catholic. I can always go to confession.
In D&Dland, I'd say that Greater Command, Quest, and Charm Person spells can work pretty well. Depending on how you rule Dominate Person, that would work fine as well. Some people rule that Dominate just turns you into a puppet, but the DMG uses an example where a dominated person is ordered to hand over their most valuable item, and does so -- which implies that the dominator has access to the brain. So you could Dominate them and say, "Answer this man's questions truthfully and unambiguously to the best of your ability."
-Tacky
Re: Re: Cavalier Attitudes About Torture and Mutilation
Elder-Basilisk,
LOL. I think most people believe in evil, I just think most people lack the conviction to say it because, y'know, it's easy to make fun of them. I'm thick skinned.
Your point about the Roman Empire is well taken. However, in the situations about which I am talking, the PCs weren't acting under any legal authority in the first place; in fact, sometimes they were the criminals fleeing a corrupt government.
Additionally, I was using the Geneva Convention as a standard of morality. Clearly, it does not apply to most D&D games, as there is no Geneva in which to convene and the society was far more primitive in most games.
However, your statement that the Geneva Convention applies only to uniformed soldiers is incorrect. The statement that has been bandied about militias needing a sign recognizable at a distance is only a small fraction of Part 1, Article 4 of the Convention. Other people covered by the convention include, "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war" and "Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces" -- and no mention is made in that article of whether they should have uniforms or not.
Furthermore, if someone is taken in battle -- regardless of them having a uniform or not -- they're to be treated as if the Convention applies to them until such a time as they've been subjected to a competent tribunal to determine their status. Or, to quote Part 1, Article 5: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. "
It is totally true that the Geneva Convention only applies amongst signators, of course.
Elder-Basilisk,
LOL. I think most people believe in evil, I just think most people lack the conviction to say it because, y'know, it's easy to make fun of them. I'm thick skinned.
Your point about the Roman Empire is well taken. However, in the situations about which I am talking, the PCs weren't acting under any legal authority in the first place; in fact, sometimes they were the criminals fleeing a corrupt government.
Additionally, I was using the Geneva Convention as a standard of morality. Clearly, it does not apply to most D&D games, as there is no Geneva in which to convene and the society was far more primitive in most games.
However, your statement that the Geneva Convention applies only to uniformed soldiers is incorrect. The statement that has been bandied about militias needing a sign recognizable at a distance is only a small fraction of Part 1, Article 4 of the Convention. Other people covered by the convention include, "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war" and "Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces" -- and no mention is made in that article of whether they should have uniforms or not.
Furthermore, if someone is taken in battle -- regardless of them having a uniform or not -- they're to be treated as if the Convention applies to them until such a time as they've been subjected to a competent tribunal to determine their status. Or, to quote Part 1, Article 5: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. "
It is totally true that the Geneva Convention only applies amongst signators, of course.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Re: Re: Re: Cavalier Attitudes About Torture and Mutilation
Well, it appears that you're better informed than I am WRT the Geneva convention. My hat's off to you.
Quite true--we in the modern West do tend to live off the interest of a previous civilization's moral capital which makes our instincts better than the formal beliefs we choose to defend.
Well, acting against the soldiers of a corrupt empire is a different thing entirely, you're right. But I'm not certain that Roman law extended legal protection to bandits and required that a magistrate do the executing. Viking law and, I believe, many European legal traditions permitted anyone to kill an outlaw without threat of retribution. Now, outlaw had a specific meaning in Viking law but I think there might be a precedent for saying that by resorting to banditry, villains have declared themselves to be outlawed and thereby would be subject to death at the hands of ordinary citizens or residents without necessarily involving the authorities. Anyone know if there's any truth to that?
True, however, the Geneva convention is also a legal document and in as much as it is exemplary of morality in times of war, the restrictions it places on the conduct of war also need to be taken into account.
Well, even the spontaneous resistance must bear their arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war in order to merit the Geneva Convention's protections. I think there's still a good argument for summary execution and burial in a shallow grave if the villains hide among a civilian population, do not bear their arms openly, or do not respect the laws and customs of war.
Part of the reason for the Geneva convention, if I understand correctly, was to induce signatories to behave in accordance with the customs of war so that they did not endanger civilian populations by hiding among them, making combatants indistinguishable from civilians, etc and thereby giving the opposing side a rational reason to abuse the civilian population.
Consequently, if the Geneva convention is normative for moral conduct of warfare or combat, harsh measures are required against those who would violate its stipulations (by not bearing arms openly, not respecting laws and customs of war, etc) in order to provide incentive for doing so.
The requirement for a tribunal to determine the prisoners' status as lawful or unlawful combatants is a safeguard to the process. It is, as I understand it, intended to ensure that lawful combatants are not treated as if they were unlawful combatants by a vengeful enemy. In this case, however, using the treaty as an example of a moral norm in the conduct of war, what is important is not whether or not there was actually a tribunal but whether or not the prisoners were actually unlawful combatants. Although this would clearly not be appropriate for actual signatories of the Geneva convention, I see no problem with PCs consituting a "competent tribunal" and deciding the status of their prisoners on the spot. That would seem in accordance with the moral norms of the Geneva convention if not the actual text of the treaty.
Well, it appears that you're better informed than I am WRT the Geneva convention. My hat's off to you.
Chrisling said:
Quite true--we in the modern West do tend to live off the interest of a previous civilization's moral capital which makes our instincts better than the formal beliefs we choose to defend.
Well, acting against the soldiers of a corrupt empire is a different thing entirely, you're right. But I'm not certain that Roman law extended legal protection to bandits and required that a magistrate do the executing. Viking law and, I believe, many European legal traditions permitted anyone to kill an outlaw without threat of retribution. Now, outlaw had a specific meaning in Viking law but I think there might be a precedent for saying that by resorting to banditry, villains have declared themselves to be outlawed and thereby would be subject to death at the hands of ordinary citizens or residents without necessarily involving the authorities. Anyone know if there's any truth to that?
True, however, the Geneva convention is also a legal document and in as much as it is exemplary of morality in times of war, the restrictions it places on the conduct of war also need to be taken into account.
Well, even the spontaneous resistance must bear their arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war in order to merit the Geneva Convention's protections. I think there's still a good argument for summary execution and burial in a shallow grave if the villains hide among a civilian population, do not bear their arms openly, or do not respect the laws and customs of war.
Part of the reason for the Geneva convention, if I understand correctly, was to induce signatories to behave in accordance with the customs of war so that they did not endanger civilian populations by hiding among them, making combatants indistinguishable from civilians, etc and thereby giving the opposing side a rational reason to abuse the civilian population.
Consequently, if the Geneva convention is normative for moral conduct of warfare or combat, harsh measures are required against those who would violate its stipulations (by not bearing arms openly, not respecting laws and customs of war, etc) in order to provide incentive for doing so.
The requirement for a tribunal to determine the prisoners' status as lawful or unlawful combatants is a safeguard to the process. It is, as I understand it, intended to ensure that lawful combatants are not treated as if they were unlawful combatants by a vengeful enemy. In this case, however, using the treaty as an example of a moral norm in the conduct of war, what is important is not whether or not there was actually a tribunal but whether or not the prisoners were actually unlawful combatants. Although this would clearly not be appropriate for actual signatories of the Geneva convention, I see no problem with PCs consituting a "competent tribunal" and deciding the status of their prisoners on the spot. That would seem in accordance with the moral norms of the Geneva convention if not the actual text of the treaty.
Victim
First Post
An AMF provides a safe way of imprisoning magical guys. Unfortunately, it prevents you from using nifty magical ways to dig the truth out of them. But heh, it beats getting charmed or having them teleport away with a silent spell.
IMHO, cutting someone's hands, tongue, etc off, and then using mind reading magics to answer your questions is pretty sick. Even if you don't cause permanent damage, you're still torturing them in very painful ways.
IMHO, cutting someone's hands, tongue, etc off, and then using mind reading magics to answer your questions is pretty sick. Even if you don't cause permanent damage, you're still torturing them in very painful ways.
How about just slaughtering the bad guy and using speak with dead
From the SRD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Speak with Dead
Necromancy [Language-Dependent]
Level: Clr 3
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Range: 10 ft.
Target: One dead creature
Duration: 1 minute/level
Saving Throw: Will negates (see text)
Spell Resistance: No
The character grants the semblance of life and intellect to a corpse, allowing it to answer several questions that the character puts to it. The character may ask up to one question per two caster levels. Unasked questions are wasted if the duration expires. The corpse’s knowledge is limited to what the creature knew during life, including the languages it spoke (if any). Answers are usually brief, cryptic, or repetitive. If the creature’s alignment was different from the character's, the corpse gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive.
If the corpse has been subject to speak with dead within the past week, the new spell fails. The character can cast this spell on a corpse that has been deceased for any amount of time, but the body must be mostly intact to be able to respond. A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must at least have a mouth in order to speak at all.
This spell does not let the character actually speak to the person (whose soul has departed). It instead draws on the imprinted knowledge stored in the corpse. The partially animated body retains the imprint of the soul that once inhabited it, and thus it can speak with all the knowledge that the creature had while alive. The corpse, however, cannot learn new information. Indeed, it can’t even remember being questioned.
Any corpse that has been turned into an undead creature can’t be spoken to with speak with dead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Granted its an Evil act but with a little effort you will get you answers. The only bad thing is that the enemy gets a will save.
OTOH its a great threat for very nasty and evil NPC's
"Tell em what I want to know or you die screaming, I soulbind you and interogate the corpse. Afterwords I will raise it as a zombie and send it to eat your loved ones."
<SHUDDER>
After all no one said magic is nce
From the SRD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Speak with Dead
Necromancy [Language-Dependent]
Level: Clr 3
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Range: 10 ft.
Target: One dead creature
Duration: 1 minute/level
Saving Throw: Will negates (see text)
Spell Resistance: No
The character grants the semblance of life and intellect to a corpse, allowing it to answer several questions that the character puts to it. The character may ask up to one question per two caster levels. Unasked questions are wasted if the duration expires. The corpse’s knowledge is limited to what the creature knew during life, including the languages it spoke (if any). Answers are usually brief, cryptic, or repetitive. If the creature’s alignment was different from the character's, the corpse gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive.
If the corpse has been subject to speak with dead within the past week, the new spell fails. The character can cast this spell on a corpse that has been deceased for any amount of time, but the body must be mostly intact to be able to respond. A damaged corpse may be able to give partial answers or partially correct answers, but it must at least have a mouth in order to speak at all.
This spell does not let the character actually speak to the person (whose soul has departed). It instead draws on the imprinted knowledge stored in the corpse. The partially animated body retains the imprint of the soul that once inhabited it, and thus it can speak with all the knowledge that the creature had while alive. The corpse, however, cannot learn new information. Indeed, it can’t even remember being questioned.
Any corpse that has been turned into an undead creature can’t be spoken to with speak with dead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Granted its an Evil act but with a little effort you will get you answers. The only bad thing is that the enemy gets a will save.
OTOH its a great threat for very nasty and evil NPC's
"Tell em what I want to know or you die screaming, I soulbind you and interogate the corpse. Afterwords I will raise it as a zombie and send it to eat your loved ones."
<SHUDDER>
After all no one said magic is nce
Nail
First Post
Re: Shades of Grey
I'm analyzing....nope. No change whatsoever. Magic/technology/equipment/circumstances doesn't change th' nature of Evil.
Why? 'Cause it's so Eeeeeeeeevil! Say it with me: "Torture is Eeeeeeeeevil!" An' wipe that smirk off yer face!
Think that one over again...'cause it is possible, even practical. Then again, bandits an' other bad guys are often executed, so keeping them in prison isn't necessary....... but execution of conviced felons is not what we're talking about here, so move along.
Dr. NRG said:
I'm analyzing....nope. No change whatsoever. Magic/technology/equipment/circumstances doesn't change th' nature of Evil.
Why? 'Cause it's so Eeeeeeeeevil! Say it with me: "Torture is Eeeeeeeeevil!" An' wipe that smirk off yer face!
Think that one over again...'cause it is possible, even practical. Then again, bandits an' other bad guys are often executed, so keeping them in prison isn't necessary....... but execution of conviced felons is not what we're talking about here, so move along.
Yowch! Remind me not accidently bump into you in th' cafeteria. "Aaaaaa! I'm sorry I spilled yer coffee, mister! Now please take off th' thumb-screws!"
Last edited:
Re: Cavalier Attitudes About Torture and Mutilation
Why couldn't they just tie the spellcaster's hands behind his back and gag him? That would nullify any cleric or mage in previous editions (psionicists just couldn't be held), and would still work the majority of the time even in 3E. Psions still can't be held, although now you at least know when they're trying something and have a chance to disrupt it with an attack.
I've never heard of mutilating spellcasters in order to hold them captive. You were right to be disgusted.
Chrisling said:
Why couldn't they just tie the spellcaster's hands behind his back and gag him? That would nullify any cleric or mage in previous editions (psionicists just couldn't be held), and would still work the majority of the time even in 3E. Psions still can't be held, although now you at least know when they're trying something and have a chance to disrupt it with an attack.
I've never heard of mutilating spellcasters in order to hold them captive. You were right to be disgusted.
Similar Threads
