Since it specifically says torture is an evil act how would good character interrogate a bad guy? I'm thinking the could just use magic to make him talk e.g use suggestion and say "you want to tell me your secret plan".
Depending on the beliefs of some societies, compulsion effects may be considered as unacceptable (nearly) as torture; similar to the U.S. 5th Amendment that protects against self-incrimination or it may be considered a form of illegal coercion.
Mind-reading might be one solution. Detect thoughts is a 2nd-level spell; with careful questioning, it's likely to reveal quite a bit of information.
Otherwise, the standby of Diplomacy and Sense Motive checks are an option.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are plenty of ways to use magic to gain information. Starting at first level Charm Person would probably work fairly well. Hypnosis is another first level spell that could be used. Detect thoughts allows you to read the surface thoughts. When you ask a person a question more than likely they will think of answer even if they don’t want to tell you. Suggestion as you pointed out will also be very effective to get information out of a person.
Clerics get Zone of Truth as a second level spell, and Discern Lies as a fourth level spell.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
First off, remember that torture is actually a really bad interrogation technique. When you start torturing someone mercilessly, they start to tell you anything and everything to get you to stop. Including making things up.
The Reid technique (you've seen it on TV cop shows) involves presenting real (or false) evidence and repeatedly accusing the individual until they confess. The problem is that experiments have shown that most of the human population is prone to giving false confessions under these situations too. People give in to social pressure.
Real world studies have shown the most effective method of getting ACCURATE information is actually becoming their friend. Creating connections, showing common bonds, and creating a comfortable and relaxing atmosphere is actually highly effective. Show them that you aren't the bad guy that they imagined. Here's how I'd play this out mechanically:
1) Sense Motive (DC = target HD + Cha), success means the player is able to ascertain what will make the target comfortable, and what could be used to create a common bond.
While roleplaying, as GM I'd have the NPC talk about things, or respond to questions in a way that gives the player some clues about which topic is useful for building trust.
2) Bluff/Diplomacy (DC = opposed Sense Motive check) gets the target to believe that you're actually willing to be on their side. If an actual common bond exists, use Diplomacy. If the player has to lie, then use Bluff. This gets the target to trust them.
To get the (2) check, the player has to pick a viable topic. If they succeeded on the previous roll, make it fairly obvious which one will be good, but leave it up to them to make the final decision. If they pick the wrong topic, give the NPC a +4 to their Sense Motive. Giving the NPC things they like (food, drink, etc) would grant a bonus.
3) Diplomacy/Bluff (DC = target HD + Wis) to get the actual information. I'd use the opposite of the previous roll, just to keep things interesting. For every 5 they beat the previous roll, I'd give them a +2 to this one. For every 5 they beat this roll, I'd give them another major piece of information.
This is where the player has to ask for the information they're looking for. The check is really to see if they can ask for it without disrupting the bond that they've already made.
So, the cool thing is that the real world techniques that are the most effective are ones that wouldn't violate a Good alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to gain the trust of the prisoner is one way. Another is asking the same questions again and again over hours. Threats and worse? Counterproductive, mostly. 'Breaking' the prisoner is how to get bad info.
(BTW, don't ever mention or discuss this with a police officer. Many police are bullies, and making them feel bad about it is, to those, asking to be bullied.)
Another thing that can get information is offering them a deal. This works particularly well for a lawful good character. As long as the character has a legal right to impose or carry out a sentence they could agree to spare or lessen the punishment for cooperation. If the character has access to magic to verify the truth they would be wise to use that as part of the deal.
This works even for a paladin, in fact it works best for a paladin. When a paladin gives his word even a criminal knows he will keep it.
This is basically a plea bargain. Give the person being questioned the opportunity to cooperate, but make sure they know that if they do not cooperate now they will face the full consequence of their actions. In game terms this would be using intimidate without threatening to torture them. The party could also let them know that they have magic that will allow them to get the answer anyway. Even if the party does not have magic they can say that they do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My priestess of Death made sure the prisoner knew who she was: she was the world's Boogeyman. She'd inform them that yes, they could be tortured, even killed.
Then their soul was hers, and she could ask all the questions she wanted of the corpse.
Maybe you'd prefer to just answer the questions instead of having her claim your soul?
Intimidation at its finest for a NG cleric :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Offer them a 6 pack of beer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Offer them a 6 pack of beer.
Better yet, offer the GM a 6 pack of beer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suggest good cop, dadaist cop.
Inquisitors and Psychics also get the spell Confess. In actuality it kinda functions as torture, but as a GM I'd give it the "magic pass".
Honestly, unless your party has a paladin, torture is still on the table.
You can do an evil thing (like torture) for good reasons and still overall be a good person. One evil act doesn't make you evil (usually).
Irontruth however, has a much better take on the real life psychology behind interrogation and how to get actual useful information. That said, as a GM since it's par for the genre I would still allow threats of torture or actual torture to pay off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Offer them a 6 pack of beer.Better yet, offer the GM a 6 pack of beer.
Why not both?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, torture doesn't work in my fantasy games any more than it does in IRL (which is to say it is a means to get someone to say whatever they think you want them to say, it is not a means to get them to tell the truth), so it shouldn't be the first choice for even an evil party. Arbitrarily making torture effective simply does not send the correct message
In terms of getting someone to tell you something they are not initially inclined to tell you, "convincing them that telling you is in their best interest so they do so of their own volition" or "tricking them into accidentally divulging information they would have preferred not to" are better approaches.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always figure torture is popular in fantasy settings for the same reason it is in our history.
I could certainly imagine a place like Cheliax drawing confessions like that.
For actual cooperation you can try to persuade them giving you the info is in their best interest. E.G. your boss was planning to kill you, we can get him back. Magic can help as needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inquisitors and Psychics also get the spell Confess. In actuality it kinda functions as torture, but as a GM I'd give it the "magic pass".
Sorry, but that makes no sense. Why should torturing people with magic not be evil even though torturing them in any other way would? By that logic, is it ok to torture someone by shooting a scorching ray at their foot rather than pressing a red hot brand against it?
I have a an 11 level neutral good halfling bard that loves to interrogate using puppets and performe comedy +29 that doubles as intemidate skill.
Inquisitors and Psychics also get the spell Confess. In actuality it kinda functions as torture, but as a GM I'd give it the "magic pass".
I don't see how it functions as torture. They don't take damage because you didn't like their answer or because you decide to harm them after they refuse to answer. You change the rules of the universe so that they absolutely will take damage if they don't answer truthfully, and absolutely will not take damage if they do answer truthfully. If I tell someone to move from where they are standing, and they refuse, I'm torturing them if I inflict pain for their refusal. But if I construct a machine that in 30 seconds will crush anyone standing where they are, and tell them to move or they'll be crushed, I definitely haven't tortured them if they stand there and choose to get crushed by the machine. I might have committed a crime of some sort or face civil liability, but I haven't tortured anyone.
The only usage of the Confess spell that I would consider evil would be if you gagged somebody or otherwise rendered them unable to speak and then cast the spell on them. The spell description does say that the target would take the damage if prevented from speaking at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a an 11 level neutral good halfling bard that loves to interrogate using puppets and performe comedy +29 that doubles as intemidate skill.
That is...terrifying actually.....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oo! A Shout spell variant where you sing something really annoying and unholy like Shatner's rendition of "Rocket Man" or some children's tv show song like Barney the Dinosaur (look it up).
Charm person and detect thoughts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only usage of the Confess spell that I would consider evil would be if you gagged somebody or otherwise rendered them unable to speak and then cast the spell on them. The spell description does say that the target would take the damage if prevented from speaking at all.
I certainly don't want to turn this into an alignment discussion, but denying someone their right to not say anything certainly seems the opposite of a good act.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Torture does not work in the abstract, but it totally works in situations where you can check the answer. Like if you ask "what is the command word to this item" then you can test it right there... Doesn't make it any less evil though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only usage of the Confess spell that I would consider evil would be if you gagged somebody or otherwise rendered them unable to speak and then cast the spell on them. The spell description does say that the target would take the damage if prevented from speaking at all.I certainly don't want to turn this into an alignment discussion, but denying someone their right to not say anything certainly seems the opposite of a good act.
What a bizarre belief, that culturally specific rights captured in one particular nation's laws somehow embody universal morality.
Iomedean inquisitors working near the Worldwound to uncover demonic infiltrators: "Uh, what right not to say anything?"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how it functions as torture. They don't take damage because you didn't like their answer or because you decide to harm them after they refuse to answer. You change the rules of the universe so that they absolutely will take damage if they don't answer truthfully, and absolutely will not take damage if they do answer truthfully.
I've just rigged up a lie detector with a device that will stab you in the eye any time you appear to be lying or failing to answer me. But don't worry, I would never torture you! The lie detector might, but if that happens you have no-one to blame but yourself.
Now, tell me where the children are hiding.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd suggest elaborate trickery; set up a fake rescue, have someone pose as a fellow captive, that kind of thing. (The GM will probably appreciate the effort enough to let some information slip out.)
I don't see how it functions as torture. They don't take damage because you didn't like their answer or because you decide to harm them after they refuse to answer. You change the rules of the universe so that they absolutely will take damage if they don't answer truthfully, and absolutely will not take damage if they do answer truthfully.I've just rigged up a lie detector with a device that will stab you in the eye any time you appear to be lying or failing to answer me. But don't worry, I would never torture you! The lie detector might, but if that happens you have no-one to blame but yourself.
Now, tell me where the children are hiding.
You're quite bad at this!
Your fallible lie detector ("appear to be lying") would indeed be torture, since it could trigger off my anxiety for my childrens' or my personal safety being interpreted as anxiety related to lying and being caught out.
The spell can't be wrong. If you say "I don't know" and you don't know, you won't be harmed. So it's not torture, you can absolutely avoid harm by telling the truth. The fact that you're really unhappy about telling the truth doesn't change that; using Mind Probe and a ridiculously buffed Sense Motive to pull answers out of someone's mind against their will also isn't torture.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm reminded of some church knights in a David Eddings series (basicly Catholic paladins) who cultivated a reputation for harsh methods and owning torture chambers. That way they got easy confessions without violating their ethics and actually torturing anyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only usage of the Confess spell that I would consider evil would be if you gagged somebody or otherwise rendered them unable to speak and then cast the spell on them. The spell description does say that the target would take the damage if prevented from speaking at all.I certainly don't want to turn this into an alignment discussion, but denying someone their right to not say anything certainly seems the opposite of a good act.
This is exceptionally modern. It's important to remember that our current understanding of the world, morality, values, etc, are not universal and have changed significantly over time.
One MASSIVE thing that people are probably unaware of (cause this is an error in pretty much every adventure involving a court case ever published) is that until 1696 you were never allowed to have a lawyer defend you. Even then, it was only relaxed for charges of treason. It took another hundred years for defense lawyers to really even become a thing, and another 50 years after that for it to be fully allowed in all courts.
At a trial, the court and prosecution would call all sorts of people to testify against you, but you would be the only person to speak on your own behalf. If you didn't speak in your own defense, literally no one else was allowed to.
Also, in terms of alignment I can flip it around. Condoning someone else concealing the truth, especially when that truth could save lives, doesn't sound like it's Good to me.
This is exceptionally modern. It's important to remember that our current understanding of the world, morality, values, etc, are not universal and have changed significantly over time.The only usage of the Confess spell that I would consider evil would be if you gagged somebody or otherwise rendered them unable to speak and then cast the spell on them. The spell description does say that the target would take the damage if prevented from speaking at all.I certainly don't want to turn this into an alignment discussion, but denying someone their right to not say anything certainly seems the opposite of a good act.
I like to think that we're moving towards a more universal morality. This would be WHY we change things like laws and social mores.
|
One MASSIVE thing that people are probably unaware of (cause this is an error in pretty much every adventure involving a court case ever published) is that until 1696 you were never allowed to have a lawyer defend you. Even then, it was only relaxed for charges of treason. It took another hundred years for defense lawyers to really even become a thing, and another 50 years after that for it to be fully allowed in all courts.
I'm unaware of that. Largely because it is totally false. May be true in some jurisdictions (I have no idea) but certainly was NOT true overall
One quick History of Lawyers
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like a game being played by modern people should in most respects reflect modern sensibilities since we're already engaging in fiction here. So just like we assume that magic and dragons exist as part of the game world, and that our heroes can take truly staggering amounts of damage and not die, because those assumptions make the game more fun, I don't see why our fictional people in our fantasy world can't reflect more modern sensibilities- if anything those are the easiest ones for the people at the table to comprehend.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, the point of a rule against forcing you to testify is limit the damage dumb randos empaneled in a jury can do by making hilariously terrible credibility judgments. It has no applicability in a world where magic can reliably tell you the objective truth of something. We don't compel defendants to testify because it would be damaging to their case without providing any useful evidence. If it would give us the correct and indisputable facts of the case we'd require it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, the point of a rule against forcing you to testify is limit the damage dumb randos empaneled in a jury can do by making hilariously terrible credibility judgments. It has no applicability in a world where magic can reliably tell you the objective truth of something. We don't compel defendants to testify because it would be damaging to their case without providing any useful evidence. If it would give us the correct and indisputable facts of the case we'd require it.
Uh, not quite. The magic user lying has to be taken into account. Together with various magics and abilities in Ultimate Intrigue that let you lie under various spells
One MASSIVE thing that people are probably unaware of (cause this is an error in pretty much every adventure involving a court case ever published) is that until 1696 you were never allowed to have a lawyer defend you. Even then, it was only relaxed for charges of treason. It took another hundred years for defense lawyers to really even become a thing, and another 50 years after that for it to be fully allowed in all courts.
I'm unaware of that. Largely because it is totally false. May be true in some jurisdictions (I have no idea) but certainly was NOT true overall
One quick History of Lawyers
That link doesn't work.
Guys, the point of a rule against forcing you to testify is limit the damage dumb randos empaneled in a jury can do by making hilariously terrible credibility judgments. It has no applicability in a world where magic can reliably tell you the objective truth of something. We don't compel defendants to testify because it would be damaging to their case without providing any useful evidence. If it would give us the correct and indisputable facts of the case we'd require it.Uh, not quite. The magic user lying has to be taken into account. Together with various magics and abilities in Ultimate Intrigue that let you lie under various spells
Yes, juries were outlawed for similar reasons, because they could be bribed/threatened to vote against their true beliefs or vote for ideological or other improper reasons. Sadly, no defenses against this tactic, which always happens, were ever devised and therefore juries had to go, along with every other thing that is less than 99% effective.
|
|
One MASSIVE thing that people are probably unaware of (cause this is an error in pretty much every adventure involving a court case ever published) is that until 1696 you were never allowed to have a lawyer defend you. Even then, it was only relaxed for charges of treason. It took another hundred years for defense lawyers to really even become a thing, and another 50 years after that for it to be fully allowed in all courts.
I'm unaware of that. Largely because it is totally false. May be true in some jurisdictions (I have no idea) but certainly was NOT true overall
One quick History of Lawyers
That link doesn't work.
try this
One MASSIVE thing that people are probably unaware of (cause this is an error in pretty much every adventure involving a court case ever published) is that until 1696 you were never allowed to have a lawyer defend you. Even then, it was only relaxed for charges of treason. It took another hundred years for defense lawyers to really even become a thing, and another 50 years after that for it to be fully allowed in all courts.
I'm unaware of that. Largely because it is totally false. May be true in some jurisdictions (I have no idea) but certainly was NOT true overall
One quick History of Lawyers
That link doesn't work.
Where on that page did it say that the English law system allowed defense lawyers in criminal trials prior to 1696?
If you want to use Rome as the model (because it did allow defense counsel), I think you'll find that there is virtually no other protection for an accused person. Compared to the English model which didn't allow for defense counsel, but maintained many other protections for the accused.
I didn't claim that lawyers didn't exist. I said that defense counsel wasn't permitted in cases. There is a wide gulf between those two statements.
A couple of interesting papars:
Langbein - Historical Origins
Helmholz - Origins of the Privilege
|
|
that until 1696 you were never allowed to have a lawyer defend you.
I didn't claim that lawyers didn't exist. I said that defense counsel wasn't permitted in cases. There is a wide gulf between those two statements.
My point is that, to the extent that may be true it certainly is NOT universal. Rome is an example you agreed with.
Scotland is another example.
From that article
"THE Faculty of Advocates as a body dates back to the foundation of the College of Justice in 1532, although individual Advocates were probably working in the courts even earlier. It has had a central role in maintaining and developing Scots law as a distinctive legal system."
I will definitely agree that things were a lot worse than we think for much of history. But I'd also claim that Golarion is NOT in the slightest modelled on real world history. Absent clear indications otherwise we pretty much have to assume the legal system is much closer to our modern systems than historical models.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Get them to talk using Truth or Dare.
that until 1696 you were never allowed to have a lawyer defend you.
I didn't claim that lawyers didn't exist. I said that defense counsel wasn't permitted in cases. There is a wide gulf between those two statements.
My point is that, to the extent that may be true it certainly is NOT universal. Rome is an example you agreed with.
Scotland is another example.
From that article
"THE Faculty of Advocates as a body dates back to the foundation of the College of Justice in 1532, although individual Advocates were probably working in the courts even earlier. It has had a central role in maintaining and developing Scots law as a distinctive legal system."I will definitely agree that things were a lot worse than we think for much of history. But I'd also claim that Golarion is NOT in the slightest modelled on real world history. Absent clear indications otherwise we pretty much have to assume the legal system is much closer to our modern systems than historical models.
Which modern system? Are you assuming that the American system is the default modern system? Because there are a lot of countries that have legal systems very, very different from ours. Heck, even England has differences from America.
Why would ALL Golarion legal systems be similar to the American model, when not even all real world systems are similar to the American model?
Heck, not even everywhere in the United States uses the same legal system. Louisiana state civil law has more in common with French and Spanish civil law than it does with English common law (criminal law is more closely tied to English common law).
For example if we were to stereotype, it's more likely that Cheliax is based on civil law. Whatever the ruling body passes as laws are the rules. Enforcement of forgotten laws that are on the books, or how conflicting laws/contracts can make dangerous court rooms where whoever is presiding as judge holds exceptional authority.
Where as Absalom probably operates under a common law philosophy, because consistency of rulings is the primary concern. Application of the laws in a uniform matter is beneficial for promoting trade.
Even if we were to accept that in the real world, the right against self incrimination were considered universal, would we really assume that a nation like Cheliax would enshrine it into their legal system? How about Ustalav? Geb?
Vive la Galt!
The idea that a single set of moral rules is universally upheld in all legal systems throughout Golarion seems a bit absurd.
Expanding on the idea of Sense Motive, have the interrogator(s) talk about known facts (even if just names) relevant to what the interrogation is about, and look carefully for subtle reactions by the subject.