#effective interrogation

[scripttorture]

My setting is like the real world but with various mythical otherworlds secretly connected to ours. One character with powers of psychic illusion was raised by an MiB-style intelligence and/or secret police force (tasked with keeping otherworldly beings from causing trouble in our world) that trained her to mentally torture people. I want to make this character somewhat sympathetic, so it is plausible for her to be indoctrinated as a torturer from childhood? Does it depend how young they start?

Anon I don’t think this is a good idea. There’s an awful lot to unpack here about why that is so I’m going to start off with a simple question that effects how you move forward: what’s most important for you about this character?

 Is it that she’s sympathetic? That she’s effective at her job? That she’s highly skilled and trained? That she’s part of a productive organisation that can actually do the tasks it sets out to?

 Because if she’s a torturer then realistically she would be none of those things. And making her any of them is (in my opinion) torture apologia: because it is portraying a torturer in an extremely unrealistic way that favours the torturer and excuses the abuse they carry out.

 You would, literally, be repeating lies popularised by real life torturers.

 Torture does not work. It is impossible to get accurate, timely information by using torture. Here’s an introduction to why. Here’s a post on what torture does to investigations. Here’s a guide to writing what torture does to interrogations. Here’s a list of investigative strategies that actually work. Here’s a post on the damage torture does to human memory. Please read these masterposts and take a look at my sources as well.

 Torturers are not indoctrinated radicals. The organisations that torturers are part of actively try to screen out anything they see as radical, deviant or a product of illness. There aren’t enough studies on torturers for me to give you a break down of their politics but my impression from the anecdotes and interviews I’ve read? Their politics is ‘normal’ and mainstream for the organisation they are part of. Whatever that organisation is.

 Torturers are not taught from a young age because torture is not complex. It does not take months to learn how to hit someone. Torturers learn on the job by assisting other torturers.

 Torture is simple. It is functionally easy. I really can’t stress that enough. The most common tortures globally right now are: hitting people, depriving them of food and depriving them of sleep. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that six year olds could come up with that list.

 Hurting people is not complicated. It requires no skill and no training.

 The evidence we have suggests torturers lose skills as they turn to torture, a process Rejali calls ‘de-skilling’. The basic idea is pretty simple: if you spend all day hitting people instead of practicing what you were trained for (gathering evidence for example) you get so out of practice that you start to forget how to do those things.

 And then there’s the effect that torture has on torturers. They get symptoms. They develop lasting, serious, mental health problems which directly effect their ability to do their jobs.

 I have a list of the common symptoms here as well as a rough guide for how many symptoms you should be considering for torturers and torture survivors.

 Separate to the symptoms is the general pattern of behaviour torturers exhibit. We don’t have a lot of high quality studies on torturers and there are a lot of questions we do not have clear answers to. However the studies and the anecdotal evidence of survivors, witnesses and torturers themselves points to some consistent behaviours.

 Torturers don’t work alone. They form little sub-cultures within larger organisations. These groups are incredibly aggressive, competitive, self-important, hyper-masculine and violent. Torturers look down on everybody else. They are convinced that they are the most important people in their organisation, the only one’s doing ‘real work’. They have an arrogant, puffed up pride that combines with mental illness and seeing their colleagues as competition to create the worst asshole you’ve ever had the misfortune of working with.

 They do not cooperate with other people. They use abuse as a pissing contest, competing to see who can be the most brutal in order to try and ‘impress’ fellow torturers.

 They define strength and group loyalty by hurting other people.

 They have a fracturing effect on organisations, because they don’t obey orders and see their colleagues as competition or useless. At the low end of the scale this means cliques, secrets from the larger organisation and a terrible working environment as they bully and belittle their colleagues. At the high end of the scale there are cases where torturers have attacked and murdered people within the same organisation.

 Does any of that sound sympathetic?

 I like a challenge when I write. I’ve described my writing style as ‘hold my beer’ because I tend to take ideas other people dismiss as impossible to pull off and try my best to make them work. I do this because I love exploring human complexity through fiction.

 A torturer who is currently torturing is not a sympathetic person. They are a bullying, violent, arrogant brute who contributes nothing useful to the organisation they latch on to, sucking up time and resources like a tick. They see other people as garbage. And they lack insight into their own crimes. Which means they do not appreciate or acknowledge the pain and damage they cause.

 Now I have written a character who is an ex-torturer who I think is sympathetic in some ways. But getting to the point where they could be sympathetic meant them having to leave the organisation they were part of on a stretcher.

 Their fellow torturers turned on them. They lost a leg. They changed sides and in the middle of a messy civil war they dedicated themselves to keeping their friend’s children safe.

 And I had to set the story twenty years after these events to get that character out of their own ass enough for them to be sympathetic.

 Even then, I’d say they’re sympathetic in spite of having been a torturer. Because they’re still clinging to that insistence that they did something meaningful. They still can’t accept the extent of their own crimes or the effects those crimes had.

 But their pride broke. And they did keep those children alive. They helped raise them. And the tie to those children is what makes them sympathetic by the time of the story.

 Torturers are not sympathetic people. They are self absorbed abusers who bend over backwards to downplay the harm they did to their victims and to justify their crimes.

 Is that really what you want to write?

 I say that, not to be harsh, but because it sounds to me as though what you actually want to write is a genuine investigator with psychic powers.

 It sounds as though you want to write a character who is good at her job. Who is skilled and dedicated and a great person to work with.

 If that’s the case my advice is to ditch the torture entirely. Look at the masterpost on genuine investigation instead and write a character who is good at interviewing people.

 Have her use her psychic powers to present herself as sympathetic to the criminals she’s interviewing. Because she can walk into a room and know their politics, their religious beliefs, their internal justifications for what they’ve done. And she can use that, may be even manipulatively, to seem like someone the prisoner would like, someone they’d agree with.

 That gets people talking.

 And if you want to show her as ruthless, as having an edge to her, that can still work.

 Imagine someone sitting down across from a suspect, holding their hands, smiling, talking to them gently. Imagine them gradually, kindly, getting this suspect’s life story. Imagine them being sympathetic about the reason the suspect murdered someone, validating the murder’s feelings and may be even actions… Right up until they have the information they need.

 Then they turn on a dime. The persona drops, the false-sympathy drains away. They stand up with a sneer and say they hope the murderer never sees the light of day again. And walk out.

 Think about what you want from the story Anon. A character who tortures, or a character who is competent, smart and sympathetic.

 Because it really is one or the other.

Available on Wordpress.

Disclaimer

[scripttorture]

Regarding ICURE, I have a character who is familiar with the process and a deep understanding of most of the mindsets and mental states involved in torture, interrogation, and captivity. Would that make resistance to the techniques easier? How would a willingness to engage and empathize with captors, combined with an awareness of their goals and methods and a greater than average degree of self-awareness and self confidence interact?

I’m mostly working without studies here extrapolating based on what I know.

 The only bit of this I can definitively answer is that knowledge of what torture does wouldn’t effect the high innate resistance we have to it. Resistance to torture is bound up in so many fundamental systems, like how our nerves physically register pain, that conscious knowledge wouldn’t make much difference to the outcome.

 It might make the character feel better or more confident though: ‘There’s no way you can force this information out of me’. It might also make the recovery process a little easier if the character is tortured. Knowledge about mental illness and how they’re treated can help people identify what they’re going through and process it more quickly. It can also make it easier to seek help.

 For those who are new to the blog ICURE is a combination of techniques that can be used to change someone’s beliefs over time. As with everything there is not a 100% success rate but unlike torture consistently applied ICURE can lead to a controlled change in the target’s belief system.

 It stands for Isolate, Control information, create Uncertainty, Repetition and Emotional responses.

 A group of characters attempting to use ICURE would isolate the target from other characters, ensure that the information/news the target gets lines up with what the group believes. They’d then attempt to create uncertainty about previously held core beliefs and respond in an overblown emotional fashion if the target attempts to challenge their own beliefs. Repetition of this, consistently over a prolonged period (months or years) can (but does not always) lead to change in core beliefs.

 For an example let’s imagine a story applying this to Bucky Barnes from the Marvel series.

 A group holding him might try to create uncertainty by underlining how long he’s been held and how his friends haven’t attempted to rescue him. They might give him news that his best friend has another group of heroes he works with now. Bucky has been abandoned, forgotten. And so forth.

 An emotive response in this scenario could be something like the primary care giver of the group (the person who most regularly interacts with Bucky, giving him food and trying to interact positively) flying off the handle when Bucky mentions his old friends. How can he be so ungrateful? Doesn’t he realise what the caregiver has risked and sacrificed to keep Bucky safe? Does he think persuading the group to ‘help’ Bucky and keep him alive was easy?

 You get the idea.

 My instinct is that knowledge of these techniques would make them less effective. These things are never 100% successful and I think consciously acknowledging the manipulative nature of ICURE would make it harder for the captors to achieve total success.

 However a lot of the reason these techniques work is because humans are social animals. We need interaction with other members of the species in order to remain healthy. And as a result we often change and adapt in order to fit in with new groups. We are geared to compromise in order to gain or maintain positive social contact.

 I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist but I do know that there a lot of research papers which suggest personal opinions can gradually change over time when we’re surrounded by people with differing views in non-coercive settings.

 This does not necessarily mean full conversion to another set of ideals. The impression I get is that it mostly looks like a series of small and subtle changes.

 For the sake of avoiding internet insanity let’s make up an issue. Let’s make up a character who grew up in an area where no one wears red and the colour has a lot of negative associations.

 This character moves to a different area where the colour has different connotations and wearing red is a neutral act. Over a period of years the character’s attitudes towards the colour might mellow. They might never wear red themselves. They might not decorate with the colour. But they’ve met a fair few people who occasionally wear red now and they’re decent people. They don’t judge people who wear red the way they did when they first moved in to the area.

 What I’m trying to illustrate here is that it’s normal for people’s views to shift over time. Obviously this does not always happen. People can hold extreme or vastly differing views when compared to their community.

 From a certain point of view my views are extreme. Most cultures in our global society accept and legitimise violence to differing degrees. Pacifism is the absolute rejection of violence*. If you take a moment to think about how often violence permeates all aspects of our lives (from child care to religion to politics) you’ll see what I mean.

 What I’m trying to illustrate here is that while we do adjust and change to fit in with the people surrounding us we can also cling to things that are very much against the norm. And that makes it difficult to answer any of these questions with certainty. There is a lot of individual variation.

 A lot of the techniques to resist effective interrogation are essentially a refusal to interact. But the longer someone’s held outside their community the less viable that is as an option. We can choose to do things that are harmful to us (including avoiding needed social contact) but it’s hard. Because it’s unhealthy.

 I think the way I’d approach this as a writer is to start by identifying the core values of this character, the things that are most important to them. Try to think of things the character absolutely could not compromise without becoming a different character.

 Circling back to the example of Bucky Barnes, a core value might be his relationship with Steve Rogers, his oldest friend.

 Once you have an idea of the core values think of the next most important value. And keep going.

 I tend to do this pretty instinctively. For me it’s a part of my messy, sprawling character creation. If you need to take a more visual or organised approach to figuring things out then a list (with the most important values at the top) or a circle (with the most important values in the middle) might be helpful.

 Next think through the same process for the group that has captured the character. Since it’s a group rather then an individual it should be simpler. (Because a group is unlikely to be as nuanced and complicated as an individual.)

 See if there’s any overlap which might be grounds for grudging mutual respect. Values like loyalty to your own group and taking care of the people on your side are good things to use for this.

 I would then look at the more peripheral values the character has and shift some of them a little over time.

 Keeping Bucky as our example I might put something like ‘American cultural values’ as a more peripheral value. Bucky seems to prize the culture he was raised in and consider it the norm. But it’s not something he bases his personality on or something that motivates him through the stories. So shifting that, having him not see it as the ‘norm’ any more, or adopting things his captors did would be a good way to show that he has been influenced.

 Obviously the right choice, the right value to shift, depends on the characters and the story you want to tell. The degree to which you want to shift the character’s values is also up to you.

 Bigger shifts, or more obvious shifts, could serve to cause conflict later in the story. This could lead the character to feel rejected, like their loyalty is being questioned after everything they went through.

 Bigger shifts could also serve a practical purpose in the story though. If this character has gained a greater understanding for the group they’re opposed to that could make them a much more effective interrogator. They might know how to establish rapport more quickly and earn the trust of captured prisoners. Which could in turn lead to more accurate information.

 Greater understanding of the group they’re opposed to could also help with strategic thinking/planning.

 Smaller shifts add less elements to the story. But that could be a good thing too depending on your story. If you don’t have a lot of time or space to explore new conflicts or skills then this approach would save you narrative space while still showing the character has been effected.

 It would also work if the point here is to show the character as mostly unmoved, unchanged, despite coercive external pressure.

 I hope that helps :)

Available on Wordpress.

Disclaimer

*In case anyone’s interested I personally define violence as harmful acts done without consent.

[scripttorture]

The Effect of Torture on Investigations

While I’ve talked about this before it’s usually been either in response to asks like this one or as a smaller part of masterpost focused on something else. I thought it might be useful to bring together some examples showing why torture cripples investigation.

I’ve talked about what a good investigation looks like here. I’ve talked about why torture doesn’t work as an interrogation technique here. And I’ve talked about writing a failed interrogation scene using torture here.

But an organisation’s choice to use torture as part of an interrogation effects far more then just that interrogation and that individual victim. It has wider effects on the organisation and any investigations taking place.

Factors effecting Investigations directly

Members of the general public are much less likely to come forward with information if an organisation uses torture. This destroys the main source of new information in any investigation.

Torture generates a lot of lies and torturers (like every body else) can’t really tell when someone is lying.

Torture generates a lot of lies and it also destroys an organisation’s ability to fact check the information it receives. Torturers can (and do) go back and try to make victims change statements in order to fit with any new evidence or theories that arrive. Which further obscures the truth.

Torturers generally don’t take part in genuine investigative work. They spend the majority of their time at work torturing or otherwise engaged in unproductive activity. Which means there are effectively less investigators. Any genuine investigators are trying to do the work of several people.

Factors effecting Investigators

Genuine investigators are forced to waste time a lot of time chasing up false information generated by torture.

Genuine investigators are undermined and presented as lazy or ineffective by torturers, because the investigators are spending most of their time trying to confirm (or disprove) ‘information’ from torture rather than bringing in new information or leads.

Torturers tend to form cliques, looking down on non-torturers and they tend to be highly competitive. This often creates a toxic work environment for non-torturers within an organisation, making work more stressful and more difficult then it needs to be.

Torturers often disobey orders, taking or disrupting physical evidence and seizing or targetting prisoners even when they’re told not to. This disrupts the work of genuine investigators and blocks their access to materials and people they need in order to do their job.

Non-torturers are put under pressure to condone, cover up or take part in torture. There’s often a rise in bullying and harassment which makes it harder for genuine investigators to work.

Torturers undermine teamwork generally. They tend to be highly competitive and as a result they’re reluctant to share information. Now the information torturers have is probably wrong, but that doesn’t stop them from creating a working environment where investigators don’t share information unless they have to.

Factors effecting the Organisation as a whole

Because torturers regularly disobey or ignore orders they contribute to an erosion of authority and discipline. They make disobedience normal.

The polarising effect they have eventually leads to organisations fracturing into factions. Sometimes this is as simple as factions that support or oppose torture but because torturers are competitive it can also mean opposing factions of torturers vying against each other. This leads to members of the organisation spending more time working against each other then together. In extreme cases it can lead to violence between different sub-groups and the destruction of the organisation as a whole.

Work generally becomes a lot more pressurised and stressful. This can lead to a high staff turnover rate, with a lot of new recruits leaving early and a lot of older experienced staff leaving because they feel unsupported.

Torturers tend to suffer from ‘deskilling’; the more time they spend the torturing the less they’re practicing skills necessary for their actual job. They become less competent and this has the knock on effect of depriving any new recruits of competent, experienced colleagues who can train and advise them.

The end result is that all of these factors combine to make an organisation that routinely tortures less able to gather accurate information and less able to use that information effectively.

As an example of how these factors combine I’m going to create a couple of rough, illustrative scenarios:

Imagine a group of 50 people tasked with investigating a particular incident. Five of them are torturers, so they’re not actually investigating anything. This takes our number down to 45.

Then we remember that the torturers are generating information, even if it’s false. Which the other members are investigating.

Let’s go with low estimates. Let’s suggest each torturer has one victim a day (this is unlikely, real numbers are probably much higher) and out of those they get an average of two ‘possible leads’ each day (this would vary a lot, some victims would say nothing, some might throw out as many as twenty names in a day). Let’s also pretend that a potential lead can be investigated by one person (this is inaccurate, I’d generally expect at least 2-3 people for each new ‘lead’.).

We’ve just got rid of ten more people on the first day.

Let’s pretend that it takes three days to investigate a lead. This is also a very low estimate, properly following up a lead can take weeks.

With our low-estimate fictional organisation we’ve reduced the amount of people doing useful work to 15 in the first three days.

Fifteen people trying to do the work of 50, while the torturers keep generating lies that are wasting the time of everyone else.

My final example is to show how the lies that come from torture spiral, creating so much misinformation that it can be difficult to prove it’s false.

Say a torturer takes in a random person. This first victim knows nothing about the terrorist group but if they don’t give a name then they’re going to keep being tortured.

So they tell the torturer Wednesday Adams is definitely the leader of the terrorists in this area.

Now a genuine investigator is wasting time looking for Wednesday Adams. May be they come back in a week and say that no such person exists.

By that point the torturer has been asking a lot of people about Wednesday Adams. And some of them will have sworn they saw Wednesday Adams, that Wednesday Adams was behind that attack and that she has links to this other organisation and also that thing I saw on the news once and- So on.

It spirals.

May be it gets to the point where the torturer finally accepts there’s no ‘Wednesday Adams’ on the census. But by that point they’ve stacked a lot of their personal reputation on the existence of this shadowy leader.

So rather than admit they’re just wrong, they assume ‘Wednesday Adams’ is a pseudonym and now they’re asking everyone what her real name is. Now they have six different possible ‘real identities’ for Wednesday Adams.

And this is how organisations can fail to notice that torture doesn’t work.

Torture cripples investigations. It fractures organisations.

And it leaves behind people with complex health problems that are rarely treated properly. On all sides.

Available on Wordpress.

Disclaimer

[scripttorture]

Hi! My character is an important figure in the rebellion, so I feel like the guards would try to keep him isolated from the other prisoners (some of whom are also rebels) out of fear that he might incite riots/cause trouble (or at least escalate the existing trouble), but I also don't want to deal with the effects of him being in solitary confinement the whole time (about a month). Would frequent interrogations count as human contact in this situation or does he need more positive interactions?

Frequent interrogation could count as human contact but whether it’s enough depends on how frequent they are and the quality of the interactions.

 Interrogations don’t have to be terrible, in fact they usually work better if they’re not.

 The technical definition of solitary confinement is either less then one hour or less then two hours of human interaction daily (different organisations use different time definitions). The amount of interaction that any particular individual needs is- well highly individual. To the best of my knowledge it can’t be predicted.

 But I think you can make a reasonable guess time-wise that would keep most people healthy. I think something in the region of four hours a day is a reasonable minimum. Having more interaction time should be fine as long as it doesn’t interfere with the character’s sleep cycle.

 This wouldn’t have to be in one block chunk. Having multiple interviews in one hour, or half hour blocks, would work just as well as one long interview.

 So far as I can tell it doesn’t really matter if the people don’t like each other or if they disagree. My impression is that it’s better if the interaction is positive but so long as it isn’t abusive it should still be enough to protect against the effects of isolation.

 There isn’t any reason why you can’t make the interviews a positive interaction. Perhaps not at first, but gradually over time.

 One of the things I came across a few times reading about conducting interrogations well was having the interrogator approach the situation in a way that gave an impression of neutrality.

 Because yes the hostility is directed at the broad group the interrogator is part of (be it national, police, etc-) but we’re designed to connect to other people. To borrow from some of the tumblr sci fi posts that go around we pack bond. And our brains don’t really make exceptions for groups we’ve decided are bad. We see the people interacting with us and when we have no other choice for people to interact with- over time connecting to that person becomes more important.

 We want to be seen, acknowledged and understood. A strategy interrogators can use quite successfully is showing that they’ve walked into the room without preconceptions about the person they’re interviewing.

 In the most detailed write-up I saw the interrogator did this by showing the terrorist he was talking to an empty note book. ‘I didn’t come in here with a file. I don’t have any idea what you’ll say. Can you explain to me why you wanted to do this?’

 This strategy doesn’t start out asking suspects for details. It starts by inviting them to make a sales pitch of their ideology. ‘Why do you believe this? Explain it to me.’

 And this is a very good way of getting people whose politics are far away from the mainstream talking. As anyone who has met a conspiracy theorist in a supermarket can tell you (don’t ask them about MSG if you’re in a hurry).

 Gleaning information this way is about building up rapport with the suspect over time, but it’s also about going over everything they say with a fine tooth comb in case they slip up.

 And- a lot of people do. A lot of people would let little bits of information slip out while talking more broadly about The Cause.

 One of the strategies people used to try and counter this was to sit backwards in the chair, so their back was to the interrogator and remain completely silent.

 This is incredibly unnerving. It’s a visceral rejection of that natural human connection. And it can be extremely effective as a way to prevent the interrogator getting information.

 But it’s also a form of self-imposed isolation. I suspect anyone kept alone in a cell who did this with every interrogator would manifest symptoms of solitary confinement.

 This might put you in a different quandary.

 Essentially if you’ve got regular interviews, with effective interrogators who are gradually building up rapport- the chances of the rebel leader actually giving up useful information at some point over that month is… reasonably likely.

 The most effective resistance strategies against this kind of effective interrogation leave the character vulnerable to the effects of solitary confinement.

 My instinct is that the best choice for what you want is to have the rebel character respond to the interrogators and treat it as if it’s a chance to persuade the interrogator round to the rebel’s side. And to give up a few pieces of information in the process.

 It doesn’t have to be big things. Confirmation of someone’s allegiance. Confirmation that rebels were involved in particular incidents. Information about who within the rebel group this leader actually gets on with and agrees with, who they argue with. Any potential splinter points within the group.

 There’s an article here about the work of the Alisons which should help give you some ideas for how to approach these interviews.

 Key to this is understanding that everyone wants to tell their story. Not spill their secrets exactly but- we all want understanding. We all want to see we have the agreement and support of the people around us.

 Even when we recognise intellectually that those people are our enemies.

 I hope that helps. :)

Availableon Wordpress.

Disclaimer

[scripttorture]

What are some common torture methods that would be used in the interrogation of secret agents/military personnel? I understand that the majority (if not all) are illegal but if the agency was an underground one (not run/overseen by the government in any way) then would they still use some?

Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen in a government agency. I would caution against making it look as if torture is a function of shadowy conspiracy style groups rather than governments.

 Because the legal definition of torture more or less requires that the abuse is done by a government employee.

 Torture is done by governments. Despite the law. Perhaps not directly ordered, perhaps not known to everyone in such big organisations, but it continues because it is ignored, tolerated and condoned by people in power.

 If you want to write shadowy conspiracy type agencies then that is absolutely fine. But please don’t loose sight of where and how torture usually happens: in our military barracks, in our prisons, our jails, our schools, our hospitals.

 Underground agencies still use torture. So do military and police organisations across the world. In spite of the efforts by both these organisations and other organisations to eradicate torture.

 I think it’s also important to say that torture for interrogation does not work. It can not work. Getting accurate, timely information from torture is impossible.

 This doesn’t stop people from trying to use it as a form of interrogation. But presenting it as effective is such a common form of torture apologia in fiction that I feel the need to say it.

 If you want your villains to actually get useful information the best, most respectful thing you can do is take torture out of the story. On the other hand if it doesn’t matter whether the villains get accurate information and you do want to talk about abuse and mental health, torture is a good narrative choice.

 I have a lot of masterposts that can help you whatever you decide is best for your story.

 I’d suggest starting with this post as a run down of the most common apologia tropes.

 This post is an introduction to why torture can’t work as an interrogation technique. If you want to write an interrogation failing because of torture this post can help. If you’re interested on the effects torture can have on memory there’s more information here.

 There’s a post here on effective investigation, should you wish to remove torture from the story.

 There’s a post on the common long term effects of torture here.

 And then I have two posts which talk about the common torture techniques around the world.

 These vary depending on the time period your story is set in and the geographical area or culture. I call these ‘National Styles’ because that’s a term that Rejali uses and I feel it fits. They can and do change with time but it can be difficult to predict how they’ll change or why.

 Currently most torture globally is ‘clean’ which means that it doesn’t leave obvious external marks, like scars. Historically scarring tortures were much more common but clean tortures were also used historically.

 This first National Styles post covers a lot of different countries and the period of roughly 1950 to today. The second one is focused on the Second World War and the countries involved in that conflict.

 If you’re looking for a period before that I’d suggest searching for the country in my tags. I’ve covered historical Britain and India in some detail. I’ve also done occasional posts on other countries.

 If I haven’t covered the area or time period you’d like send in an ask and I’ll see what I can do.

 Now, you might have a completely fictional country in your story. That’s OK.

 You can base the National Style of a fictional country on existing countries, or mix and match things from across several existing countries. Sleep deprivation, starvation and beatings are common globally. Picking another 2-4 ‘common’ techniques for an area and reading a bit about them is all it takes to construct a fictional National Style.

 Have a read. Have a think about what you want from this in your story.

 And if you have any more questions feel free to ask. :)

Availableon Wordpress.

Disclaimer

[scripttorture]

In D&D, there are spells like Zone of Truth (people cannot knowingly lie while affected, but they can choose to stay silent) and Charm Person (they consider the caster to be like a close trusted friend, but can still refuse requests). I have plans to have those spells be used in an in-game interrogation. What do I have to be alert for, to avoid unfortunate real-world implications? (There's no pain involved with any of this.)

If there’s no pain involved then I think the chances of it straying into torture apologia drop pretty drastically.

 I don’t think it’s the idea of using magic to manipulate someone or ‘make’ them tell the truth that’s really a problem: it’s the way fantasy tends to instinctively link these things to threats and pain.

 If I was approaching this sort of scenario, with a world that has these sorts of spells I think I’d start with two main questions-

 What does the character being interrogated strongly believe in?

 Is the existence of these spells common knowledge?

 What I’m driving at with the second question is this: could the character work out they’re under a spell during the interrogation and as a result refuse to cooperate even though they want to? If they could what might prompt this?

 Going back to the question of strong beliefs, this context isn’t quite the same as compliance under threat. My instinct is- this is more like getting royally drunk with friends. It’s a lowering of inhibitions.

 Even with incredibly lowered inhibitions there are going to be some things a character would be uncomfortable talking about or uncomfortable talking about to particular people.

 My job has a clause about not discussing the specifics of our work. We’re not supposed to talk about the drugs we’re working on, the clients we work with or the specifics of the testing we do for specific drugs or companies. This is pretty standard for the industry.

 And talking around what we do, being vague, has become such second nature by now that I think if someone outside work kept asking me for specifics then however lowered my inhibitions I’d get suspicious.

 On the other hand the blog means that I’m now very very used to talking about atrocities in ordinary conversation. (I get odd looks down the pub.) And if someone was asking about that, while my inhibitions were lowered, I probably wouldn’t think twice about the answer.

 Perhaps I should have phrased it as ‘ingrained behaviours’ rather than beliefs- but the two feed into each other where sensitive information is concerned. It means there’s probably some information the character is used to talking about and would do so easily, while other things could be a lot more closely guarded.

 Is this character a 9 to 5 evil mook (they’ve got to pay the bills after all) or are they a true believer?

 There’s nothing in the description of these spells to suggest a character under them wouldn’t recognise that the interrogator isn’t part of the same group. Which means if they were intelligent they could work out that they shouldn’t give the interrogator information.

 If they’re not particularly loyal the false friendship created by the spell could counteract that.

 But if you wanted to make it harder for the players to get that information another plausible response (aside from refusal) could be trying to convert the interrogator.

 Because if this character is loyal to their cause and can logically work out that the interrogator isn’t, while also knowing that this character is a friend, that’s the most sensible response. ‘Well I can’t tell you just yet but won’t you please consider going evil? Think of the health care package and the cookies.’

 Possibly not quite that argument but you get the idea.

 Another possibility is leaning into the ‘instant friends’ idea behind one of the spells. A character who’s with friends might be perfectly willing to tell them what they want to know and keep getting sidetracked from ‘obvious work stuff’ to things that are more important.

 Like; do they have a chance with that person in the office, you know the one with the nice hats? Did you know, close bosom friend, that they’ve recently perfected their recipe for mock turtle soup? And what by all the DnD gods are they going to do when their mother comes down this weekend?

 If you’ve seen Fullmetal Alchemist then take a moment to remember Mustang’s ‘I love dogs’ speech or the way Hughes used his over the top affection for his wife and daughter to keep talking when he wasn’t sure the phone lines were secure.

 Broadly speaking I don’t think there’s anything unfortunate in the scenario you’ve outlined. For me, it’s about how easy you want to make this for the players and the kind of character you want to use for the interrogation.

 You’ve highlighted some good ways a character could resist the spell. I’ve come up with a few more.

 You could also have the spell work exactly as intended. And if you wanted to complicate things further you could then have the new information reveal more problems for the players. Problems that the interrogated character doesn’t have the ability or knowledge to help them solve.

 I think I’m going to leave that there, I hope it helps. :)

Availableon Wordpress.

Disclaimer

[scripttorture]

In Assassin's Creed Uprising, a traitor is found about to kill one of his alleged allies. In rage, he is beaten so much that his jaw is dislocated and he is bound for several days, not talking at all. Due to how dire the situation is, a third character, Berg temporally aligns himself with who are usually his enemies. Under his command, the traitor is unbound, his jaw is repaired, and the two of them play Jenga and talk about current events and philosophy. It's unclear how long this takes, (1/2)

But eventually the traitor reveals that he has allied himself with Juno and he explains why. He doesn’t reveal any specific plans, other than the general “take over the world” stuff. You’ve already talked about how rapport based questioning is the most effective form of interrogation, but I was wondering if the fact the Berg is typically an enemy with the people who the prisoner betrayed, that he basically saved the traitor from torture, and provided him with medical care helped the process. 2/3Or even if the fact they were playing Jenga helped the traitor open up by distracting him. It’s issue 7 if you’d like to read it (3/3)

 It can, but it wouldn’t work all the time or even most of the time.

 As a general rule there isn’t such as thing as a guaranteed interrogation method. Some people will refuse attempts at building rapport. Some people will try to use it to find out more about the interrogator. Some people will lie. And some people will either not know the information the interrogator wants or not remember it accurately.

 There have been cases where genuine interrogators have talked to torture survivors and (over months) obtained useful information from them.

 But when you’re coming up with a fictional scenario then you have to consider whether the survivor would still remember any important information after torture. It often has severe effects on a survivor’s memory and that can include important information.

 You’d also need to consider whether the survivor would want to engage with any interrogators. Torture makes people a lot more likely to refuse to help. Even if they’re helping the interrogator who saved them from torture and helped them recover.

 The way I’m reading this there are two distinct things here- the question of whether this particular scenario is possible and the separate question of whether it’s a good fit for torture plots generally.

 And it is possible.

 But I feel like a lot of stories approach these kinds of scenarios with an attitude that ‘this always works’. There isn’t anything that ‘always’ works. Interrogation is a pretty rubbish way of getting information. It is always going to be flawed.

 So I think that when we write these kinds of situations it’s important to think about how it could fail as well as how it could succeed. Successful interrogation might be the ‘easier’ route in a story but it doesn’t necessarily lead to a better story. I think it’s important to consider all the possible options and to explore as many of them as we can (though not necessarily in the same stories).

 Torture survivors are much less likely to talk to interrogators or other genuine investigators. That’s part of the problem organisations face when they allow torturers to operate.

 Going back to this scenario-

 Seeing an interrogator as similar in some way can help build rapport. But the main thing, as I understand it, is showing a willingness to listen without judgement.

 Not necessarily without disagreement, but without dismissal.

 I’d actually see playing games, socialising and talking about more ‘normal’ topics as part of that rapport building process. Essentially this kind of socialising builds a relationship and if the survivor likes the interrogator then they might want the interrogator to understand their point of view. Which is more likely to lead to detailed explanation of their actions.

 But the rest I would suggest is less a ‘help’ and more a ‘bare minimum’.

 Someone who is still at risk of torture is not going to engage with interrogators.

 And if the injury is a broken jaw- well the character isn’t going to do much talking until they’ve healed. But more generally, I’d say getting a survivor proper medical care is essential if you want them to engage to investigators. It’s a clear signal that the other characters are invested in the survivor’s recovery, with the strong implication that they are not at risk of ill treatment any more.

 Those kinds of actions are essential to win a survivor’s trust.

 Which realistically would probably take months. If it worked at all.

 There’s still the rather significant risk that the survivor just wouldn’t remember the details the interrogator wants to know. Torture damages memory and there’s no way around that. Even if the information is there after torture it’s much more likely to be… wrong. Our memories are edited all the time, that’s a natural process. But survivors are much more likely to have inaccurate memories, especially of the time period shortly before they were tortured.

 And again, many survivors in this position would just refuse to talk. Even if they might have wanted to volunteer information before they were tortured.

 The scenario seems reasonable. I don’t think you need to modify it in order to avoid torture apologia.

 But be wary of repeating it in other stories. The chances of successful interrogation after torture are pretty low even if it is possible.

 The more likely outcome is that the survivor refuses to give out any information they consider useful, works to escape and lies.

 I hope that helps. :)

Availableon Wordpress.

Disclaimer

[scripttorture]

(1/2) There’s a part in my story where this character is taken captive and kept in an inescapable but nice mansion. He’s given free reign to basically do anything (except escape or try and contact anyone) and he’s given food as if he were a guest. After a few days he’s briefly taken to a room where he’s tied down and interrogated. The character trying to gain information from him is telepathic and will ask a question (ie. location of secret hideout) and attempt to read the character’s thoughts.

(2/2) If there’s no physical harm being done to the character, would he still panic and not be able to accurately remember these things? Are there ways the telepath could put thoughts into the character’s mind to scare him into giving information? If the character is returned to the mansion unscathed, and then he was rescued a few days later, could he walk away without any long lasting psychological damage? And is it realistic to have them torture him afterwards for not giving them anything?

Ithink this is one of those fictional scenarios where it reallydepends on how you play it. Because the changes you’ve made toreality are- well pretty central to the situation.

Ithink this answer is going to be less about ‘would this work’ andmore about avoiding torture apologia while keeping the fantasticalelements.

Partof this depends on how you’re thinking of telepathy. If it’sseeing what someone thinks with no influence over that thoughtprocess- I think that would be easier to use and avoid apologia. Itcould still work if telepathic conversation is just a conversation.

Butif you’re picturing something more akin to the way the Xmen couldroot around in a character’s subconscious, rearrange things,implant false memories, dig up old memories, create hallucinationsand so forth- Then I think you’d have a problem and it would bebest to take torture out of the story completely.

Thisis a power set which canbe used to twist reality in such a way that torture ‘realistically’works. And that sort of fantasy is- well justifying torture. In around about way.

Forgetabout scaring the character. Forget about threats and forget abouttying him up.

Stepback from the super powers for a moment and treat this like astraight forward interrogation. Startby having a read through my post on effective, realisticinterrogation here.

Thefirst important point is that interrogation is really one of theworst ways of finding out anything. The human memory is shockinglybad at the best of times. People who genuinely know the informationand want to help oftenget things wrong. Not out of malice but simply because our brains arenot supposed to hold on to everything accurately.

Anysort of stress makes it harder for us to remember things accuratelyandmakes the creation of false memories more likely. That doesn’t justmean pain or threats. The severity of pain and stress during torturemeans that accurate recall is virtually impossible during torture.But if you think for a moment about your own experience you canprobably think of ordinary low-stress situations where your memoryhas failed you.

Anyoneremember being sure they knew the answer to that one question buttheir brain went blank when they sat down for the exam?

Normal,every day stress can be sufficient to affect memory. Especiallyif that stress is effecting the character’s ability to sleep.

Scaringthe character, restraining him, treating him badlyis going to work against the interrogators. Even if they have amassive magical advantage.

Becausetheir telepathy is limited by hisbrain.They can’t recreate information that they’ve destroyed.

Beingkidnapped and held hostage is stressful enough. Even with ‘nice’kidnappers this situation could easily be traumatising.

Thebest way to get accurate information from an interviewee is toestablisha friendly rapport.

Anythingthat gets in the way of that undermines the process of gettinginformation. That applies just as much here as it does in a situationwithout super powers.

Ifyou want to use scary or creepy elements through this here’s whatI’d suggest. Rather than a deliberateattempt to terrify the captive character have the telepathiccharacter just- lean in to those powers a little.

‘Youmay as well just tell me you know. You’re going to think of itsooner or later and I’ll hear. Honestly you’re just gettingyourself worked up trying notto think about it. I’ll find out. It’s inevitable. It’ll be somuch easier if you tell me.’

‘Youknow every time I ask you a question you think a little bit about theanswer? I might not get everything at once but I get enough. I’llput it together. Here I’ll show you- Where’s the secret base? Wowthat’s a beautiful oak. It must be hundreds of years old to looklike that. And now I know it’s near the base. How many trees likethat do you think there are dotted around? Oh so there aren’t anyothers near that one. See? We’re narrowing it down all the time-’

‘Ohyou got nervouswhen I showed you that picture. Am I getting warm?’

Thatwould probably also make interrogation less effectively. It wouldmake it take longer and it would lower the quality of any informationthe interrogators got. But you could easily play that as inexperienceas an interrogator or incompetence or just relying on powers to makeup for poor technique.

AndI think this would be much more likely to get somethingthen active attempts to intimidate or frighten the captive character.

Thelast two questions are uh- a little confusing for me.

Ifthe character is tortured then he wouldhave long lasting psychological ‘damage’ as you put it. That’swhat torture does. If you want to avoid that don’t use torture inyour story.

Ifyou don’tuse torture in the story, if the character isn’t terrorised or hurtduring his kidnapping, he couldstill realistically be traumatised and have long term psychologicalproblems. He could also realistically not be traumatised and not havelong term psychological problems. Either is possible.

Iwould say having trauma symptoms seems more likely. Things likeanxiety, hypervigilance, and memory problems all seem incrediblylikely to me. PTSD is possible. So are panic attacks and addiction.

I’dsuggest picking at least one long term symptom for the character tograpple with.

Personally?I’d go with a memory problem for this story because I think thatcould fit very well with the themes that seem to be present in theinterrogation itself. The stress on this character’s memory (andthe accuracy of them), the idea of a telepath standing there judginghis thoughts and memories, the way characters could assume memoryproblems are a product of telepathy rather than a common traumasymptom-

Ithink it’s a symptom set you could use to add to the story in a lotof ways. I’vegot a masterpost on memory problems here that you can take a look at.

Ifyou choose to have the character tortured during the story then I’dsuggest picking 3-5 symptoms fromthe list over here.Which you would have to show for the rest of the story. The characterwould be dealing with these for the rest of his life.

Whichleaves the last question-

Yesthat’s possible, but I don’t think it’s particularly likely.

Torturersare not effective interrogators and effective interrogators are nottorturers. Bluntly a torturer would not have the patience or sense tohold off on abuse long enough to get accurate information out of acharacter.

Ifyou’re thinking about a larger groupof villains then I think you could plausibly have one character getall the information they need out of the captive and then pass himoff to another holding facility where torture occurs.

Butsomething like that would have wider implications for the bad guysand their group. Torturers have a toxic effect on the organisationsthey’re part off. They ignore orders. They’re terrible for moral.They actively destroy an organisation’s ability to gather accurateinformation.

Basicallya lot of your scenario boils down to this: what is more important forthe story, that the character is severely traumatised or that the badguys get accurate information from him?

Realisticallyboth are unlikely and trying to blend the two often results intorture apologia. So prioritise. Think about what’s more importantand what the story can survive without.

Ifyou’re worried about adding threat and drama to your scenariobelieve me you have enough as it stands without torture and withoutovert threats from the villains. They have control of thischaracter’s lifewhen they have him captive. That is a terrifying situation with a lotof dramatic potential. Don’t be afraid to use that.

Ihope this helps. :)

Availableon Wordpress.

Disclaimer