[3.5 DM Advice] Interrogation

[Gusto]

Hey guys.

So right now I'm running a group of six new-ish players through some homebrewed campaign. Long story short, there's a mixed up epic-level druid out there, giving the Survival of the Fittest thing an active kickstart. Kill or be killed, etc. He's essentially going on a rampage just to see how far he can get.

Anyhoo, since my characters are only 2nd level, I'm barely introducing them to the concept. Right now they're on almost the other side of the world, and have been conscripted by local militia to bring in a couple rangers and druids (nature-related classes) who might know something about what's been going on. They've brought in two rangers alive so far, and are going for a reclusive druid next session. Right now, the players only know that these NPCs are being brought in for questioning, but they don't know what for.

Here's where it gets interesting.

The party has a druid and a ranger. I'm thinking a good way to get them introduced to the murders happening abroad is to have them taken in for questioning as well, possibly upon delivery of the druidic recluse.

The problem is that I'm not sure how to portray an interrogation in a way that is interesting for ALL the players. Inside the chamber, I want to have the paladin Captain of the Guard set up a Zone of Truth spell, and a high-ish level cleric use Speak with Dead to interrogate some detainees who were not so lucky as to be brought in alive. But the two PCs who would be captured know absolutely NOTHING about what is happening. A big problem is going to be getting them involved/interested enough to defend themselves in this interrogation.

An even BIGGER problem is what to do about the remaining four party members. Judging by their mostly chaotic alignments, they are likely to try and bust their friends out of detention if the guards take them by force. I'm thinking a good way to avoid this is to have the Captain simply request that they answer a few questions for him. Maybe the other players can do some investigation around the city to figure out what the deal is on their own? This seems kinda like a stopgap since the druid and ranger will tell them post-interrogation anyways.

TL;DR

How can I model an interrogation in an interesting way for the 2 players involved, while also having something constructive for the remaining 4 players to do?

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

Well you could consider this: Since the other 4 PCs are allies of the druid and ranger PC, they may know what's going on. That's a good enough reason to have all of the interrogated.

 

[Gusto]

Well you could consider this: Since the other 4 PCs are allies of the druid and ranger PC, they may know what's going on. That's a good enough reason to have all of the interrogated.

True, but then I gotta make the interrogation process ULTRA interesting because 4 of the characters will have absolutely no business being there.

It certainly seems cleaner to have all the characters together at all times, but it's good for the new players and me, the new DM, to get some practice for when the group disbands temporarily.

In the campaign where I am a player, our party's druid is prone to wandering off, and our DM hates having to deal with it. I kinda get that.

 

[Bubble181]

AFAIC, there is almost never, ever, ever, a good reason to willingly split up the party. A DM splitting up the party for any longer duration will inevitably cause some people to be bored and either be faced with difficulties himself, get disinterested players, or cause players to act with knowledge their characters aren't supposed to have. The player/character knowledge gap is sketchy at the best of times, don't put a strain on it.
This is excluding the players having some out to create a diversion for the others or some such short-term stuff, of course.

Bring them all in if you have to; though an alternate approach might be to have the Law try and arrest them, fail, and them being taken in by some underground organization that gives them a tad of info. I dunno.
If they're all chaotic, why are they even helping the Man in the first place? :-P

 

[Gusto]

AFAIC, there is almost never, ever, ever, a good reason to willingly split up the party. A DM splitting up the party for any longer duration will inevitably cause some people to be bored and either be faced with difficulties himself, get disinterested players, or cause players to act with knowledge their characters aren't supposed to have. The player/character knowledge gap is sketchy at the best of times, don't put a strain on it.
This is excluding the players having some out to create a diversion for the others or some such short-term stuff, of course.

Bring them all in if you have to; though an alternate approach might be to have the Law try and arrest them, fail, and them being taken in by some underground organization that gives them a tad of info. I dunno.
If they're all chaotic, why are they even helping the Man in the first place? :-P

They're not currently aware he's The Man, he's just a guy who's paying them to do stuff. And they gots ta get paid.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

True, but then I gotta make the interrogation process ULTRA interesting because 4 of the characters will have absolutely no business being there.

I don't understand that. If the paladin expects the druid and ranger PC know what's going on halfway around the world, shouldn't he also expect that their close allies could know something too, perhaps just as much?

Or if that somehow doesn't jive with you, you could always make it ultra interesting by having the paladin threaten those 4 PCs' health and life if the druid and ranger don't answer.

 

[Gusto]

True, but then I gotta make the interrogation process ULTRA interesting because 4 of the characters will have absolutely no business being there.

I don't understand that. If the paladin expects the druid and ranger PC know what's going on halfway around the world, shouldn't he also expect that their close allies could know something too, perhaps just as much?

Or if that somehow doesn't jive with you, you could always make it ultra interesting by having the paladin threaten those 4 PCs' health and life if the druid and ranger don't answer.

Yeah I suppose that makes sense.

Hm... Now that they're all being questioned... How to DO it....

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

Good Paladin, Bad Paladin?

 

[Gusto]

Good Paladin, Bad Paladin?

Especially funny, since there's a paladin in my party.

EDIT: Actually, "Good Paladin, Gooder Paladin" sounds like a concept my group would get a kick out of.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

Yeah, that's awesome.

 

[Dubyamn]

Well if you have a theatrical streak and enough room you can try walking around the table and demanding questions from a person when you are standing right behind them and they aren't looking back at you. Might get them off balanced enough for them to feel like they some feeling like they are being interrogated. And don't have guards have any lethal weapons on them because then somebody is going to make a grab for a weapon, get a good enough roll to disarm the guy and then you have a runaway scenario where the illusion is shattered. Just have the guards wielding blackjacks or Brass knuckes which surprise surprise has the same stats as the common blackjack.

By keeping lethal weapons out of the equation you make your guards look smart because they are playing to their strengths of superior numbers while making it impossible for them to fight their way out and you don't have to kill their characters for being idiots.

Also maybe you should look at their backstories, pull a few names and imply that they have been snatched up by a dragnet/ the King's personal police but the nice cop can help them if only he could get what he wants out of the PCs. Play up the sadism of the King's secret police and how crappy the dungeons are and how the PC is the only one keeping them there.

 

[Gusto]

Well if you have a theatrical streak and enough room you can try walking around the table and demanding questions from a person when you are standing right behind them and they aren't looking back at you. Might get them off balanced enough for them to feel like they some feeling like they are being interrogated. And don't have guards have any lethal weapons on them because then somebody is going to make a grab for a weapon, get a good enough roll to disarm the guy and then you have a runaway scenario where the illusion is shattered. Just have the guards wielding blackjacks or Brass knuckes which surprise surprise has the same stats as the common blackjack.

By keeping lethal weapons out of the equation you make your guards look smart because they are playing to their strengths of superior numbers while making it impossible for them to fight their way out and you don't have to kill their characters for being idiots.

Also maybe you should look at their backstories, pull a few names and imply that they have been snatched up by a dragnet/ the King's personal police but the nice cop can help them if only he could get what he wants out of the PCs. Play up the sadism of the King's secret police and how crappy the dungeons are and how the PC is the only one keeping them there.

Thanks for the ideas, but it's important to note that the local police KNOW that my party is not involved, but need to ask them a few questions anyway. Part of the system. My hope is that my party will leave the interrogation knowing what the trouble is, and either want to help the people in harm's way, or at least go and offer their services to the highest bidder as they have been doing.

But because the PALADIN police in charge know that they aren't guilty of any wrongdoing, they will not even use NONLETHAL damage. Just questions. That's why I think the Good Paladin Gooder Paladin method will work best.

The concept of roleplaying the interrogation seems pretty awesome though. I'll see whether I'm up for it by tomorrow night.

 

[Dubyamn]

Ah okay I was thinking the guards were putting them into custody with the stripping of weapons and all that.

Be on your toes though PCs sometimes think that anybody in front of them no falling over themselves to give them all the information they need is an enemy who needs to be cut down.

Nearly had a Paladin cut down a perfectly legal toll taker on a bridge because the guy wasn't letting them cross without paying. So keep aware of when the players start feeling... bristly so that you can back off.

 

[Gusto]

Nearly had a Paladin cut down a perfectly legal toll taker on a bridge because the guy wasn't letting them cross without paying. So keep aware of when the players start feeling... bristly so that you can back off.

Woa whoa whoa, WHAT?

That ain't much of a Paladin. Did he suspect the guy was just a highway robber or what?

And yeah, I know exactly what you mean. I play a Paladin in another campaign, and, paranoid and HUNGRY for information, my character always have Detect Evil active. I use it as an evil radar detection system. His master is one of those Need-To-Know-Basis kinda guys, and it got really frustrating for me, because he was the only major NPC for like 5 levels.

My DM has since learned of my frustration and is including some friendlier NPCs in the future, who are a little more generous with their information.

 

[Dubyamn]

Woa whoa whoa, WHAT?

That ain't much of a Paladin. Did he suspect the guy was just a highway robber or what?

Nope just got frustrated because he had been gifted the land and toll bridge by a lord the group helped to secure his power base. Course the lord hadn't gotten all of the patents made up so the land was their's only in an unofficial capacity.

But anyway the Paladin apparently didn't like his employees talking back to him. Yeah I thought the Noble Paladin bein pulled back from the brink of cold blooded murder by the druid was very funny.