# Torture - Can a "Good Guy" get away with it?



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

I got into a debate with my husband a while back on the subject of torture. I should preface this with saying, I am against the torture of human beings in real life; however, I can see ways it can be used in a fictional sense. 

Evil characters get to use torture all the time in fiction. So, I gave the opinion that, in some circumstances, a character that is considered a "good guy" could get away with torturing a "evil character." But, it can only work if the situation is desperate enough and the information he/she receives would result in saving lives. 

My husband, on the other hand, disagrees. He feels that as soon as torture is brought into the situation, the character is no longer "good" anymore. No matter what the result of his actions, or the lives saved because of the information received, the act of torturing anyone destroys the characters "goodness" in the readers mind. A good character should rise above the underhanded methods of evil characters, and find better ways to get the information they need.  

I'd love to hear your thoughts.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

Well Jack Bauer was the good guy and didn't seem to be able to go one hour without torturing someone 

I think it depends upon the character. If you have them set with a tight moral ideologue then it shouldn't be a problem if they have a rationalisation for it. But if they are being set up as the morally upright character then you really can't do it. Probably also depends upon what sort of good guy and what sort of bad guy you have. A torturing good guy may seem cute and cuddly in comparison to the psychopathic bad guy who tortures for fun.


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

I saw a movie recently with Liam Neeson.  I'm sorry I can't recall the title, but his daughter was kidnapped and he was some kind of agent with skills.  He did use torture and although, like you, the thought of it in real life is horrible, I didn't shed any tears for the creep getting tortured in the movie.  And Liam still came out as a good guy to me.


----------



## Mrs. K. (Dec 31, 2010)

I think a character could get away with his 'good guy' status intact after torturing someone if he later expresses genuine remorse, or has already exhausted all other solutions. It helps if there is ample justification for his actions, such as the potential return of a kidnapped child or the prevention of rape or murder. 

And, I suppose, the torturer's 'good guy' status is less threatened if he approaches his task with dread. It is the reader that is supposed to enjoy that feeling of some justice being served, not the torturer.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I agree with your husband - one loses one's 'good guy' status when one uses torture.  In the example of Jack Bauer, I didn't consider him to be a good guy at all.  It was a show about bad people doing horrible things to other bad people.


----------



## naomi_jay (Feb 1, 2011)

I think it depends on context and execution. A good writer can make me believe almost anything, so if the set up was right, sure, I'd buy a "good guy" torturing someone. However, "getting away with it" - well, does that mean there are no consequences for his actions, that it doesn't affect him afterwards, or does it mean the readers still see him as a good guy after the deed is done?


----------



## R. Doug (Aug 14, 2010)

That Liam Neesen movie was _Taken_, EuropaCorp, 2008. Fascinating film with some real moral dilemmas, not the least being the protagonist's use of torture to save his daughter.

So, after seeing that film, I would say "yes" to the question posed . . . but it's a very thin tightrope to walk. Remember, even OO7 starts out in the early portion of the original Ian Fleming series as nothing more than a cold-blooded, borderline sociopath who dislays no remorse at killing. Indeed, that element of the character doesn't start to evolve until the seventh novel in the series, _Goldfinger_.


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

I think for most people the answer will be yes, especially if it is to save/rescue a loved one or child.  If you look at our collective public reaction to the US use of torture in recent history, a good portion just didn't care.

A great movie where torture plays a huge roll is Death and the Maiden with Sigorney Weaver and Ben Kingsley.  I love that movie.


----------



## joanhallhovey (Nov 7, 2010)

Boy, this is such an interesting topic.  On the face of it, I would say no. No argument, not in real life. But it can work in fiction.  I'm reading my first Lee Child Novel.  His hero Jack Reacher doesn't slow torture anyone, (so far) but inflicts added and cruel damage long after the 'bad guy' is down and literally 'out'.  But he rationalizes it.  And you somehow accept it.  It depends totally on the skill of the author.  

Joan


----------



## Bandeau (Mar 20, 2011)

Oh I don't know, I frequently torture my husband to tell me where he hid the chocolate bars, and consider myself a "good" girl.

*cough* Anyways! I think it depends what kind of character you want your "good" character to appear as. If he or she is the true "goody two shoes" then I honestly don't think it would be easy to pull off.

However, if you're character has a big dose of reality, meaning we can't all be completely "good" or "evil", and we sometimes need to do whatever is required to get the job done (or find the chocolate bars) then I think it is more than doable. I could easily see my main girl Kat breaking some fingers if it means finding her mother or saving her friends. She may walk away from it questioning who she really is, but we're all human and tend to do that on a daily basis.

Well...She certainly isn't "human" but you get what I mean. I think. I hope?


----------



## CaedemMarquez (Mar 23, 2011)

In a great story, characters are so complex that a good guy can be bad, and a bad guy can be good.


----------



## ashleygirardi (Apr 3, 2011)

You can get away with pretty much everything if the execution is good enough. Imagine Vladimir Nabokov trying to pitch Lolita today. The trick is knowing when you can get away with pushing boundaries.


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

I think using torture makes someone into a flawed character, though I can forgive it in extreme cases.  I also saw "Taken" and I sympathized with the hero.  If I'd had the skills and had a daughter captured, I'm sure I'd have sought to do the same thing.

But except for extreme cases, it makes a fictional character highly dubious and not really a good guy anymore.  The author had better have the hero saving a city from a ticking nuclear bomb or somesuch if he's going to be torturing anyone, even if they deserve it.


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

The examples of Taken and 24 are really good. 

In Taken, the audience sympathizes so much for the father that they are rooting him on as he does whatever it takes to get his daughter back. His history and background show us that he is a man who's done many terrible things in the past but we overlook it because we want him to succeed. If he hadn't had a darker history, it wouldn't make sense for him to pull off the things he did to get her back.

From what I gather here, based on the comments, is that flawed characters who lean towards the side of "good" can get away with torture. A character who is completely good; however, cannot get away with this.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

tim290280 said:


> Well Jack Bauer was the good guy and didn't seem to be able to go one hour without torturing someone


That was my first thought too! Personally, I don't see anything wrong with torture when it comes to issues of national security. These aren't people who are supposed to "play nice". How else are you supposed to get information from a terrorist or someone of equal "evilness"?


----------



## AnelaBelladonna (Apr 8, 2009)

history_lover said:


> That was my first thought too! Personally, I don't see anything wrong with torture when it comes to issues of national security. These aren't people who are supposed to "play nice". How else are you supposed to get information from a terrorist or someone of equal "evilness"?


I totally agree.


----------



## R. Doug (Aug 14, 2010)

history_lover said:


> How else are you supposed to get information from a terrorist or someone of equal "evilness"?


Not to divert this great thread, so this will be my one and only comment on this particular matter, but any intelligence agency in the world will tell you that torture produces much, much more bad information than it does good because the person being tortured will make up whatever they think the torturer wants to hear just to make the torture stop. That's why bad regimes use it to get false confessions. That's why it was used by the Spanish Inquisitors.

Thus, torture is not only barbaric, it is counterproductive. It has no place in a civilized society.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

R. Doug said:


> Not to divert this great thread, so this will be my one and only comment on this particular matter, but any intelligence agency in the world will tell you that torture produces much, much more bad information than it does good because the person being tortured will make up whatever they think the torturer wants to hear just to make the torture stop. That's why bad regimes use it to get false confessions. That's why it was used by the Spanish Inquisitors.


I imagine that's usually only true when the individual is innocent or doesn't know anything. I'm not saying we should go around torturing people left, right and center but when you know for sure someone has information you need, it can be a valuable tool.



> It has no place in a civilized society.


Neither does terrorism and yet... so what should we do, ask them nicely to stop?


----------



## Patrick Skelton (Jan 7, 2011)

I'm pretty tired of reading torture scenes in novels.  Stay away from it, if possible.


----------



## JD Rhoades (Feb 18, 2011)

Few dramatic situations generate more tension than the ones where every choice is bad and/or the hero has to lose a part of him/herself to save the day.


----------



## jason10mm (Apr 7, 2009)

While a protagonist can certainly use torture, I don't think a "good" protagonist should. Just use the cop-out scenario where he threatens the bad guy or fakes torture on someone else to psych out the bad guy and trick them into confessing. Torture in the sense of ripping out nails, burning skin, or punching out teeth is certainly a morally evil act. "Good" characters, morally pure, should never resort to the tactics of the enemy.

But real people are never morally pure, so torture by the protagonist is perfectly acceptible if it fits with the character. Sand Dan Glokta in Joe Abercrombies "First Law" series is a perfect example. He represents the "good side" but is himself borderline evil in many of his actions and his back-story perfectly explains it. The corporate assassin guy from the "Serenity" movie is a good example as well, though of course we are experiencing the film from the POV of the "bad guys"  It also helps when the guy being tortured is KNOWN to be an evil guy with critical information to divulge, a luxury we don't always have in the real world.


----------



## Jon Olson (Dec 10, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> I agree with your husband - one loses one's 'good guy' status when one uses torture. In the example of Jack Bauer, I didn't consider him to be a good guy at all. It was a show about bad people doing horrible things to other bad people.


Yeah, I think Jack Bauer was a jerk. But I can see it working in an extreme situation, where you're trying to save an innocent. Still, it would damage the good guy's character, or reveal something about him.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Patrick Skelton said:


> I'm pretty tired of reading torture scenes in novels. Stay away from it, if possible.


I think that might say more about your reading habits then the quality of the novels. Maybe you should find a new genre?


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

R. Doug said:


> Not to divert this great thread, so this will be my one and only comment on this particular matter, but any intelligence agency in the world will tell you that torture produces much, much more bad information than it does good because the person being tortured will make up whatever they think the torturer wants to hear just to make the torture stop. That's why bad regimes use it to get false confessions. That's why it was used by the Spanish Inquisitors.
> 
> Thus, torture is not only barbaric, it is counterproductive. It has no place in a civilized society.


I've heard this before, that torture does not produce real information. I have to wonder through, how true is that. I'm sure in some cases people will say anything to make the torture stop, but false information might just result in more torture when it's proven to be false. On the other hand there is the argument too that a person might just be willing to die to protect a secret, and in that case torture can produce no results.

Of course, I am talking about fiction here. Real torture is completely barbaric and I abhor it! In the fiction world though, It can be a way to create some good tension in scenes.


----------



## DanG (Mar 10, 2011)

Katie Salidas said:


> From what I gather here, based on the comments, is that flawed characters who lean towards the side of "good" can get away with torture. A character who is completely good; however, cannot get away with this.


Yes! A flawed hero can use torture. A flawed hero can have violent tendencies that he/she always fights against - even loses to once in a while. A flawed hero will make scary choices and show remorse and growth from it; rarely excusing it away.


----------



## TadVezner (Mar 23, 2011)

In an effort to stay on topic, I’ll simply assert that torture corrupts torturers just as much as it chops the fingers from the accused. It’s a filthy, immoral business (and yes, there is a real question of not whether it is moral, but whether it actually is a useful tool... if you want to go old school, check out that hippy publication known as the Army Field Manual). If you reflect that in your book (and it’s not easy -- torture can really, like, ruin a mood), then you’re at least being realistic. And that’s all I care about when I read a book.

I rarely do this, but it's relevant. Slate did an interview with the "24" writer/producer Michael Loceff back in 2006. Here is the appropriate exerpt, where they talk about torture:

Slate: One of the places where 24 and the real world have intersected most powerfully is on the question of torture. On 24, torture is regularly used in interrogation. Some critics believe that 24 actually plays to our desire to witness torture, that it is, in some sense, "torture porn." How do you make sense of and justify the role of torture in the show?

Loceff: I absolutely do not believe that the show is, in any sense, torture porn. This is something we talk about a lot. Torture is of no interest to us as torture, and we're not anxious to show it, nor do we want to watch it. We don't want to go to any level of great detail in depicting it, and there are many times when we will pull back from the original idea because it seems too much. I think its real use in the show, aside from its narrative function, is to create dramatic conflict, conflict not just between two people but within characters as well. If you look at any given torture scene in the show, you'll find that there's something in it that shows someone's distaste or disgust. And Jack Bauer's decision to torture people for information in the past has cost him, because it's shown other people just exactly what he's capable of. Jack himself is appalled by what he feels he has to do, but he's also convinced he has to do it. That is a real dramatic conflict.

Slate: One of the familiar critiques of using torture as an interrogation technique is that it doesn't work. On 24 it tends to be very effective.

Loceff: I don't know that torture works, and we don't write it because we think it works. So, I don't think any of us are trying to make a statement about the efficacy of it one way or the other.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

Katie Salidas said:


> I've heard this before, that torture does not produce real information. I have to wonder through, how true is that. I'm sure in some cases people will say anything to make the torture stop, but false information might just result in more torture when it's proven to be false. On the other hand there is the argument too that a person might just be willing to die to protect a secret, and in that case torture can produce no results.
> 
> Of course, I am talking about fiction here. Real torture is completely barbaric and I abhor it! In the fiction world though, It can be a way to create some good tension in scenes.


Yes R.Doug is correct that torture is often counter productive.

If you go hunting you can find all sorts of handbooks and field manuals on operation protocols - how to pick locks, where to tie the electrodes, what angle the water board should be at - and most have some sort of disclaimers about torture needing to be done in a certain way. Basically torture doesn't work because the people using it don't use it correctly and the victim ends up saying just about anything. But what they are usually trying to do is build compliance and break down their will. Essentially it is the same as police interrogation, you are trying to reach a point were the subject just has to give up their secrets.

Personally I'm not a fan of interrogation and torture. Its all about scaring people. A real dyed in the wool bad-guy can't be scared easily. So the only people it will work on are people who could have been reasoned with or coaxed somehow. Mostly I think it is a quick and lazy method, which is why it appeals.


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

DanG said:


> Yes! A flawed hero can use torture. A flawed hero can have violent tendencies that he/she always fights against - even loses to once in a while. A flawed hero will make scary choices and show remorse and growth from it; rarely excusing it away.


That I think is the bottom line of the question. Aside from the results torture does or does not get, the only characters who can use torture are either evil to begin with or flawed characters working toward the side of good.

Lots of great thoughts in this thread though. As it stands, the original manuscript I had considered using torture in, no longer includes that scene. I realize now that my character is too good natured to really pull it off.


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

I was told the only time torture is effective is as a example to others, you torture someone and others will know or see and be more likely to give up information to keep from getting tortured.  And as others have noted, the information is unreliable.

Personally, I like horror so reading it doesn't bother me.  IRL, I am very much a pacifist and hate that part of humanity.  In my humble opinion, if you compromise your soul in order to save your flesh you haven't gained.  I would much rather my soul go on to the next existence clean.

Just slightly off topic, but name calling is one way people dehumanize others so they can treat them inhumanly and still believe they are right/good.  Terrorist, Charlie, etc (I won't go into some of the more racist names) are all used to rob another human being of their humanity.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Bad people can do good things.

Good people can do bad things.

Will a good character deciding to torture someone suddenly make him a villain? Of course not. But it will change reader's opinions of him. People who know what they're doing can use this effectively (Taken, 24). Those who don't know what they're doing...well, then it gets more of a "the good guy gets away with it because he's the good guy" feel to it, which annoys a lot of people.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Geoffrey said:


> I agree with your husband - one loses one's 'good guy' status when one uses torture. In the example of Jack Bauer, I didn't consider him to be a good guy at all. It was a show about bad people doing horrible things to other bad people.


I have to agree on both counts. I never considered Jack Bauer a good guy. If I had, he would have lost that status when he used torture.


----------



## Nada y Nadie (Dec 19, 2010)

A lot of people are willing to rationalize behavior, so you can probably get away with it in fiction. Heck, we’re still torturing people in real life and calling ourselves the good guys. We torture people we call terrorists, yet to them we are the terrorists. If I read of someone committing torture, I would not consider him a good guy. And if I knew in advance that the supposed good guy would be committing torture in the book, I probably wouldn't bother to read it.


----------



## Larry45 (Feb 7, 2011)

I can see I'm in the minority, but I have no objection at all to torture in a fiction novel.  In the mystery/suspense/crime genre I like to read, people do really bad things to other people as part of the storyline.  I think a good guy or bad guy either one can get away with torture if it fits well into the plot.  And for the record, I thought Jack Bauer was a good guy, and Liam Neeson in "Taken" was most definitely a good guy.  We're talking fiction here, and I don't think anything is taboo in a fiction novel or movie...


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

Not to move too far off topic, but I find it interesting that people are "iffy" on the 24 character, however no one thinks badly of the father in Taken. I think the "Reason" for torture plays a lot into this as well as the characters inherent goodness. 

People can have varying opinions on torture and political goals, but when a child is in danger, our internal "parenting instinct" (even for those of you who may not be parents) kicks in. When a child is in danger, all bets are off! Speaking as a mother, if someone hurt my child, I'd be out for blood! And I'm generally a nice person.


----------



## Mainak Dhar (Mar 1, 2011)

I'd say in general, as a reader, a `good guy' would lost a lot of the innate `goodness' if he/she tortures someone. Yes, there may be all sorts of mitigating circumstances, but at the end of the day, having a lead character commit torture has to be a big decision, because you may lose a lot of the empathy you've tried to create in readers. As a parent, the only, really only, situation where I could forgive it is if a child is in imminent danger. But hey, on a subject like this, I doubt you'll ever get a conclusive answer- everyone has their own moral compass and their own experiences that drive opinions on things like this.


----------



## naomi_jay (Feb 1, 2011)

Some very interesting studies have been done along these lines, like the Stanford Prison Experiment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

It's a fascinating area of psychology, and it's interesting to see everyone's responses. For me, I still think I'd want to see consequences for the torturer, how it affects them afterwards, etc. I very much doubt a "good guy" - even one in extreme circumstances - could torture another human being and not be different afterwards.


----------



## Alle Meine Entchen (Dec 6, 2009)

Katie Salidas said:


> Not to move too far off topic, but I find it interesting that people are "iffy" on the 24 character, however no one thinks badly of the father in Taken. I think the "Reason" for torture plays a lot into this as well as the characters inherent goodness.
> 
> People can have varying opinions on torture and political goals, but when a child is in danger, our internal "parenting instinct" (even for those of you who may not be parents) kicks in. When a child is in danger, all bets are off! Speaking as a mother, if someone hurt my child, I'd be out for blood! And I'm generally a nice person.


I've never liked 24. Some of it was for the violence and most of it was b/c that's not the style of tv I like to watch (where you have to watch the previous ep to know what was going on).

As for the movie Taken (which I also didn't watch), I think as soon as the daughter calms down and realizes just WHAT her father did, she's not going to look @ him in the same light.

I don't think I've read a book where the "good guy" tortured someone. It would def change how I would see them. I think it's different than getting mad and hitting someone, that is in the heat of the moment. Torture is calculated.


----------



## DanG (Mar 10, 2011)

Alle Meine Entchen said:


> As for the movie Taken (which I also didn't watch), I think as soon as the daughter calms down and realizes just WHAT her father did, she's not going to look @ him in the same light.


I disagree. The daughter was kidnapped and sold to be a sex slave. She knows her life was hell and going to get worse - possible death awaiting. I don't think she'll be looking at her dad sideways.



Alle Meine Entchen said:


> I don't think I've read a book where the "good guy" tortured someone. It would def change how I would see them. I think it's different than getting mad and hitting someone, that is in the heat of the moment. Torture is calculated.


This is do agree with. A "good guy" can do some really bad things as a reaction to a stressful situation without forethought and isn't instantly evil. Torture walks a fine line, must be sufficiently motive-driven (such as in _Taken_), and limited to use in really bad people and to a limited extent. Otherwise the character begins to slip in likeability.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

I think I would have to take in the context of the torture to know if a 'good' guy could get away with it. If the character's child was threatened, or was being tortured by the bad guy's associate, then I would have no qualms about the 'good' guy doing whatever it takes to get the child away safely. Of course, that begs the question of would torturing the bad guy make things worse for the child? 

Also, the good guy would have to fight some doubts even if the torture is for the best of reasons.


----------

