My second question is about American legal procedure. In this situation the party was posing as FBI agents with a search warrant (The warrant was real but they actually work for a different branch of the government) to search a facility that dealt with the disposal of hazardrous materials using patented technology they wanted to protect (if it matters there were 4 agents/players searching a compound hundreds of feet in area, 340 by 300). My original approach was to have the manager ask them to wait while he called the FBI office to verify they were who they said they were and the players made a reasonable point that you couldn't stall government officials like that as it allowed for the hiding/destruction of evidence so I allowed them to start their search while one of them went with him as he made the call (I'm hoping they're right on that point).
The problem was when one of the players mentioned he'd seen a bound and gagged women on the security monitors driving up (he made a 26 on his spot check and even then only saw her for a fraction of a second before the guard changed where the camera was looking). Another player at this point demanded the security guard (responsible for keeping watch and protecting the compounds perimeter (fenced, cameras, regular guard dog patrols and warning signs that trespassers will be shot) surrender his weapon so they could put it down "over here" where he wouldn't be able to reach it. The guard considering that he still hadn't received word that this was a legitimate search and not an attempt to infiltrate the compound by spy's/terrorists (they were standing in the security office/gatehouse) refused until he had an opportunity to contact his boss and confirm he should do that. This rapidly progressed into him "resisting arrest" and while the first was reading him his rights another player smacked him on the back of his head with a pistol butt. Deciding they weren't FBI agents he triggered the alarmss before the first player tackled and started cuffing him. This ingame happened simultaneously with the manager on his way back to say the warrant was legitimate (as in the guard hadn't yet been told the "FBI" agents were real when he wanted to put a call in to his boss before surrendering his weapon).
My question is does anyone know if a search warrant of a sensative facility (corporate not government) allow FBI agents to demand the guards surrender their weapons in a situation like this (based on something one of them only saw briefly and can't see anymore) and if so can they also refuse to allow that guard to contact his boss first to check that the agents are (1) legitimate or (2) allowed to do this?
Personally, i would rule it to be one check per instance of unknown language. (I.E. one check per label/sentence/etc.)
And i don't know about legal proccedure, but it would seem to me that it's not protocol to ask a security guard for his weapon without him wielding it against the officers. And there doesn't even seem to be a reason to arrest the guard (Getting a glimpse of an odd ocurrence is not enough to arrest the rentacop which might not even be related to the matter. innocent until proven guilty and all that.). Which makes the act of asking for it very bizzarre.
As for starting the search while the manager went to verify their identity. Well, i can't really say. My assumption is that you don't need permission to start a search if you already have a warrant.
Someone else might know more than me.
Allowing a new check if you make a check on a different piece of writing would be reasonable if you decided that the PC gets to check again with a new example of the same language. Going by the RAW, she already checked with that language, so no re-roll would be allowed. Going by real-world logic, getting a fresh example of an unknown language could provide exactly the "key" that a linguist needs to decipher it, so a re-roll would be reasonable.
On the legality issue, I say this only because it's come up in a lot of cop shows, but I believe that seeing someone bound and gagged, by all indications being held against her will, constitutes "probable cause" for an officer of the law in the US. Something is happening "right now," and so they have the right to intervene "right now." Also, a rent-a-guard is ultimately beholden to the law first and his boss second. A distant, distant second. One would hope that his own sense of morality might also be in there somewhere, but clearly that wasn't a concern in this case. Given the action-movie logic that pervades d20M and the blood-thirsty nature of most players, I'd say the PCs acted with relative restraint. They attempted to arrest him and then to secure him non-lethally, as opposed to shooting him in the head while inventing a thin excuse for why they "had to do it."
And i hadn't thought about it in action movie terms. in which case, they pretty much have full liscence to go rambo on the installation. Even if it's not the smartest thing to do.
(IMHO these sourcebooks are the best)
The FBI's history ranges from some of the most glorious moments in law enforcement history to some of the most tragic. Its authority ranges from terrorism to organized crime to political malfeasance to computer crime and much, much more. Its agents have a reputation as the most talented law enforcement officers in the world, but the criminal world continually finds new ways to test their abilities.
This books gives players the chance to work with the FBI or some of the world's other famous police forces. Detectives, forensic scientists, profilers and more all have a role in battling crime - or in trying to clean up the FBI itself!
Real-Life Roleplaying TM FBI comes with everything players and gamemasters need to recreate the greatest triumphs of the FBI and battle the most dangerous criminals in the world. It includes:
• A look at the storied history of the FBI, including some of its darker times;
• Information on running mysteries and police adventures;
• New advanced classes, including the profiler, special agents and more;
• New feats and uses for skills;
• A wide variety of non-lethal weapons, used by police for both capturing criminals and crowd control;
• A complete sample setting focused on New Orleans;
• Two adventures, ready to play, that thrust the characters into conflict with deadly criminals;
• A strategic campaign that pits the characters against a team of criminal masterminds; and
• A variety of alternative law enforcement campaigns
FBI: d20 requires the use of a Roleplaying Game Core Book published by Wizards of the Coast®.
Authors: Tom Ricks and Ken Lightner
Just to clarify events as they occured . . .
1) Players arrive dressed as FBI agents and show a warrant to gain access to a secure facility (corporate not government) where trespassers can be legally shot and their have been previous attempts by non-government groups to infiltrate and steal information. One party member gets a brief glimpse of a bound and gagged woman on a security monitor
2) Manager say's go ahead and search but I'm going to verify this warrant.
3) Two party members go with the manager while the other 2 start searching the security office, no woman is visible on the monitors at this stage and the security guard is standing aside while they conduct their search.
3) Player who saw the woman asks the other to stop aside for a moment, there's a brief discussion and then the other player turns to the security guard and demands he hand over his firearm meanwhile the manger calls the FBI offce and verifies the warrant is real.
4) Security guard declines to hand over his weapon to the people who may or may not be FBI agents and says he wants to call his boss to determine how he should act. Note he's still not interfering with their search just refusing to be unarmed with the 2 uknow armed people who are dressed as FBI agents.
5) Player who demanded his gun now say's he can't make that call and that they just want to take it off him and they'll put it over here out of his reach, then when he again refuses and starts moving towards the phone begins reading his Miranda rights. Meanwhile the manager is heading back with the other 2 agents to confirm the warrant to his security officer (and had a call been allowed would have told him to put his gun aside as these men are legitimate).
6) The player who got the brief glimpse then belts the security guard over the head with a pistol, the security guard triggers the alarm, the other player forces the concussed guard to the ground and slaps binders on him.
7) The manager arrives, discusses things with the two players, brings up the various rooms on the security monitors showing no bound and gagged person in the garage where the first player thought they saw them.
As I said it just seemed that when a person who may or may not be an officer of the law out of the blue suddenly demands you hand over your firearm, then reassures you by saying that they just want to put it over here where you can't reach it and refuses to let you call your boss who's gone off not 2 minutes ago to confirm the warrant they showed was valid when your fully co-operating with their search and putting up no resistance will ring alarm bells and raise suspicion that they aren't in fact what they claim? Maybe I'm overly paranoid though, still what harm would letting him call his boss to confirm he should surrender his weapon leaving him alone and unarmed with 2 strangers do?
Still, what doesn't change is that officers of the law (posing as FBI, but from what you say, still duly appointed) present a valid warrent. That closes that discussion. That guard doesn't need "permission" to follow the law of the land. Whether he can "legally" shoot tresspassers is immaterial; they're not tresspassers.
I don't know the exact legal issues involved, but intuitively, I think I'd like cops to have the right to disarm someone while legally searching their premises. Otherwise, you basically have an armed suspect standing there, waiting for the cop to make a false move. Or you have him standing there with a gun and a cop standing next to him with a gun, and that exponentially increases the chances of a shoot-out, which nobody wants (at least, nobody outside of an action/adventure movie!). Reducing the number of guns in the situation would seem to be the solution. More guns ≠ more safety.
I was actually half-tempted to have the guard disarm himself then send in an attack force and have them take the unarmed guard hostage then kill him before trying to do the same to the players.
May I ask why you think there's something wrong with what they did?
"The police are allowed to use guile when apprehending a suspect. They're allowed to lie."
-Assistant District Attourney Jack McCoy (Law and Order)
But hey, you're the GM. It's your world. You should always take your players' preferences into account, but it is ultimately up to you to set the tone of your own games. Do what you think is right. If players complain, put the game aside and ask them what's bothering them. Having a direct conversation is always the best way to solve these kinds of things (or to put that more truthfully, trying to solve the problem indirectly, through the game, is the worst way to solve it).