Adjudicating Torture

[buzzard]

I don't know if this has been dealt with here before, I would almost assume it would have. You see in my campaign, one of the PCs has been captured by the villains in the Iron Fortress module. I figured there was no need to kill him right out, so they'd torture him for information about what was attacking them, and of course for general amusement.

So what do I do? What I've heard about torture says that it always works eventually, so I figure he'll spill the beans in due time (unless of course he's rescued quickly). How do I determine how long before he cracks? Also what long term effects would the torture have on him? I haven't seen anything on this in the rules (even Evil didn't talk about it). Did I miss anything in the books, or do I have to play it by ear?
Any suggestions will be welcome and appreciated.

Buzzard

 

[Forrester]

This is a fascinating question, and I'm waiting to see what kind of answers you get.

My answer would be that after the first week or so, the PC would have to start making Will saves. Or maybe Fort saves. (Or use both modifiers?) They would get more and more difficult each time. If he can make five in a row, though (or some other such number), he's Unbreakable, and there is simply no hope of getting what they need.

An expert in torture (there probably should be a Craft: Torture, or better, Profession: Torturer) can make the saves more difficult to make, of course.

Maybe this is something we can take over to House Rules after you get some input here.

 

[Pielorinho]

I think the simplest way to do it would be for the torturer to make an Intimidate check opposed by a Will save. If the torturer wins, the victim spills the beans.

That wouldn't be superfun, though, so here are some other suggestions:

-Profession: torturer. A character with 5 or more ranks in Intimidation gets a +2 synergy bonus to rolls.
-The torturer can inflict damage to the victim to gain a bonus on her skill check. Every 2 points of real damage, or every 3 points of subdual damage, grant a +1 circumstance bonus on the skill check. She can choose how much damage to inflict on a helpless victim, but she doesn't know how many HP the victim has left, unless she makes a successful Heal check (DC 15 + victim's level or HD)
-A victim makes a Will save to stay silent, DC equal to the torturer's skill check. If the victim fails, he talks.
-A victim who chooses or is forced to talk can make a bluff check, opposed by any listener's sense motive check, to lie. For each day of successive torture, the victim suffers a -2 circumstance penalty on all bluff checks.

How does that work?
Daniel

 

[Don]

While I've never used torture in my games, I think Will saving throws are the way to go (vs a set DC or an intimidate roll). Modifiers would include how important the information is, how loyal the victim is, etc. Several days (or hours, depending on intensity) of consecutive torture should produce increasing penalties to the Will saving throw.

If PCs are being tortured, a nice way to motivate them in a roleplaying sense (if they don't like the idea of making Will saves) is to inflict temporary Con damage during torture (say a d4/day - maybe higher, maybe lower depending on the level of torture). Some players will want to wait until the last possible torture session, hoping you won't roll too high ("You've got 3 con left and you're not going to talk? Okay. Oh, would you look at that. I rolled a 4. You're dead.").

Couple that with a Will save that gets penalized for every temp Con point lost and you have a fairly realistic system, I'd say.

 

[Greatwyrm]

In my campaigns, I've held a double-standard for "intense interrogations". I allow NPCs to be subjected to rules similar to those suggested by Pielorinho. PCs I treat differently. I usually give them the option of going with this system or just deciding they don't want to talk.

The reason for this is betrayal, even under torture, is the kind of thing that can really destroy a party or a particular character. If somebody was playing a paladin and was forced by dice to do something completely out of character, I wouldn't think it was too cool. I'm not talking about Confusion here, either. I'm talking about possibly getting other PCs or NPCs killed or captured. D&D is usually a game of heroic fantasy. If a PC wants to go to their grave with their secrets, so be it.

 

[Voadam]

I would say fortitude saves for pain and then will saves for information if you want mechanics. Intimidation is generally the appropriate skill although a PC in my game picked up profession torturer for applying the right amount of actual pain wihtout incapacitating and for knowing when to ask questions.

Unless you are playing an inquisitor game where it will come up a lot, it should be mostly RP and description, particularly with a PC. I would discourage mechanics that take away a PCs control of how he plays the character. Charms and Geases can really suck as a PC subject to them.

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by Pielorinho

I think the simplest way to do it would be for the torturer to make an Intimidate check opposed by a Will save.

and

-The torturer can inflict damage to the victim to gain a bonus on her skill check. Every 2 points of real damage, or every 3 points of subdual damage, grant a +1 circumstance bonus on the skill check.

Just a few comments

- Requiring a will save would make druids/priests/sorcerers/wizards the best at resisting torture. IMO requiring a Fort save (DC = Torturer's Intimidate skill check) would be better.

- Awarding a bonus based on damage inflicted penalizes high hp characters (a +25 bonus to the Torturer's Intimidate check because the victim can survive 50 hps damage doesn't seem fair).

- How about awarding a +1 bonus to the torturers Intimidate check for damage inflicted equal to 10% of the victims normal maximum (a +1 bonus for inflicting 5 points damage to a 50 hp character or a +5 bonus for inflicting 5 points damage on a 10 hp character)?

Just a thought or three....

Abraxas

 

[shilsen]

My co-DM and I discussed this recently, since he (justifiably, IMO) felt that if the Intimidate skill could be used by PCs (& NPCs) against NPCs, then the reverse should also be true. While I agree in theory, my opinion was that anything that takes away the player's agency in deciding what her character does is a problem.

If it is magical compulsion of some kind, like dominate (but not charm) spells, I am perfectly happy to take some control over what a PC does or doesn't do. But I can't see myself going with a "Okay, you missed your save against his Torture skill, so you crack and tell him everything." I'd much rather just roleplay it, especially since there would be repurcussions, both physical and mental, for a PC who holds out too long.

 

[hong]

Have the guy make a Fort/Will save each day (whichever is better) against a steadily increasing DC. This would be similar to the contest of wills from OA, except only one person has to make saves. The DC might start at 5, then 10, 15, etc until he breaks.

Inflict temporary Str/Dex/Con damage every day. I suggest 1d3 points to each stat. This will probably terrify the player more than the possibility of failing the save.

 

[Gromm]

I'd say any torture save is in the long run a fear save- as such a paladin as mentioned above should be able to always resist torture. Sure pains bad, but its the fear of more pain, that the pain wont stop or that you'll die that makes you crack (unless its very long term psychological torture, but thats not what were talking about here).