Torture Should Not Work in Dungeons & Dragons

Celebrim · Jun 6, 2019

ThePlanarDM said:
Torture doesn't work in real life.

I would dispute this claim.

The US army field manuals and instructions issued to captured prisoners suggest that prisoners should expect that in the long run torture always works, and that they should not expect to hold out against prolonged torture by strength of will. There is abundant evidence of torture 'working', especially against prisoners who have not been trained in techniques of deception.

I will in fact also dispute the claim that torture is a common practice in D&D, because generally there is no mechanism in D&D for using torture to compel anyone - PC or NPC - to cooperate. I've rarely seen PC's attempt torture, and those that do pretty much abandon it quickly when they realize that the rules give no practical benefit to torture. And likewise, NPC's torturing PC's is pointless, since by the rules the PC's never have to 'break' and I've never really felt a need to make up rules about torture since I don't really want it to be a focus of play.

I think that ultimately there is a proxy argument going on here. I think the real point of the argument is, "Torture shouldn't be a focus of play." And that is a much less controversial statement that doesn't need any sort of claims about the effectiveness of torture in reality or in play.

doctorbadwolf · Jun 6, 2019

Raunalyn said:
View attachment 106884

One of my local radio stations got bought out last year, and in protest, a DJ played the shark baby song on a loop for 3 days straight, before the signal finally got shut down, and up comes some lame easy listening crap a few hours later. It was both excellent and awful.

5ekyu · Jun 6, 2019

vincegetorix said:
You know, this make me think that the various NPCs in the MM could benefit from a small (say 1d4) table for trait/flaw/ideal to help the DM should the player decide to interact with a generic guard/veteran/mage etc, just like the named NPC have in the more recent APs.

I tend to use the tables in Xanathar p.91 to quickly decide the personality of a specific unnamed NPC, you know, for the times your players wish to become friend with Generic Cultist no.412 they captured.

In the specific case of torture, I ask my players to go easy on the gore fantasy. I once had to warn a group that their long sessions of detailed torture was kinda disturbing, but I think that players who use torture as a go-to requires a conversion out of game.

To me, these things are part of the keys to building robust and resilient scenes - once which can take a lot of slamming and surprises and not only survive but thrive. Establish a lot (or even a little) *about* who you are opposed by and see how much freedom that gives both sides of the table. Do so consistently and you move away from always fight to the death, lose = tpk and further cases where it seems it's all about hotter dice throws.

It's rare that in my games you meet totally unified lock step enemies. Is the number two or three guy looking to move up? Is the number five guy in debt to number 9? Is the boos a skinflint and so his minions are strapped and his locks cheap with fewer sentries than he needs?

"Be generous with your employees, or someone else will be."

"Evil tends to not play well with others."

"I'm not stupid. I'm not expendable. I'm not [fill in the blank]"

Etc etc etc...

ART! · Jun 6, 2019

Thankfully, it's been decades maybe since I was in a game where the PCs used torture.

I think the last time it happened I was GMing a MERP game. Elrond's two sons were NPCs travelling a leg of a journey with the PCs, they fought some orcs, and the PCs grabbed the last two and started trying squeeze info out of them. Elladan and Elrohir put up with it - mostly out of confusion - for about a minute and then each of them just stepped forward and killed the orcs. I figured elves' attitude would be "you don't talk to orcs, you kill them".

77IM · Jun 6, 2019

Torture is out-of-genre for the heroic-cinematic-fantasy sort of adventure stories that D&D is meant to tell.

In those stories, the hero grabs the fallen mook by the lapels, and demands to know "Who hired you!" The mook either spills the beans and begs for his life, or responds with "I'm more afraid of them than I am of you!" before being punched out cold. Occasionally the protagonist will offer a more intense threat in response, like waving a red-hot poker next to the mook's face. Again, either the mook folds, or else the hero was bluffing and won't actually go through with the threat. That's why she's the hero.

Zardnaar · Jun 6, 2019

Most of the time its better to imply it or have it in the back ground. Its a classic villain thing along with a torture chamber. The key is not to over do it. or do it off camera. Han Solo ESB for example "They didn't even ask me anything".

I very rarely ever use it (almost never), its usually fairly obvious what organisations or whatever do it. One place has an inquisition.

Tales and Chronicles · Jun 6, 2019

5ekyu said:
To me, these things are part of the keys to building robust and resilient scenes - once which can take a lot of slamming and surprises and not only survive but thrive. Establish a lot (or even a little) *about* who you are opposed by and see how much freedom that gives both sides of the table. Do so consistently and you move away from always fight to the death, lose = tpk and further cases where it seems it's all about hotter dice throws.

It's rare that in my games you meet totally unified lock step enemies. Is the number two or three guy looking to move up? Is the number five guy in debt to number 9? Is the boos a skinflint and so his minions are strapped and his locks cheap with fewer sentries than he needs?

"Be generous with your employees, or someone else will be."

"Evil tends to not play well with others."

"I'm not stupid. I'm not expendable. I'm not [fill in the blank]"

Etc etc etc...

This is why I use my favorite houserules in all my games now: Damage is always non-lethal unless the players specifies otherwise. An enemy dropped to 0 is ''defeated'' instead of dead; it wont fight again against he party, even at a later moment, it is ''dead'' to the story but can be interacted with again should the PC wish to.

It force my players to interact more with the NPCs, even the generic unnamed ones, which in return force the generic NPC to become more than a bag of hit points who oppose the party in direct response to the PC non-attack actions.

Psyzhran2357 · Jun 6, 2019

Would liberal use of Dominate Person or Geas for the purposes of interrogation count as torture?

Gradine · Jun 6, 2019

77IM said:
Torture is out-of-genre for the heroic-cinematic-fantasy sort of adventure stories that D&D is meant to tell.

In those stories, the hero grabs the fallen mook by the lapels, and demands to know "Who hired you!" The mook either spills the beans and begs for his life, or responds with "I'm more afraid of them than I am of you!" before being punched out cold. Occasionally the protagonist will offer a more intense threat in response, like waving a red-hot poker next to the mook's face. Again, either the mook folds, or else the hero was bluffing and won't actually go through with the threat. That's why she's the hero.

This.

I suppose it depends on the nature and tone of the game, but D&D (at least 5th edition) is generally geared to be more reminiscent of, say, Iron Man 3 ("You breathe fire? Okay.") than 24 ("Tell me where the <insert macguffin, probably a bomb, here> is!").

I mean, whether torture is actually useful or not in real life is besides the point (it isn't, generally if not universally speaking); the truth is that it's abhorrent and evil (occasional pop cultural glorification aside) and heroes shouldn't be engaging in it.

I personally have a strict "no flagrant human rights violations" rule at my table; works pretty well (it helps that I play with friends and not strangers).

HJFudge · Jun 6, 2019

To me, the question isn't about torture really. Its about 'how do you, as a DM, disseminate information that is important to the PCs?'

If it is almost always in the hands of enemies that are captured, and must be pried from their hands, then torture is much more likely to be a thing the PCs try.

If you avoid that manner of giving out of important information, the PCs may try it once or twice but will quickly realize thats a dead end for useful info.

So in my opinion, 5E (any edition really) CAN encourage torture IF the DM places all the info in the hands of defeated monsters. Now, is that really 5e encouraging it? Nah, its the DM encouraging that kind of behavior (intentionally or not) that leads the PCs to take the actions they do. In fact, the DM through his game and table style will often encourage a lot of/most player behaviors...and a change in style and technique can really curb a lot of problems a DM has. This is simply one example.