Adjudicating Torture

[CRGreathouse]

The real mechanic of interest isn't how long the person can stay silent (for all intents and purposes, you eventually won't) - it's if you lie or not.

 

[hong]

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.

This is all well and good, but I would bet that many people are rather squeamish when it comes to roleplaying having your eyes and fingernails plucked out, being branded with hot irons, the skin being flayed off your bones, limbs dislocated and/or broken, and all those other fun ways of torturing people. Hence the abstract solution of rolling everything up into a saving throw or other die roll.

 

[DWARF]

I'd think for torture, for every session of torture they should make a Fort save against something, maybe damage inflicted. Then, for every time they fail a FORT save, they get a -5 to their WILL save for the day, and a -1 cumulative for the remaining days. Also, every day of torture, despite the outcome of the FORT save, will incur a cumulative -1 to the FORT save. At the end of the day, they make a WILL save against an intimidate check to see if they spill the beans.

So that accounts for those of good muscular endurance who can resist the pain of torture, and those that have good wills that are slowly wittled down over time.

As an example, say a cleric of extremely strong mental hardness is captured and tortured. The first day, he resists the pain (FORT) and resists the torture (WILL). On day 2, he again resists the pain (FORT at -1 due to previous days torture) and resists the torture (WILL). On day 3, he fails to resist the pain (FORT at -2 due to previous days torture) and is almost overcome (Will at -5 due to days pain). On day 4 he resists the pain (FORT at -3 due to previous days torture) but gives in to the inquisitors sweet words (WILL at -1 due to previous days pain).

As for players not liking it, numbers is numbers. They don't complain when a monster critically hits them and drops their hit points and they die, right? So why should it bother them that their mind might give out as well?

 

[Nellisir]

I don't favor forcing the PCs to confess or reveal their secrets. I'd suggest having torture deal subdual damage (to keep track of when the PC passes out), and make a Fort save daily (or however often each "session" is, though not more than one per 24 hours). A successful save inflicts 1 point temporary Con damage, a failed save inflicts 1d4+1 points temporary Con damage. For every 6 points of temp Con damage, 1 point is permanent. That should motivate the players!

Nell.

 

[bret]

Torture is not a reliable means of getting information. People usually tell the torturer whatever they think the person wants to hear, in an attempt to stop the pain. This isn't the same as giving good information.

The classes that should probably be hardest to torture are the Paladin (no fear) and the Rogue (Sense Motive, Bluff, can get Slippery Mind). One because they shouldn't break, the other because they know how to lie really well.

In any case, I think you would be best off asking the player of the captured character how he wants to handle it. Don't roleplay it out, I really can't see that as being any fun. Just find out how long the person is going to try and hold out, if they have any ideas of how to resist the torture, and how they would like to see it play out.

One thing you do need to them is if they going to try and break out on their own. You can assume that the torturer has them confused about how much time has passed.

As for the rescue, you should probably figure out how good a shape the person will be in. After a few days, it is quite possible that they would only be able to walk half speed or need to be carried out.

In any case, the player of the captured character probably does not need to show up for the next session. Unless the rescue is immediate, the character probably will not be in good enough shape to do much.

 

[twjensen]

that would be a house rule.

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.

The rules are clearly stated in the DMG, PCs cannot be intimidated, diplomacy'd or otherwise forced to act against their will by a charisma check.

Using checks as an aid to role-playing, ie, "Your character is afraid of X" where X is an NPC who's made a really great intimidate roll, is I think still in the scope of the rules. But it is up to the PC as to what to do about being afraid.

 

[twjensen]

What I've heard about torture says that it always works eventually

Not true. Everyone breaks. That doesn't mean that people spill the beans. The trick to torture is to get the information before the person breaks. Once a person has broken, they will say whatever they think the torturer wants to hear.

A quick example. Germany captures a British agent in WWII. They torture him. He breaks. They ask if the allies are going to attack, and where. He knows the allies are going to invade, but knows that his captors will be pissed when he tells them.

He will then frantically try to come up with a probable lie, and he'll believe his own lie as soon as he's told it. He'll then go to his grave believing the lie to be true, believing he has betrayed his British loyalties, when actually he's just spouted a wad of jibberish.

If torture really worked, the USA would still be using it.

 

[Lela]

It's his character. Let him choose.

There is no choice on whether or not he would crack. Given enough time, anyone and everyone spills their guts. What he would say is up for grabs (to tell the truth or tell what you think they want to hear, that is the question.

Too be honest, in spite of this, I would ask the player directly. How do you want to play this out. We would obviously have a discussion and he would have some major say. If he thinks his character would hold out for a while, then hay, we can go with that. If he thinks his character, as a Paladin, isn't affected by torture (the fear thing), then yep we go with that to.

This allows you to go by the maturity of the player, the investment he has put into the character, and any emotional or physical background he may or may not have had with the subject. It keeps you from accidentally alianating someone you like. It also doesn't allow for whinning, as the player was the one who made the choice.

 

[shilsen]

This is all well and good, but I would bet that many people are rather squeamish when it comes to roleplaying having your eyes and fingernails plucked out, being branded with hot irons, the skin being flayed off your bones, limbs dislocated and/or broken, and all those other fun ways of torturing people. Hence the abstract solution of rolling everything up into a saving throw or other die roll.

I know that's what the abstract solution is for. But it's hard to give up on the fun of describing to the PC in loving detail exactly what happens to his PC, until he blabs everything just to make you stop describing it DMs deserve some fun too!

The rules are clearly stated in the DMG, PCs cannot be intimidated, diplomacy'd or otherwise forced to act against their will by a charisma check.

Using checks as an aid to role-playing, ie, "Your character is afraid of X" where X is an NPC who's made a really great intimidate roll, is I think still in the scope of the rules. But it is up to the PC as to what to do about being afraid.

Your points are essentially what my argument was. Within the current rules, it specifically says (as you point out) that PCs should not be forced to act in any way by a Cha check. I agree, but I can see why someone (like my co-DM) could think that this loads the dice against the NPCs. I'm okay with that. Some people aren't.

 

[Lela]

Your points are essentially what my argument was. Within the current rules, it specifically says (as you point out) that PCs should not be forced to act in any way by a Cha check. I agree, but I can see why someone (like my co-DM) could think that this loads the dice against the NPCs. I'm okay with that. Some people aren't.

Thus the ability to use Bluff and Sense Motive checks agianst the PCs. If the player thinks the guy is telling the truth . . .

Or the other guy knows the player is lieing to him but decides to play along . . . Ooo, think of the fun a RBDM could have with that one!!