Torture in a magical world (Rated R)

[drunkmoogle]

My gods, you are all sick bastards. Keep it up.

Gotta run to class; I expect this thread to hit 75 posts before I get back.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Create simulacrums of the party to go out and commit evil in the party's name. Arm them with the party's stuff. Make sure to bring evidence of said evil back to share (mustn't be greedy.) Reputations are even harder to cure than wounds.

To preface, I'll just throw in that I don't believe torture should be inflicted on any PC unless the group as a whole and the PC in particular has agreed to run that level of game. The players in the orriginal example may have blown it off because that was what they wanted to do: play the game they signed up for, not an interactive PTSS tutorial. If a DM in a standard (non discussed) game pulled almost anything from this thread on me I'd say "Oh, I guess that triggers my self disinigrate contingency tooth cap." If they were foolish enough to point out that such an item wasn't part of the character I'd designed, I'd tell them that what they are doing isn't part of the game I designed it for so we're even. we would then either have an adult conversation about what kind of game was being run or I'd be looking for a new group...

That all said, one adapted from the New Mutants of all places, though only good for good or nice neutral characters - pull out all the evil of a character and give it physical form. (a warped version of the mirror of opposition might work) The original and the evil version have both a mental link and a wound transferance, so any damage the evil twin takes is expereinced by the original. Evil twin goes out and exagerates or perverts every connection the orriginal had. Original always felt overshadowed by another party member? Evil twin captures and tortures them while mocking their impotence. Original liked to spar with party members or allies to see who was a better fighter? Evil Twin beats them in the sparring then keeps striking until they are almost dead. Original has a love interest or known attraction? Don't think we need to spell that out here. The original has to watch (or even expereince) all this, take any wounds received and be told over and over that deep down this is what he has always wanted. Afterwards, certain wounds he took heal only with scars, no matter how great the magic used, providing constant reminders to the former friends who inflicted them in self defense. they get all the traditional torture of the wounds evil twin takes, the psychological torture of watching their friends and loved ones hurt and the life shattering aftereffects of a reputation and associations that just won't go away.

Kahuna Burger

 

[drnuncheon]

To preface, I'll just throw in that I don't believe torture should be inflicted on any PC unless the group as a whole and the PC in particular has agreed to run that level of game.

Now, when you say this, do you mean that the PCs shouldn't ever be tortured, or merely that they should have the option to 'fade to black' and not have to sit through the details?

If it's the latter, I completely understand. Graphic scenes of torture are not something that you should have to sit through unless you really want to.

If it's the former, well - torture can and does happen to the hero in every genre, even light-hearted swashbuckling (The Princess Bride, for example). I can understand the desire to not sit through a detailed description of the effects, but saying "no, I'm not going to let my PC be tortured, period" seems...munchkiny? Sort of the equivalent of throwing a fit when your character takes damage, or something else doesn't go your way.

Personally, I think it's the player's responsibility to say "Hey, I'm uncomfortable with this." The DM can't be expected to think up every condition that might potentially occur in his campaign that has a possibility of offending any particular player, and then run them through a questionairre to determine the level of acceptability. There needs to be a certain amount of maturity on both sides, where the offended player is ready to believe that the DM isn't out to get them, and the DM is willing to listen to the player's concerns.

Pulling out the 'disintegration tooth-cap' is a reaction only warranted if the DM is unwilling to budge, and even then, it would be preferable to simply say, "sorry, I think I'm in the wrong game" and then depart.

J

 

[Darkness]

Right, my players (a freelance adventuring group of neutral and good alignment) once were working with the Harpers in an undercover mission against the Zhentarim.

At some point, two of the neutral-aligned PCs (a Rashemaar berserker and a cleric of... Azuth, IIRC) decided to switch sides, ratted out their NPC Harper contact to the Zhentarim, and then proceeded to torture him for information to prove their loyalty to their new masters.

I don't recall all details but

Spoiler

they poured molten lead on his private parts, among other places.

They also made sure that the other PCs and their NPC allies (who also were adventurers/mercenaries) were enslaved and put to hard labor.

The cleric soon after switched his loyalty from his former god to Bane. (This was before the Time of Troubles.)

 

[tauton_ikhnos]

Seasong wrote some commentary here:
http://b22.ezboard.com/fseasongsmusefrm20.showMessage?topicID=5.topic

And one of his players wrote story hour:
http://b22.ezboard.com/fseasongsmusefrm9.showMessage?topicID=3.topic

Think magical healing available in both. Non-boring medieval torture devices present in both, too.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Now, when you say this, do you mean that the PCs shouldn't ever be tortured, ...
If it's the former, well - torture can and does happen to the hero in every genre, even light-hearted swashbuckling (The Princess Bride, for example). I can understand the desire to not sit through a detailed description of the effects, but saying "no, I'm not going to let my PC be tortured, period" seems...munchkiny? Sort of the equivalent of throwing a fit when your character takes damage, or something else doesn't go your way.

Actually, throwing torture into a non discussed game strikes me as the DM being the munchkin. Torture can happen in every genre, but it does not happen in every story. A good rpg game is a story, and a well run one is a story that everyone involved in knows the basic plot of. The basic plot of the story must also be supported by the mechanics. If the story includes the use of poison, poison use is included in the mechanics. Both delivery and defenses are spelled out in terms of how to save against it, class and race bonses to those saves, magical defenses and cures, etc. If the story includes domination magic, domination magic is spelled out in the mechanics. Delievery and defense, feats, equiptment and spell use to guard against it.

If the story is going to include torture, in order to play the game fairly, torture MUST be spelled out and integrated into the mechanics. Several mechanics have been suggested, but to add them in mid game with no chance for the characters to have any feats, spells, equiptment, class abilities or racial adjustments to defend against it is the munchkin situation here, not simply stating "this isn't the game this character was designed for, and if you are retrofitting the game, I am retrofitting my character to match." If there are no pre agreed mechanics to it, torture is merely a story element in the character's history, such as falling in love or having a child which are at the discretion of the player, not the DM.

There is no pain in D&D within the mechanics. There is no psychological trauma, no mental disadvantages, no rules for phobias unless you use a suplemental rule book. Therefore, in the baseline rules of D&D, torture does not exist as an in game occurance. To add it is to change the rules, and to add it in arbitrarily without the other mechanics changing to fit is to change the rules very badly. To compare an objection to that with throwing a fit because a character takes damage according to the base and understood rules of the game is just foolish and insulting.

This is a topic I've dwelt on and discussed at length in the past, even to the extent of an intermittent side project on the defenses that would exist in a D&D world if "R-rated" dangers existed, and how to integrate them into the base rules. As a result, I ramble on a bit on the topic. As an additional result, I snicker when someone calls the stance munchkin...

Kahuna Burger

 

[Hand of Evil]

Now something we have not talked about but really is torture to players, the loss of gear! Hey, they were picked up, held, feed, tortured by some of the best people in the business, do you really think they would get their equipment back!

This could be plot hooks for later games.

 

[Beholder Bob]

..saying "no, I'm not going to let my PC be tortured, period" seems...munchkiny? Sort of the equivalent of throwing a fit when your character takes damage, or something else doesn't go your way.

Actually, I agree with the above point. When you make a PC, you include HP. That means you accept the chance your character will get killed. It sucks. You may have a well developed PC with a great history, should/could become the main character of a book, and is light hearted enough that death is too cruel a fate. But with HP on your character sheet, that indicates a chance for death. Torture is short of death, but more then reasonable. It is in the BoVD (so rules DO exist that cover it). Unless you are not given a fair chance to avoid capture and torture (a dues-ex-machina inescapable encounter that automatically places you in a position you get tortured in), you had a chance to avoid it. Getting captured means your PC could have been killed instead. If you really can not deal with torture, ask the DM to have your PC die during torture. Roll a new PC up. Being captured and tortured is a chance to role play and plan escapes rather then being the target of a coup de grace. What is the problem?

If you do not want to deal with torture - play in a game that does not include that in its genre. As to dnd not having torture in the game - uh, dungeons is in the name. Not just the S&M type either. Grind.

BB

 

[Kaodi]

Hmmm...

Mark of Justice. Lots and lots of Marks of Justice. Marks for attacking people, marks for defending people, marks for being nice, marks for being happy, marks for squishing small bugs, marks for huggling tiny kittens. Marks for every possible way marks can be removed, lots and lots of them. Marks for the fighter attacking foes, marks for the rogue evading spells, marks for the wizard casting buff spells, and marks for the clerics healing allies. Marks for removing cursed items. So many Marks of Justice that the players can't do anything without triggering stat damage, penalties to rolls, inability to act and worse.

Not sure how scary/frustrating that would be...

 

[drnuncheon]

If the story is going to include torture, in order to play the game fairly, torture MUST be spelled out and integrated into the mechanics.

I think you'll find that several of the suggestions, mine included, were discussing how to use the currently existing core rules to simulate torture. I can see your point regarding DMs that suddenly pull an 'oh, and there are pain rules now', but there were plenty of suggestions about other forms of torture that require no additional mechanics.

For example, stat damage and stat drain are already part of the rules, already have defenses and spells relating to them, etc. It's a bit misleading to claim that torture using these rules is 'retrofitting'.

Similarly, spells like simulacrum, dominate person, and disguise self are part of the rules, so you can't really call the potential for mental torture that exists there 'retrofitting'.

As for this:

a well run one is a story that everyone involved in knows the basic plot of

...well, I can't disagree more. I've been in some great campaigns that boiled down to a 'bait and switch' - the players went in expecting one thing and got something completely other.

I guess it all comes down to player-GM trust. If you trust the GM, then you're more likely to accept a lot of stuff. If you go in convinced the GM is out to 'get' you, then, if nothing else, it's alot harder to have fun.

J