Torture Should Not Work in Dungeons & Dragons

[Dausuul]

How to create a problem that doesn’t exist!

Just because it doesn't happen at your table, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I've seen it in the past.

 

[muppetmuppet]

Let us assume hand waving torture is a possible thing in a game of d&d.

Given that, what PC's would be allowed to do it without consequence? Is it by definition an evil act? Can even super zealous good paladin use it for the greater good? Does it depend on the God the paladin worships? are there some good gods that think torture is ok in exceptional circumstances?
If you think good PC's and gods wld disallow it the next question is will they allow other PC's to do it? and will they use information they think has been gained by it ?

Once good is sorted out what about neutral?

does it matter who we are torturing, is it ok to torture an orc, a devil, a human, an innocent human etc?

These questions seem more useful to d&d than any real world examples.

 

[jasper]

http://theplanardm.com/torture-should-not-work-in-dungeons-dragons/

Torture doesn't work in real life. But in #DND games, the PCs' primary means of gathering information often is leaving one enemy alive and then torturing them.

In this article, I explain why torture why it shouldn't work in Dungeons & Dragons, and how we can discourage PCs from torturing prisoners.

Here's the summary:

• People say whatever they think will help end their torture.
• People are terrible at detecting lies, so torturers don't can't effectively separate truth from lies.
• Even in a game with magic and superhuman abilities, torture shouldn't work, because bosses would know this and stop sharing information with underlings.
• Unfortunately, the rules of 5th edition D&D encourage keeping a bad guy alive and then torturing him for information.
• I suggest several ways the DM can discourage torture by adjusting gameplay mechanics and how their world reacts to the PCs.

ok I can solve your problem.
ThePlanarDM," I torture the orc for information. Nat 20".
Jasper dming, "No".
Theplanardm, "But it is rpg I can do what I want."
Jasper, "Close you book, get your dice, and get the beep away from my Table."
ThePlanarDM, 'But it is my house."
Jasper packs his stuff up leaves.
Problem solved.

 

[muppetmuppet]

I'm fine with you butchering all the orcs and the women and children and baby orcs though provided you promise to make it a quick death

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

The only time I can remember seeing torture used by a PC in-game was at an AL game at a con that I was playing in, by a paladin that essentially waterboarded a defeated foe. I know paladins don’t have to be LG anymore, but it still felt wrong to me.

As a DM, at my table torture counts as evil, and anyone that makes use of it, CN murderhobo or not, is probably getting shifted to an evil alignment. And getting a reputation that will have repercussions.

I do dig the idea of just giving them bad information for their efforts. Hopefully I don’t have cause anytime soon to make use of that advice…

 

[5ekyu]

Just because it doesn't happen at your table, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I've seen it in the past.

Yes but... there is a huge gulf between "I've seen it in the past" and "But in #DND games, the PCs' primary means of gathering information often is leaving one enemy alive and then torturing them. " or commenting that the system mechanics encourage it.

When I look at the social check system in DnD, the actual mechanics in the DMG, I dont see anything that say mechanically torture is superior to other forms of persuasion.

Why wouldn't persuasion or intimidate be the mechanics system used, not torture?

Part of this, I suspect, might come from a lack of C in some GMs NPC. Do their minions surrender whrn things go bad, turn and tun, bargain? Do they show the goblins adversaries as unified, perhaps surorisinglupy so, chaotic mobs willing to die for their cause?

One of the things I try to show in my games are these kinds of traits. If the enemies are fanatically loyal disciples - that is shown and stands out. If they are craven lots kept in line by force and fear, then, hey, when that new big thing is "your party" guess what happens to that loyalty to the others? If they are greedy cusses, if they are doing this for their clan or family, ambition, or a belief in conquest by the strongest, etc etc etc - these all provide hooks that cover not only actions in combat but possible openings for PCs to use.

Those mechanics fsll under the traits, flaws, etc...

And they dont dtibpve on to torture as the number one or " primary" means of getting info from dnrmies.

To me, this premise is as accurate as the similar viewpoint that " losing a fight means tpk" and for the same reasond.

It can be true in some campaigns but it's not due to the mechanics.

 

[GMMichael]

Except that according to the player's handbook "the corpse is under no compulsion to offer a truthful answer if you are hostile to it or it recognizes you as an enemy".

Well then. We've just found a justification for this:

Unfortunately, the rules of 5th edition D&D encourage keeping a bad guy alive and then torturing him for information.

As far as this goes,

I suggest several ways the DM can discourage torture by adjusting gameplay mechanics and how their world reacts to the PCs.

This is pretty easy. Since NPCs suffer no handicaps until they reach zero hit points, the tortured balks at all attempts prior to running out of hit points. "'Tis but a fleshwound!" Then, the poor soul conveniently fails every death save.

Torture: useless.

 

[jayoungr]

Just because it doesn't happen at your table, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I've seen it in the past.

The corollary to that is "Just because it happens at your table, that doesn't mean it's a widespread problem." And I still don't know where the OP gets the idea that it's actually encouraged by the rules of 5E.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Yes but... there is a huge gulf between "I've seen it in the past" and "But in #DND games, the PCs' primary means of gathering information often is leaving one enemy alive and then torturing them. " or commenting that the system mechanics encourage it.

When I look at the social check system in DnD, the actual mechanics in the DMG, I dont see anything that say mechanically torture is superior to other forms of persuasion.

Why wouldn't persuasion or intimidate be the mechanics system used, not torture?

Part of this, I suspect, might come from a lack of C in some GMs NPC. Do their minions surrender whrn things go bad, turn and tun, bargain? Do they show the goblins adversaries as unified, perhaps surorisinglupy so, chaotic mobs willing to die for their cause?

One of the things I try to show in my games are these kinds of traits. If the enemies are fanatically loyal disciples - that is shown and stands out. If they are craven lots kept in line by force and fear, then, hey, when that new big thing is "your party" guess what happens to that loyalty to the others? If they are greedy cusses, if they are doing this for their clan or family, ambition, or a belief in conquest by the strongest, etc etc etc - these all provide hooks that cover not only actions in combat but possible openings for PCs to use.

Those mechanics fsll under the traits, flaws, etc...

And they dont dtibpve on to torture as the number one or " primary" means of getting info from dnrmies.

To me, this premise is as accurate as the similar viewpoint that " losing a fight means tpk" and for the same reasond.

It can be true in some campaigns but it's not due to the mechanics.

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.

 

[Oofta]

My simple answer has always been that I consider torture evil and I don't allow evil characters. Whether it should work in real life or the game (people will eventually tell you what they think you want to hear) is not relevant.

There are plenty of ways to intimidate someone without resorting to evil acts.