Torture Interrogations in D&D: Can it be done without Intimidate?

[ben-zayb]

What the title says, especially considering the concept of pain-threshold mechanics in D&D. Can you even "disable" someone, or make them functionally impeded, via mutilation (e.g. maiming, etc.)?. As far as I know, just like in many typical video games, only the final Hit Point is important. And not even then, what with all revival magic.

Can anyone share experiences with torture-driven interrogation IC that don't rely on Intimidate checks? Not every crook is charismatic (or good at intimidating) after all.

PS: I'd appreciate it if nobody drags other thread baggage in this discussion. Thanks in advance,

[sleepyphoenixx]

You can definitely maim someone. That's why spells like Regenerate exist. It just doesn't (usually) happen in combat.

That said, torturing someone is a skill. Just inflicting pain may be enough to break a low-level mook but for someone tougher you'll need to know what you're doing. That's what intimidate is for.
You can of course grant the torturer a circumstance bonus depending on factors like reputation, how likely the victim believes he is to survive/be rescued, etc. Torture devices already grant circumstance bonuses (BoVD).
The fact remains that most crooks really aren't that good at torture. It's a learned skill.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I agree with sleepypheonixx, with one caveat: If you're using Rich Burlew's diplomacy system, I could see obtaining information as a modified diplomacy check. The downside is that your target now despises you - I'd put them at Personal Foe or even Nemesis - but the upside is you've created some leverage for yourself, potentially increasing the Risk vs. Reward judgement. What I mean is, the torture victim may have feared some reprisal for giving you information before, but now he just wants the pain to go away.

To paraphrase from Nice Guy Eddie in Reservoir Dogs, if you torture someone enough he'll tell you he started the Chicago Fire, now that don't necessarily make it so! Luckily D&D has ways around this. Torture someone into voluntarily failing their save against Zone of Truth, double-checking that he's actually affected with a Detect Magic. If they lied and passed the save, torture more until they do voluntarily fail. Then torture them until they answer the questions you want.

[Engine]

Loss of HP still means pain. Even if victims know that that they could be healed, remove scars, grow back mutilations and so on they still feel pain when those things are inflicted upon them and willing to do something - maybe everything - to stop that pain; the drawback about inflicting pain is that the victim could say everything to stop the pain, even accusing herself of something she never did or claiming to possess knowledge she doesn't really have.

Anyway in D&D torturing someone is...inefficient at best. Zone of Truth, Detect Lies, Detect Thoughts, Charm Person, Dominate Person and so on are so much better than torturing someone and waiting until she breaks. Even if the victim has a high Will save, with enough spells she would eventually fail her save and you would have your information.

[Killer Angel]

Can anyone share experiences with torture-driven interrogation IC that don't rely on Intimidate checks? Not every crook is charismatic (or good at intimidating) after all.

With a high intimidate check, you don't even have to torture anyone. your target will be scared and will "cooperate" for fear of you.

Yeah, my only experiences with torture in games, are based excusively on role-playing. If the DM decides that the mook will break under that kind of severe interrogation, it will happen. AFAIK, there is no crunch way to deal with it.

[Piggy Knowles]

I know you said without Intimidate, but I'd probably just consider torture a circumstance bonus to Intimidate and be done with it. Not sure what an appropriate bonus is, though.

[sideswipe]

but torture is so fun. its much more fun then using magic to blink into existence what you want.

[Jeff the Green]

I'm going to lend my voice to the choir in saying that no, there's no RAW way for torture to work outside of Intimidate. I'd go further, though: there shouldn't be a way for torture to work outside of Intimidate. Torture is intimidation, just without the need to convince the victim that you'll hurt them; you already have, after all. It warrants a (sometimes hefty) circumstance bonus, but not an entirely different mechanic.

but torture is so fun. its much more fun then using magic to blink into existence what you want.

**Backs away slowly**

[3WhiteFox3]

Torture is a horribly inefficient way to interrogate. Make anyone feel enough pain and they'll tell you anything, even if they don't actually know or they'll just tell you want they think you want to hear (even if it's not true).
I actually mess with torture happy players by having the targets give false info just to stop the pain.

[Necroticplague]

Well, in dnd, the rules for torture are in the BOVD, simple, and direct; every hour, deal damage based on what you use, then make an intimidate check with a bonus, also based on what you use. They oppose with a will save to stop from saying something, though they're free to lie, an which case its their bluff vs. your sense motive (which you take a sizable penalty to).

That being said, I'd also offer up a slightly different rout; using Dimplomacy instead of Intimidate. Way I see it, once you start flaying the dude, you have two options to convince him to talk; either "Keep quite, and this will get much worse", which should use Intimidate, or "tell me what I want, and I can make this stop", which should use Diplomacy. After all, if they think you're going to kill them either way, they have no reason to not clam up.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Anyway in D&D torturing someone is...inefficient at best. Zone of Truth, Detect Lies, Detect Thoughts, Charm Person, Dominate Person and so on are so much better than torturing someone and waiting until she breaks. Even if the victim has a high Will save, with enough spells she would eventually fail her save and you would have your information.

Like I said above, torture complements magical methods well, given that you can force someone to stop resisting the spell/making saves. You could also just conjure up some relevant poisons, but again, it's all complementary.

[sleepyphoenixx]

There's also the fact that not everyone has magic, or at least not sufficient magic. A gang of street thugs probably won't have anything besides torture to fall back on when they need to get information from someone.
And then there's people like the followers of Loviatar, who use torture because they enjoy it and it's part of their faith.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Anyway in D&D torturing someone is...inefficient at best.

It's not that effective in real life, either.

[Azoth]

Its effectiveness varries depending on method used and time available. If you rush it or aim for just painful things, then yes it is highly ineffective. You will get what you want to hear or nothing useful.

If on the otherhand you have time to spare and mix in a fair amount of mental trauma, sensory deprivation/manipulation, and physical damage in just the right amounts...

In all honesty torture is a bit like art. It takes a skilled hand, visioned mind, and appropriate application of multiple techniques to yield anything of quality.

**I do not advocate or condone the use of torture or its other manipulative family members. The previous statement was merely an opinion on its applicative processes.**

[OldTrees1]

Once a Dread Necromancer decided to take someone with information and do the following.
1) Told the restrained prisoner: "I do not have any leads that require my attention elsewhere."
2) Put his hand on the prisoner's shoulder and let loose a "trickle" of negative and positive energy (continuous inflicting and curing of wounds).
3) Wait until something changed

In a way this is a Diplomacy check, although that doesn't really matter. What matters is the prisoner wants the situation to stop, knows the only thing that can stop it, and has the ability to cause that thing(a lie would be a temporary relief, the truth would be a permanent relief).

[sideswipe]

Once a Dread Necromancer decided to take someone with information and do the following.
1) Told the restrained prisoner: "I do not have any leads that require my attention elsewhere."
2) Put his hand on the prisoner's shoulder and let loose a "trickle" of negative and positive energy (continuous inflicting and curing of wounds).
3) Wait until something changed

In a way this is a Diplomacy check, although that doesn't really matter. What matters is the prisoner wants the situation to stop, knows the only thing that can stop it, and has the ability to cause that thing(a lie would be a temporary relief, the truth would be a permanent relief).

i love using this trick. but to explicitly state i never tell the prisoner what i want from them. just torture until they spill a bunch of stuff. if they ask i just ignore them. basicly pretend that i am doing it for enjoyment and no other reason. and if they tell me what i want to hear i will keep going until they say something completely unrelated. then stop there. they then think that is what i was waiting for. if they are actively trying to keep a specific fact from you then they could lie about it and they would be more resigned to give it. try to give it in part E.t.c. you get the picture.
if you just pretend you want to hear nothing it gives them nothing to grip to or bargain with.

not that i actively think about such things....

note - i only do this when i play evil characters. i prefer good or neutral usually.

[Tengu_temp]

Torture is a horribly inefficient way to interrogate. Make anyone feel enough pain and they'll tell you anything, even if they don't actually know or they'll just tell you want they think you want to hear (even if it's not true).
I actually mess with torture happy players by having the targets give false info just to stop the pain.

This is true. That's why you need Intimidate, Bluff or Diplomacy to interrogate a prisoner - torture is simply an inefficient way to do it, and the information you obtain this way is most likely false.

The fact that torture is generally evil goes without saying.

[DeltaEmil]

Especially since mind-reading or charm/domination/compulstion abilities exist.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

This is true. That's why you need Intimidate, Bluff or Diplomacy to interrogate a prisoner - torture is simply an inefficient way to do it, and the information you obtain this way is most likely false.

The fact that torture is generally evil goes without saying.

Especially since mind-reading or charm/domination/compulstion abilities exist.

Again:

Like I said above, torture complements magical methods well, given that you can force someone to stop resisting the spell/making saves. You could also just conjure up some relevant poisons, but again, it's all complementary.

There are plenty of reasons not to use torture, including...
You're not that kind of evil character,
You want a workable relationship with the prisoner later
Your magical trick is guaranteed to work anyway (spamming warlock charm person until they fail the save, taint-pumped save DCs, saving throws destroyed by poisons/curses etc)

But the primary downside of torture for a willing practitioner, that the subject will basically say anything, is negated in D&D.

[TandemChelipeds]

Couldn't you make a Heal check? That's how I'd rule it as a DM, anyway.

[Psyren]

Can anyone share experiences with torture-driven interrogation IC that don't rely on Intimidate checks? Not every crook is charismatic (or good at intimidating) after all.

Charisma is actually not very relevant at all. For starters, skill ranks provide a much bigger overall bonus to checks than the ability modifier, and second, the amount of pain or damage you inflict would almost certainly translate into a circumstance bonus.

Even the archetype of the hulking castle torturer, who had his tongue ripped out years ago to keep state secrets and is a heavily scarred, taciturn and brutal man whose only remaining source of pleasure comes from his grim work, would be a phenomenal torturer despite lacking even an ounce of charisma.

[Raven777]

There's third party material for using the Heal skill for torture. It can be found here. To torture someone, you roll against a DC 15 Heal check.

Over the course of an hour, you can torture a victim with intent to subdue or kill. If the Heal check is successful, you cause nonlethal damage or lethal damage (your choice) equal to the victim’s experience level (or number of hit dice for targets without class levels). Note that the results of this skill do not guarantee answers if you are torturing a subject in order to gain knowledge he might have; the subject of torture can always decide to divulge such knowledge if he wishes to avoid more pain and suffering. Against NPCs, assume that with each hour of torture, they must make a Will saving throw against the result of that hour’s Heal check (modified by a cumulative –1 morale penalty to the check for each hour the torture has continued) to avoid breaking under the pressure and answering your questions. Even then, results are not guaranteed. A particularly crafty or brave victim might try to Bluff an answer and give false information; use this method if the torture victim actually does not know the information you are seeking and is trying to just make something up to stop the pain.

Like in real life, it appears torture ain't really a good way to get actually truthful answers. Victims can just make stuff up forever until you get bored, believe them or they die. Personally I would amend the rules so that a failed save really means the victim gives in and answer to the best of its ability. Might also want to add a zone of truth on top of the room, should make things foolproof in case they succeed on the save and try to get clever.

[StreamOfTheSky]

{Scrubbed}

[Divide by Zero]

Charisma is actually not very relevant at all. For starters, skill ranks provide a much bigger overall bonus to checks than the ability modifier, and second, the amount of pain or damage you inflict would almost certainly translate into a circumstance bonus.

Even the archetype of the hulking castle torturer, who had his tongue ripped out years ago to keep state secrets and is a heavily scarred, taciturn and brutal man whose only remaining source of pleasure comes from his grim work, would be a phenomenal torturer despite lacking even an ounce of charisma.

Also keep in mind that Charisma isn't always about being pretty and likeable. It's also presence and force of personality. Competent torturers tend to be scary before they even start, they're the kind of person you know means business.

[Engine]

Like I said above, torture complements magical methods well, given that you can force someone to stop resisting the spell/making saves. You could also just conjure up some relevant poisons, but again, it's all complementary.

Let me explain: would torture in a setting with magic being common (like Forgotten Relams, Golarion, Eberron and so on) exist at all? I mean as an organized practice with specific techniques.
A low-level caster could cast Charm Person multiple times in a day, why waste hours in inflicting pain on someone with an array of costly instruments, just to have the caster use a spell at the end? Seems more efficient to just cast those spells and wait for the victim to fail her save. Of course if an organization is capable of capturing and detaining a high-level individual seems reasonable to assume it has access to high-level casters.

IMHO torture would be used by sadists or organizations without any access to magic (so less influential and capable), seems unlikely they would codify techniques that others would use.

[ben-zayb]

Hmm... plenty of responses that seem to have more or less similar ideas. Using circumstance bonus to Intimidate could make intimidating work. The problem I initially had was that not everyone has either Charisma bump or Intimidate as a class skill.

Well, in dnd, the rules for torture are in the BOVD, simple, and direct; every hour, deal damage based on what you use, then make an intimidate check with a bonus, also based on what you use. They oppose with a will save to stop from saying something, though they're free to lie, an which case its their bluff vs. your sense motive (which you take a sizable penalty to).

Ah, so there's a (3.0) RAW method after all, and it's even somehow similar to the house-rules discussed.

As for the magic use for discussion, it's been pointed out that not everyone has access to them in the first place. And while torturing people for information may not actually be that effective, there's the fact that not everyone in D&D has enough wisdom to spare in order to figure that out.

[Raven777]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

You're bringing real life baggage in my game mechanics, Stream.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Let me explain: would torture in a setting with magic being common (like Forgotten Relams, Golarion, Eberron and so on) exist at all? I mean as an organized practice with specific techniques.
A low-level caster could cast Charm Person multiple times in a day, why waste hours in inflicting pain on someone with an array of costly instruments, just to have the caster use a spell at the end? Seems more efficient to just cast those spells and wait for the victim to fail her save. Of course if an organization is capable of capturing and detaining a high-level individual seems reasonable to assume it has access to high-level casters.

IMHO torture would be used by sadists or organizations without any access to magic (so less influential and capable), seems unlikely they would codify techniques that others would use.

It doesn't just exist, it's part of a faith. Loviatar is the (FR) goddess of pain, suffering and torture. Faiths & Pantheons has some details on what worshipping her entails. It's not pretty.

People also seem to forget that getting information is hardly the only reason people use torture. Sowing fear, intimidating people who might otherwise oppose you, punishing dissenters and traitors, getting people to admit to a crime (no matter if they're guilty or not), entertainment... there's many reasons torture is and has been used. Few of them require the extraction of accurate information.

[Segev]

People say "torture doesn't get the truth" an awful lot. But I think they're wrong. Torture does work. It works so well that humans do it to each other from grade school on up, unless made to stop. Bullying is a form of torture, and/or utilizes torture as part of its process. The thing about it is, it's not the one-time answer you're after. It may, occasionally, be the one-time compliance, if compliance can be easily and swiftly verified, but when it's information that cannot be swiftly or easily verified you're after, your goal isn't to torture them into giving you that one piece of information.

You goal is breaking them. Destroying their will to resist. Making them so afraid of it continuing when you come back for them that they'll comply and give the truth, no matter how unlikely it is you'll actually find out. Break them, convince them that you will find out, and that they will never escape. Any thought they might have that they have escaped is illusion, which only makes their capture all the more painful later.

This is how bullies trap people into cooperating with their own torment. They have broken them into believing that their only option is to go along with it, to willingly participate, lest worse, more horrible things be done to them. Boy bullies (traditionally) do this overtly, with arm-twisting and beating people up for defying them. Girl bullies (traditionally) are more...social about it, wielding public opinion and humiliation pranks. Both sexes can (and do) use either tactic, obviously, but the tactics are more commonly used in the majority as outlined.

But either way, the bullied one is broken by the torment and fear to the point that he will do what he is told, even if it is humiliating, painful, and miserable. They will come when called, even if being in the presence of their bully terrifies them, because they "know" that refusing will only make it worse.

Torture done to gather information is the same way. If they still lie to you, they're not broken. It's hard to tell when somebody's broken, but there are (doubtless) ways. Some of the ones I've seen in fiction (obviously, I've never had real-life experience with this) include asking questions to which you know the answer mixed in with questions to which you don't, and simply telling them that the torture stops when their information first pans out, and that it starts again the first time something happens we even think he might have known about and didn't divulge.

But the saying that torture doesn't work is only true if your goal is one-time information that you cannot quickly and easily verify.

[Telonius]

Under certain circumstances I might allow a Perform check in place of an Intimidate check.



"It's a small world, after all ... "


EDIT: Also, to the "disabling through maiming" part of the question. There's a "Freezing the Lifeblood" feat from Complete Warrior that allows you to use a Stunning Fist attack to temporarily paralyze a foe. "Pressure Point Strike" from Dragon 336 does similar. Flensing Strike (feat from Eberron) wracks your foe with pain for a long time, giving them penalties to several rolls. It's delivered through a Kama.

(Huh. Apparently Monks are good torturers. Who knew?)

The Wrack spell from Complete Divine makes an opponent helpless for a short duration, doubled over from pain.