Aggressive Interrogations

[Jerrykhor]

I'm sure this scenario happens pretty often: The party defeats the orc/goblin gang, leaving one alive for questioning. Almost every time, I see people going full 'bad cop' on the target. Nobody ever plays the good cop. The aggression gets worse and worse, eventually it leads to torture, maiming, threats, knocking it unconscious and reviving it over and over, etc. But the target still refuses to talk. Or at least, refuses to say anything useful.

What people do not realize is that, torture does not really work as an interrogation method. When it becomes clear that the target does not care how many fingers it loses, how many eyeballs been poked out, its time to stop. Even if you can make the creature talk, you won't know if its the truth. You might think torture works on cowardly people, but they might just tell you things you want to hear, they might be misinformed, or brainwashed, or.... You get the idea.

Its very hard to convince people that torture does not work, when most popular media portray it has a badass way to obtain information.
I tried telling a party member, but he just said, "This is not real life". Well that actually makes it worse. There might be magic involved, weird creatures that you don't understand, all of which opens up a lot more reasons why it won't work.

Does torture happen often in your games?

[HappyDaze]

What people do not realize is that, torture does not really work as an interrogation method. ?

Maybe it does in the worlds of D&D. They don't necessarily follow the same rules as real life, and in many cinematic creations, torture works. Still, I just go with using a Charisma (Intimidate) to see how much you get and a Wisdom (Insight) check to see how much you get from that. The details are not something we dwell on.

[chainer1216]

In my near 20 years of DnDing my groups have resorted to torture all of once, and it was an evil PC.

[Boci]

What people do not realize is that, torture does not really work as an interrogation method.

Torture totally works as an interrogation method, that's why its used even today. It can be unreliable, but not form of interrogation is 100%. Fostering bonds and bargaining is more reliable, but its also more time consuming. Torture is quick and easy, and whilst it won't always work, it often will. DM's often have unrealistic assumptions on how much their NPCs can take. Yes some exceptional indeviduals have kept their lips shut through a lot, but they are the exception.

If you don't want torture, its better to tell your players that than artificially insisting every NPC mook is either too tough or too cowardly for it to work.


Does torture happen often in your games?

I tend to run darker games, but it still doesn't come up too often. One group I had use to joke about it a lot, but it very rarely actually happened.

[Lvl45DM!]

I'm sure this scenario happens pretty often: The party defeats the orc/goblin gang, leaving one alive for questioning. Almost every time, I see people going full 'bad cop' on the target. Nobody ever plays the good cop. The aggression gets worse and worse, eventually it leads to torture, maiming, threats, knocking it unconscious and reviving it over and over, etc. But the target still refuses to talk. Or at least, refuses to say anything useful.

What people do not realize is that, torture does not really work as an interrogation method. When it becomes clear that the target does not care how many fingers it loses, how many eyeballs been poked out, its time to stop. Even if you can make the creature talk, you won't know if its the truth. You might think torture works on cowardly people, but they might just tell you things you want to hear, they might be misinformed, or brainwashed, or.... You get the idea.

Its very hard to convince people that torture does not work, when most popular media portray it has a badass way to obtain information.
I tried telling a party member, but he just said, "This is not real life". Well that actually makes it worse. There might be magic involved, weird creatures that you don't understand, all of which opens up a lot more reasons why it won't work.

Does torture happen often in your games?

If youre the DM just have your NPCs cheerfully lie to the characters when they start torturing

[Drascin]

...I have seen torture used all of once, and it was by an extremely evil druid PC in an explicitly evil party. Most players I've been with would go full PVP on someone who tried to use torture.

People generally do intimidate a bit, but it's often a lot more on the "look, we just kicked your ass and didn't break a sweat, and we can repeat it with the rest of your group. We would prefer to not have to kill a pile of you, but we will if you force our hand, so how about we cut to the ending and you just give us what we need and we let you go" side of the spectrum, more bad cop than torturer.

[Addaran]

Torture totally works as an interrogation method, that's why its used even today. It can be unreliable, but not form of interrogation is 100%. Fostering bonds and bargaining is more reliable, but its also more time consuming. Torture is quick and easy, and whilst it won't always work, it often will. DM's often have unrealistic assumptions on how much their NPCs can take. Yes some exceptional indeviduals have kept their lips shut through a lot, but they are the exception.


The thing torture doesn't work for is admitting guilt. Because 99% of the people will admit to doing something just so the torture stop.

Torture works if you want something very specific the person knows. Like where they hid the corpse of the victim. That's why it often works in movies.

If you don't have a way to quickly confirm the information though, it's hard to know when the person is lying or telling the truth. If the person tortured tells the truth but the torture continue, they'll tell lies that they think you want to hear.

edit: Most of all, in a game where Gods exist and give powers, followers could easily be seeing resisting torture. In real world, some resist just on blind faith. If you actually get powers from your God, you know caving in might lose you your paradise.

[Boci]

The thing torture doesn't work for is admitting guilt. Because 99% of the people will admit to doing something just so the torture stop.

Yes, and admitting guilt is usually not why PCs are using torture for. They typically aren't the police.

[Lavaeolus]

I haven't personally had to deal with PCs resorting to torture beyond idle threats. I admit that if it ever did and it got to actual dismemberment or using healing to sustain torture I would probably start balking, however. I don't mind darker characters or even outright Evil characters, but specific, methodical torture by players would probably be far out of tone with most campaigns I run.

That said, if it began occuring regularly I'd probably handle it in one of three ways:

1) Misinformation. Congrats, he talked! The treasure is hidden in the great cave of Torech Ungol (https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Shelob%27s_lair). It's a bit of a labyrinth but otherwise perfectly safe, so here's a detailed set of instructions to help guide you through it! Depending on what the PCs ask and what situation they're in, this may or may not be viable, but an adventurer is unlikely to be walking around with free access to a holding facility. That is, even if they don't fall for an obvious trap, if they have to stop to verify something they'll be faced with a choice of what to do with their captee. Which semi-ties into...

2) Consequences. Truth magic might undercut the last option, but it's hard to go around torturing people without making a few enemies. If you leave them alive, congrats, you left someone in play with a specific grudge against you who may ambush you, work against you, or simply tell everyone the truth that, hey, you tortured them. If you kill them, great, you've started killing prisoners and if the truth gets out that'll have even more backlash. Enemies won't want to surrender, and Good characters will be heavily predisposed against you. Hell, torture people closer to civilisation and you might just find yourself facing jailtime. Or execution.

Consequences can also be more abstract, of course. I usually don't like wading in to correct alignment, especially in 5e where it's not really relevant to many mechanical rulings, but if you're walking around lopping fingers off prisoners and claiming to be Good, you can go right ahead and cross that out on your sheet. If you're a Life Cleric who's using healing mainly to torture people, meanwhile -- I'm sorry, who did you say your god was again? Coughcough, keep-doing-this-and-there-will-be-divine-backlash, ahemahem.

Then again, players might get antsy if it feels like the world is being bent to morally condemn their actions. If neither of these are practical or conductive to a fun game, there's always...

3) "Can we talk out of game a second?" Like I said, I really would be a little uncomfortable DMing a game where people are graphically torturing people. So ideally it should be possible for me to cough politely, and then just say that directly. We're all friends, here to have a good time, right? Sorry if that interferes with the character you want to play, but could we please tone down the torture a bit? If their answer really is just "no, get used to it", this probably is the end of me DMing for them.

[Galithar]

It happened once in a campaign of mine. The NPC was clearly not going to give any information and they continued. Eventually a PC that had left the room at the start of the torture (in character, still sitting at the table IRL) walked back into the room and mercy killed him. I was about 30 seconds away from DM Fiat killing him anyways. I let it go on the length I did because it wasn't someone trying to play out some messed up fantasy, it was actual in character role-playing and character development. They got no information from him, but the party got more information about their peaceful fun loving Monk.

[EggKookoo]

I tend to run alignment-agnostic games for the most part. Meaning unless a player really wants to run their character with a particular alignment, I assume they're essentially neutral. But if they began showing repeated cruelty without much by way of remorse, I might consider making them evil. NPCs that can perceive alignment will start to notice. So far this kind of thing hasn't happened, and my players are often good to the point of trying to avoid initiating combat whenever possible (makes it a challenge to plan encounters).

[Eldariel]

Torture totally works as an interrogation method, that's why its used even today. It can be unreliable, but not form of interrogation is 100%. Fostering bonds and bargaining is more reliable, but its also more time consuming. Torture is quick and easy, and whilst it won't always work, it often will. DM's often have unrealistic assumptions on how much their NPCs can take. Yes some exceptional indeviduals have kept their lips shut through a lot, but they are the exception.

If you don't want torture, its better to tell your players that than artificially insisting every NPC mook is either too tough or too cowardly for it to work.

The primary issue with torture isn't that people keep their lips shut, it's that they'll tell you whatever they think you want to know to make it stop regardless of whether that has anything to do with reality. It's a crapshot whether you get anything that has anything to do with reality that way.

That is to say, regardless of whether they have the right perpetrator or not, they'll tell them they hid something somewhere or something along those lines. They must first be positive of what exactly they want to fish out and that the target knows it before torture has any practical value (and at that point, simple Detect Thoughts and reading their mind while you question them is likely to get things done much more quickly).

[Boci]

The primary issue with torture isn't that people keep their lips shut, it's that they'll tell you whatever they think you want to know to make it stop regardless of whether that has anything to do with reality. It's a crapshot whether you get anything that has anything to do with reality that way.

Why is it a crapshot? No insight roll? Seems like that would apply. Plus, Pcs can generally be quite certain that the enemy they've captured knows something, and "anything to make the pain stop" will include the information the PCs are after. The margin of error is way to large for a society, but PCs aren't a society.

My point is, if you don't want torture, ask your players, OOC, not to use it. IC solution are almost always way to harsh, and shouldn't be used because its bad DMing.

[EggKookoo]

The primary issue with torture isn't that people keep their lips shut, it's that they'll tell you whatever they think you want to know to make it stop regardless of whether that has anything to do with reality. It's a crapshot whether you get anything that has anything to do with reality that way.

Yes and no. If you're trying to find out where someone hid the MacGuffin, there's a good chance torture will get you that location. Especially if the victim remains in your control and is aware that you'll just come back and resume torturing if they lied. There's a strong incentive for them to tell you the actual truth. Lying about it is essentially defying the torturer, which really just earns more torture.

On the other hand, if your goal is to get a confession, you'll get that regardless if it's warranted, because there's not really a strong chance of followup punishment if the victim is lying about being responsible. It all depends on specifics but I mean in most cases.

Torture is very good at getting a victim to do whatever they need to do to make the torture stop.

[Sparky McDibben]

The number of people posting about how torture definitely works is making me nervous about some of y'all...

[Boci]

The number of people posting about how torture definitely works is making me nervous about some of y'all...

We're just pointing out that the practical concerns of tourture are a poor way to disinsentivize PCs from doing so. If you don't want them to, asking OOC is better.

[EggKookoo]

The number of people posting about how torture definitely works is making me nervous about some of y'all...

https://i.chzbgr.com/original/1665425664/h97A49856/cheezburger-image-1665425664

[Zarrgon]

Does torture happen often in your games?

All too often, if I was to allow it.

Though this is why I run a strict Good vs Evil game. There is no gray in my game world.

[Cerefel]

Professional wisdom is that torture doesn't work, broadly speaking. The two most important parts of getting a subject to cooperate in answering questions are building rapport and building up authority over the subject. Torture can sometimes do the latter, but it removes any hope of the former. Essentially the subject of your interrogation is going to dislike you so strongly to the point where they will often refuse to cooperate even if doing so would be beneficial to them. They will literally lie just to spite you.

Because of this, not many techniques involve torture though there are exceptions. Don't get me wrong though, the less friendly coercive interrogation techniques tend to be incredibly traumatic, it's just that very few of them include physical harm.



Sidenote: I am not a professional interrogator, but I have read instructional manuals on interrogation technique that were written by and for professionals.

[Boci]

Sidenote: I am not a professional interrogator, but I have read instructional manuals on interrogation technique that were written by and for professionals.

For professionals. Career interrogators, with a lot of time and other resources to get the intellgience they are after, and who are part of a society with ethics and expectation and who also need to concern themselves with national and international reputation.

Generally none of those assumptions apply to PCs.

[Cerefel]

For professionals. Career interrogators, with a lot of time and other resources to get the intellgience they are after, and who are part of a society with ethics and expectation and who also need to concern themselves with national and international reputation.

Generally none of those assumptions apply to PCs.

These were not manuals for police, they were manuals for intelligence agencies. They very much did include at least one technique that requires torture, and several that would cause lasting psychological damage (the book also had a chapter on the use of psychoactive drugs, fun fact). The problem is that torture is a niche tool that is counterproductive outside of a very limited set of techniques.

One technique the book does describe as being useful is telling the subject that you are going to punish them for wrong or "I don't know" answers, and then deliberately start by asking questions to which the subject doesn't know the answer. After doing so several times, you switch to throwing in questions that they DO know the answers to, and they'll basically jump at the chance to answer them in good faith.

[JakOfAllTirades]

The number of people posting about how torture definitely works is making me nervous about some of y'all...

{scrubbed}

[Boci]

These were not manuals for police, they were manuals for intelligence agencies.

I didn't say police. Intelligence agencies are still part of a society, and their action can, and do, have negative consequences for the country they are working for.


{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

So saying, "If you don't want torture in your games, tell the players that. Trying to make it not worth their while via ingame practicalities is probably not the best choice" make me sick? Interesting theory.

[Cerefel]

I didn't say police. Intelligence agencies are still part of a society, and their action can, and do, have negative consequences for the country they are working for.

For one thing, that's not super relevant. That didn't stop anyone from talking about doing awful things during interrogations for the purposes of information gathering.

For another, consequences tend to be pretty scarce when everything you do is classified for like 50+ years and your government has a vested interest in keeping you in the field if you're getting results.

Long story short, there's little reason to believe they said torture was ineffective for the sake of self-censorship, rather than as an actual professional opinion

[Boci]

Long story short, there's little reason to believe they said torture was ineffective for the sake of self-censorship, rather than as an actual professional opinion

It's not neccissarily self-cencorship,just that how ever murky and unreliable, intelligence agencies answer to someone. PCs don't. They don't have official superiors, and there's little international bodies of law in most most D*D settings. That is a big difference, and its only one of three I listed.

But more importantly, if a D&D doesn't want PCs using torture, surely using practical considerations is a terrible idea. It means they have to go through another 2-3 torture scenes before the players realize this won't work. Isn't an OOC "No torture" rule much, much better?

[Galithar]

It's not neccissarily self-cencorship,just that how ever murky and unreliable, intelligence agencies answer to someone. PCs don't. They don't have official superiors, and there's little international bodies of law in most most D*D settings. That is a big difference, and its only one of three I listed.

But more importantly, if a D&D doesn't want PCs using torture, surely using practical considerations is a terrible idea. It means they have to go through another 2-3 torture scenes before the players realize this won't work. Isn't an OOC "No torture" rule much, much better?

Sometimes coupling that with a "this doesn't really work anyways, in real life they have other methods of getting information" might help spur them to try a different, less aggressive and uncomfortable method.

[Boci]

Sometimes coupling that with a "this doesn't really work anyways, in real life they have other methods of getting information" might help spur them to try a different, less aggressive and uncomfortable method.

You really shouldn't need anything more than "No torture, it makes me uncomfortable". Like, if the DM needs more than that as justification, that's a problem.

[Cerefel]

But more importantly, if a D&D doesn't want PCs using torture, surely using practical considerations is a terrible idea. It means they have to go through another 2-3 torture scenes before the players realize this won't work. Isn't an OOC "No torture" rule much, much better?

At no point was I trying to say you shouldn't talk with your group about behavior that makes you uncomfortable, I'm here to correct the assumption that torture is useful in anything other than niche circumstances. If your group is doing something that bothers you, you should definitely bring it up and have a chat about it.


For players here who want to know how to run a quick-and-dirty interrogation, basically just convince your subject that it is in their best interest to help you, whether that's by paying them off, protecting them from the boss/organization they're flipping on, or even just the promise of their freedom. Doing it quick basically just amounts to some simple carrot and stick stuff. Also, be polite! Feel free to be threatening or whatever at the same time, but being a d*ck isn't going to make people want to give you what you want.

[Segev]

In my Tomb of Annihilation game, the Chaotic Good Half-Orc Zealot Barbarian is a recovering Gruumsh worshipper. (She now worships Kubazan. Very enthusiastically.) She is always the bad cop, and really wants to rough up enemies, to the point that she has to be reminded, "a little less chaotic, a little more good" reguarly. In character, by the other PCs. She is definitely the first to resort to aggressive interrogation. But it's mostly threats and things like grabbing them by the collar and hoisting them to her eye level, not actually chopping them up.

Still, it has actually backfired a few times, because a creature who was willing to talk became scared to do so, and the others had to pull her back and calm it down. Once, recently, they managed to capture one of a group of mephits that were harassing them. Bullied information about the location of a treasure trove from it. Let it go when it proved not to have been lying. Thing was? Leading them to the trove was the mephits' whole goal all along. They were just being mean to the brass dragon who owned it. The mephit immediately went and told the brass dragon his hoard had been stolen.


Frankly, if you're uncomfortable with torture, and your party is going to do it? Either talk to them OOC, or have the monsters give in early. Is there a reason you do NOT want them to have the information? Alternately, have the monsters (they're evil and/or chaotic, right?) ask for a bribe to tell.

[Boci]

At no point was I trying to say you shouldn't talk with your group about behavior that makes you uncomfortable, I'm here to correct the assumption that torture is useful in anything other than niche circumstances.

Yes, and PCs will be over represented in those niche circumstances. They kinda thrive in them.


For players here who want to know how to run a quick-and-dirty interrogation, basically just convince your subject that it is in their best interest to help you, whether that's by paying them off, protecting them from the boss/organization they're flipping on, or even just the promise of their freedom. Doing it quick basically just amounts to some simple carrot and stick stuff. Also, be polite! Feel free to be threatening or whatever at the same time, but being a d*ck isn't going to make people want to give you what you want.

Sure, but in a role-playing game where everyone is okay IC torture, the character's need to know that too, and a lot of them won't.

[Cerefel]

Yes, and PCs will be over represented in those niche circumstances. They kinda thrive in them.

the niche of being under intense time pressure and having no idea what you're doing is, like, the exact opposite of what you need for torture to be a tool worth using. Also under most of the circumstances where torture is effective, other techniques are more so

[Pex]

It's partially the DM's fault, but I don't mean it maliciously. Players questioning the prisoner want to know everything, and the DM doesn't want to spoil what comes next. The players want to know where the mcguffin/bbeg is, how many bad guys to fight, where they are, what they can do, and it all be truthful. The DM doesn't want to give the information because it ruins the mystery or surprise he has and at the base it feels like the players are trying to get away with something, to be given everything with no effort. If the prisoner is a mook the DM has the excuse of he doesn't know anything. If it's the BBEG or Lieutenant of the fight the prisoner refuses to cooperate. Out of frustration players stop asking nicely and resort to spell use to compel answers or for those inclined, torture. If this happens often enough it becomes default behavior.

The DM is not wrong in not wanting to give away everything, but he has to learn that doesn't mean give away nothing. Have interrogations work to some degree, and sometimes PCs will even let the prisoner live unharmed.

[Segev]

the niche of being under intense time pressure and having no idea what you're doing is, like, the exact opposite of what you need for torture to be a tool worth using. Also under most of the circumstances where torture is effective, other techniques are more so

"...and having no idea what you're doing" may be what leads to torture-as-the-default, no matter how ineffective. Think about it: how do, for example, thugs get what they want? They pull out weapons, they physically intimidate, and demand that it be handed over. It's quick, it's dirty, but it's fairly effective, or muggings wouldn't be a thing.

What does a thug do, however, if the mugging victim says, "No?" He first ramps up the intimidation, but then gets physical if that doesn't work. He'll kick or punch. He might stab. He'll hold the knife to delicate body parts, if he's feeling creative. Eventually, refusing to be mugged will get you, at best, beaten up, and at worst, dead. (Unless, of course, you're the monster and they're the unfortunates mugging you to show how awesome you are.)

Now, the PCs are essentially mugging the guy they've captured. They need something he has (information), and they want to get it out of him quickly. They are probably hyped up on adranline after the fight, and likely don't like this guy nor want to reward him. Letting him live feels like a thing they're "giving" him, after the way he and his buddies tried to kill them.

They likely open with threats and demands for the info they need/want. If the prisoner balks, or worse, scoffs or mocks them, they get angrier, and when angry, they want to punish. So they ramp up the threats, and if the prisoner keeps defying them, eventually they're at a point where they have to admit their bluff's been called, or prove it wasn't a bluff.

Again, if they don't know what they're doing, they're not going to know more sophisticated tactics.

And this is why it can devolve to that point: they don't now what they're doing, they're angry and hurried, and the prisoner is provoking them with his obstinance. (And, DMs? Be honest: how often do you have the prisoners mouthing off and acting like they have all the power in the situation? I know I have a GM who would not have any of her NPCs put up with a tenth of what her NPCs do when they're in our party's power, but is aghast and shocked if we ratchet up the screws on them, let alone just kill them.)

[Anymage]

For professionals. Career interrogators, with a lot of time and other resources to get the intellgience they are after, and who are part of a society with ethics and expectation and who also need to concern themselves with national and international reputation.

Generally none of those assumptions apply to PCs.

Realistically speaking, you have two cases:

The character knows little to nothing of strategic value. You can get what they know by causing them pain, but they're likely to fold long before that point. Orc grunts might tell where their camp is with some light roughing up (like grabbing them by the collar and slamming them against the wall), but can't tell the password to the fortress because they don't know it. If you press, you'll get bad information because they don't have options other than making things up and hoping it's what you want to hear.

The character does have access to important confidential information. The big boss's lieutenant will know all the passwords and organizational charts, but is much more likely to be fanatically loyal. (And in the real world, much more likely to have training in resisting interrogation, and cover stories to send any captors on wild goose chases if they do get caught.) On top of that, anyone important enough to have a decent security clearance is also likely to be noticed if they go absent, and countermeasures will be taken. Again, if you grab the lieutenant, they're likely to give fake passwords that will give you away the moment you use them, and the passwords are likely to be changed soon after it's noticed that the lieutenant is missing and assumed compromised.

In-game, it's okay if the guy who likes playing bad cop is a little rough. Might not be the best tool in the real world, but narrative license can stretch that far. When it gets to graphic torture, then I agree that simply asking people to knock it off is helpful, but highlighting why torture is counterproductive will probably have more impact against the sort of person who thinks that in-game torture is effective in the first place.

[KOLE]

Sidenote: I am not a professional interrogator, but I have read instructional manuals on interrogation technique that were written by and for professionals.

*Quietly adds Cerefel to my "Do Not Mess With" list*

[Boci]

Realistically speaking, you have two cases:

I disagree. Ideally sure, but sometimes there will be weak links in a chain. A person will have important, confidential information will not be fanatically loyal with training to resist interrogation. Sometimes you won't even need to ask them, because they've got the improtant notes on them because they wrote it down not wanting to forget. Yes, that has actually happened in real life.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: I would recommend giving real-world examples or references a wide berth; discussion hasn't gone political yet, but it very easily can, and that will very likely get the thread closed permanently. Also, please remain civil.

[Jerrykhor]

Maybe it does in the worlds of D&D. They don't necessarily follow the same rules as real life, and in many cinematic creations, torture works. Still, I just go with using a Charisma (Intimidate) to see how much you get and a Wisdom (Insight) check to see how much you get from that. The details are not something we dwell on.

So you've seen it used effectively? Because I have not. Most DMs don't even call for any Intimidation roll at all. It just seems like every interrogation target has no qualms about what happens to their physical body, and its too easy for them to simply not say anything, thus spells like Zone of Truth has no value.

Even if D&D is not real life, the same logic applies: The mooks dont know anything of value, they are usually overzealous and not very smart. The higher ranking guys might know more but they are strong willed and still will not cooperate no matter what you do to them. Its not hard to understand - You cannot ever make someone talk if they don't to. It seems like the requirements of being a D&D enemy is to not have any family, not have anything to lose, a willingness to fight to the death and a complete disregard for their personal wellbeing.

But here's the real kicker: You don't know the truth even if you hear it. The mook claims he don't know anything? He's lying! Torture him until he talks! Maybe that's the truth? But the thing is, torture works better if the question is a Yes/No answer. Which means, its more effective to get a confession out of the target than ask him where something is, because he can name any single one of the million different places and you have no way to verify if its true. With a Y/N answer, at least you have 50% chance of getting it right.

Or do you? Torture someone hard enough, you can probably make one confess to anything.

And i can't believe i saw someone mention 'It works, that's why its in the movies'. Because everything in the movies are always right?

[Zetakya]

I've only ever seen Evil characters resort to even suggesting torture. Indeed, even (seriously) suggesting it gets you evil points.

However, I have seen a Drow (of all characters) argue against it. Of course, it was part of a "good cop" ploy on the part of the Drow in question, so the ultimate result was roughly how you would expect (would-be tortuee ended up turned into a Drider).

[BurgerBeast]

I'm sure this scenario happens pretty often: The party defeats the orc/goblin gang, leaving one alive for questioning. Almost every time, I see people going full 'bad cop' on the target. Nobody ever plays the good cop. The aggression gets worse and worse, eventually it leads to torture, maiming, threats, knocking it unconscious and reviving it over and over, etc. But the target still refuses to talk. Or at least, refuses to say anything useful.

The only thing I find bizarre here is that the target refuses to talk. I can’t believe that anyone is capable of enduring prolonged agony without talking, and I think anyone would cave. I’m not interested in getting into gruesome details, but there are some extremely horrible things that can be done.


What people do not realize is that, torture does not really work as an interrogation method.

I’m not sure where you’re getting this information from. Torture “doesn’t work” on the sense that the victim will say anything to make it stop, that’s true. But you seem to be saying that the victim will remain tight-lipped until he dies... that’s not believable.


When it becomes clear that the target does not care how many fingers it loses, how many eyeballs been poked out, its time to stop.

Agreed. But again, I don’t believe that such a target exists.


Even if you can make the creature talk, you won't know if its the truth. You might think torture works on cowardly people, but they might just tell you things you want to hear, they might be misinformed, or brainwashed, or.... You get the idea.

Its very hard to convince people that torture does not work, when most popular media portray it has a badass way to obtain information.

I think you are misunderstanding what is meant by the statement “torture doesn’t work.” In my opinion you are wrong about this.


I tried telling a party member, but he just said, "This is not real life". Well that actually makes it worse. There might be magic involved, weird creatures that you don't understand, all of which opens up a lot more reasons why it won't work.

You seem to be trying to tell the forum-goers, as well, and I think you’ve got it wrong, too. I think it works in real life, in the sense that the victim will talk. Given that, in a typical D&D scenario, you could just bring the victim with you when you verify the information received, and threaten to increase the pain if the information is wrong... you’re likely to figure out pretty quickly that the victim doesn’t know the answer, at least.

To be clear: if you’re saying that a victim who knows what the PCs want to know will endure pain until death without revealing it, I think you’re wrong, unless there is something fantastically exceptional going on.


Does torture happen often in your games?

No. Ironically, it happens more in campaigns in which the DM insists that it doesn’t work. In my campaigns, threatening torture will pretty much always work in the sense that you’ll either get the correct answer or a lie (which can be verified), but you can rest assured that the victim was sufficiently motivated that, had he known the correct answer, he 100% would have shared it.

As a player I probably try to use it more than my fellow players, but I take the classic fantasy trope of good versus evil seriously, so that in the fiction of the fantasy universe, inflicting pain on evil creatures is not evil. In other words, Paladins can commit mass murder and still be lawful good, which doesn’t reconcile with most modern views of morality.

I have a question for you: of torture doesn’t work in your campaigns, does intimidation work? And if intimidation does work, what exactly is the intimidated person afraid of, and how is it worse than actual torture?

[hamishspence]

I take the classic fantasy trope of good versus evil seriously, so that in the fiction of the fantasy universe, inflicting pain on evil creatures is not evil.

In the vast majority of fantasy universes IMO, torturing evil creatures is portrayed as evil behaviour - "stooping to their level".

[Jerrykhor]

The only thing I find bizarre here is that the target refuses to talk. I can’t believe that anyone is capable of enduring prolonged agony without talking, and I think anyone would cave. I’m not interested in getting into gruesome details, but there are some extremely horrible things that can be done.



I’m not sure where you’re getting this information from. Torture “doesn’t work” on the sense that the victim will say anything to make it stop, that’s true. But you seem to be saying that the victim will remain tight-lipped until he dies... that’s not believable.



Agreed. But again, I don’t believe that such a target exists.



I think you are misunderstanding what is meant by the statement “torture doesn’t work.” In my opinion you are wrong about this.



You seem to be trying to tell the forum-goers, as well, and I think you’ve got it wrong, too. I think it works in real life, in the sense that the victim will talk. Given that, in a typical D&D scenario, you could just bring the victim with you when you verify the information received, and threaten to increase the pain if the information is wrong... you’re likely to figure out pretty quickly that the victim doesn’t know the answer, at least.

To be clear: if you’re saying that a victim who knows what the PCs want to know will endure pain until death without revealing it, I think you’re wrong, unless there is something fantastically exceptional going on.



No. Ironically, it happens more in campaigns in which the DM insists that it doesn’t work. In my campaigns, threatening torture will pretty much always work in the sense that you’ll either get the correct answer or a lie (which can be verified), but you can rest assured that the victim was sufficiently motivated that, had he known the correct answer, he 100% would have shared it.

As a player I probably try to use it more than my fellow players, but I take the classic fantasy trope of good versus evil seriously, so that in the fiction of the fantasy universe, inflicting pain on evil creatures is not evil. In other words, Paladins can commit mass murder and still be lawful good, which doesn’t reconcile with most modern views of morality.

I have a question for you: of torture doesn’t work in your campaigns, does intimidation work? And if intimidation does work, what exactly is the intimidated person afraid of, and how is it worse than actual torture?

The target in this case was a hobgoblin. Like i said, in D&D there are more factors that make torture less likely to work than IRL, but i won't say its 100% impossible. I was the one who called for the interrogation in the first place.

The point of interrogation is not to get true facts, you cannot be acting on the information from the target either way. But the method of interrogation is more important. Whether pain is a good way of getting information depends on the target and what information you ask. A frail grandmother might not be too hard to coax the password to her secret safe, but if you ask a man for the location of his daughter so that you can go and rape/kill her, you bet your ass he can endure all the pain in the world.

Pain is not really a good way to make villains talk. When you apply pain, he can't talk because he's too busy screaming. When you stop, the pain subsides and he can get cocky again. Push too hard and he might go unconscious from all the pain or blood loss. He knows you won't kill him because the information will be gone with him.

You don't believe such target exists because you put yourself in the target's shoes. You think everyone is as soft as yourself. If you don't believe on the ineffectiveness of aggressive torture, you can google it up to learn about it. In D&D even more so, when there are non-human creatures who are usually stronger and tougher than humans, and probably affected by magic or some other mcguffin effect. Even in the real world, there are people so zealous and fanatic that they would rather die than give anything away.

Popular media is not a good way to learn about torture, they are usually far too humane and less gruesome that real life. The hero being tortured usually get to keep all their body parts and no lasting damage. Its silly.

[HappyDaze]

So you've seen it used effectively? Because I have not. Most DMs don't even call for any Intimidation roll at all. It just seems like every interrogation target has no qualms about what happens to their physical body, and its too easy for them to simply not say anything, thus spells like Zone of Truth has no value.


Sure have. The player(s) simply indicate they are going to interrogate the target, sometimes stating or implying that they are going to be physically rough on the target. Then an Intimidate check is rolled to see if they can 'break' the target. If that succeeds, then an Insight check is made to see how much useful information they get from the Interrogation (with the limit that the target can't specifically reveal what the target doesn't know, but sometimes little pieces come out that the target may not realize are important--yet a skilled interrogator can put them together into something useful). Spells and abilities can apply advantage/disadvantage to either or both checks as usual. If you haven't seen this work, it's probably because your table isn't really making use of the rules set before them. Keep it quick and shallow rather than diving into torture porn.

[HappyDaze]

Popular media is not a good way to learn about torture, they are usually far too humane and less gruesome that real life. The hero being tortured usually get to keep all their body parts and no lasting damage. Its silly.

I disagree here. In-game torture is likely to be much more like "popular media" torture than real life torture, just as combat in the game is likely to be too. I mean, characters fight with swords and against creatures with giant claws and bites all the time yet come away with all of their body parts and no lasting damage. One is no sillier than the other.

[Wraith]

I'm starting to feel incredibly fortunate about my RPG groups, having read this thread. While I can't say that we have never engaged in torture for whatever reason, I can at least say that my guys are at least savvy enough to remember that a) magic exists, and b) that they keep their actions strictly within the bounds of Dark Humour rather than simply indulging in violent pornography.

Magic exists, so they'll cast Zone of Truth and Charm and ask nicely. Sure, they might have the party's Goliath Barbarian standing right behind the victim, looming over him and slowly sharpening a knife with a whet-stone as a form of psychological intimidation, but generally they understand that they don't need to even touch the guy to get what they want, and a couple of spell slots isn't that big of a deal. They understand that it's more efficient than spending hours water-boarding someone for unreliable information.

As for Dark Humour.... admittedly, sometimes it gets quite dark BUT in that case the focus is always on the joke rather than on the suffering or the act itself. For example, one group force-fed something to a prisoner and then convinced him that it was a deadly, slow acting poison, and that they would only give him the antidote once he had physically shown them the combination to open a secret door and they had passed through it.
That is torture, but the role-playing aspect was about the party trying to persuade that captive that they had poisoned him when they actually hadn't, interacting in an almost comical fashion and inventing all sorts of horrible scenarios that actually never would happen, rather then spending half an hour meticulously describing the ways in which they were actually inflicting suffering on another sentient being.

So answer the OP: My groups usually don't need to resort to torture, but when they do there's an implicit understanding that it's Not Okay and that it needs to be cartoonishly inventive rather than sadistic. That way, the GM gets to actually play the game and make some 'fun' dice rolls rather than sit and listen to us act out the worst of our monstrous alter-egos.

[Skylivedk]

Disclaimer: I'm vehemently opposed to torture IRL.

I've seen torture in many campaigns. My characters have committed it themselves if it suited their alignment/(lack of) education/background. Most of my campaigns are pretty dark, so it doesn't stand out much.

To me it depends a lot on the value displayed in the setting. Are we transplanting modern day values into a high fantasy/late medieval setting, then yes, I'd say you're swimming in the deep end of the alignment pool.

Are we in a setting more akin, morally speaking, to the dark ages? Then torture is not nearly as much an indicator of evil.

In many European countries a confession wasn't valid without torture during the dark ages. I've been campaigns where they local non-evil rulers chop off hands for stealing apples... It puts water boating someone who doesn't want to share the process of stopping a demon invasion intro another perspective.

Also to add: I've some training in army intelligence in a education that used to be called Interrogation Officer. I'm not kidding. We did receive training in torture resistance, but mostly we were told that we should disclose everything: if caught, we were expected to be compromised.

[Anymage]

I disagree here. In-game torture is likely to be much more like "popular media" torture than real life torture, just as combat in the game is likely to be too. I mean, characters fight with swords and against creatures with giant claws and bites all the time yet come away with all of their body parts and no lasting damage. One is no sillier than the other.

Very few attacks in D&D explicitly call for the removal of body parts, and very few players or DMs go out of their way to find sharpness weapons. PCs violently interrogating targets quickly go to describing the removal of body parts.


I disagree. Ideally sure, but sometimes there will be weak links in a chain. A person will have important, confidential information will not be fanatically loyal with training to resist interrogation. Sometimes you won't even need to ask them, because they've got the improtant notes on them because they wrote it down not wanting to forget. Yes, that has actually happened in real life.

In the real world, a staggeringly large number of events happen. Unlikely events become probable. You rolling up a fresh character on straight 3d6 is unlikely to roll multiple 18s, but the probability that it happens to someone if everybody in the playground rolled a character is quite likely.

If we were talking about a system where "supernaturally lucky" was a trait of some sort, sure you could activate it to say that the hobgoblin mook you just captured was a courier carrying important battle plans. And if you wanted to run an infiltration adventure there would absolutely be weak points for the party to find and exploit, because finding and exploiting said weak points is how the party gets to be cool and effective. Although said weakness is more likely to be someone susceptible to blackmail/bribery/a honeypot trap, or just rifling through their private study once you can sneak in, than holding someone's family hostage or smacking them around once you get them alone.

But at this point, we're far away from the original point of the thread. Somebody being sure to be the organizational weak point doesn't mean that the specific grunt you happened to pick up is, unless you again have an explicit "supernaturally lucky" power. And while telling your players that torture is icky is a good first step, highlighting that it isn't an effective way of gathering truthful information is likely more effective against players who were unbothered enough to suggest torture in the first place.

[Segev]

But at this point, we're far away from the original point of the thread. Somebody being sure to be the organizational weak point doesn't mean that the specific grunt you happened to pick up is, unless you again have an explicit "supernaturally lucky" power. And while telling your players that torture is icky is a good first step, highlighting that it isn't an effective way of gathering truthful information is likely more effective against players who were unbothered enough to suggest torture in the first place.

The key is the difference between moralizing in a way that sounds like a Just-So story told in a Saturday afternoon special about how this or that ethos is morally right AND leads to always getting a happy ending and free ice cream...and demonstrating believable consequences.

First off, telling them OOC that it's icky and you don't want to get into it should lead to a discussion of alternate means of running it. Rolling some Intimidation and Insight checks probably should do it for most situations. If the DM is forthright about what the prisoner knows and is willing to share, or the DM has the prisoner lie effectively, it's time to move on and see if you can trust the info.

It's only likely to get into lavishly-described torture if the DM forces it. I mean, sure, you might have some player who just really, really wants to get into describing it, but if the DM cuts in to fade to black and ask for rolls and give out info, it would take a really dedicated troll (or worryingly oblivious person) to push for the description.

The second thing is, if, for whatever reason, it gets into the torture session, give the information you believe the creature would give. Truthful or otherwise. Let the PCs roll Insight to see if they buy it/the creature's telling the truth.

But if "torture doesn't work," then show them why, rather than just telling them it doesn't. But also, be aware that sitting mum while the PCs demand info will prompt them to try harder, usually. Being cocky and mouthing off only gets worse.


Muggings work, IRL, because people are afraid of being roughed up, and because the muggers can and will follow through to take what they want. Mouth off to a guy with a knife, and you're probably going to get stabbed. And then he'll rifle through your pockets.

People who are angry and making demands get angrier and more demanding when thwarted or refused. It's often precisely the least-educated who will resort to violence to get what they want - and violence to coerce IS torture. Torture in the more graphic sense is just a particularly imaginative form of violence designed to squick and evoke the most pain and fear of pain possible. Players and their characters who are less informed on things are MORE likely to resort to "tell me or I hit you. Again. Maybe harder." Like the guy being mugged, the more the target balks, the more the angry thug will escalate.

I think some DMs who are so appalled at the depths to which their players' characters will sink are guilty of provoking it by having their (pretend, not-real, fictional acceptable target) characters mouth off, mock, taunt, and otherwise act like the PCs aren't the ones in control and that they're unable to make him do anything or tell them anything. Whether out of a misplaced desire to create a sense of "challenge" (because having somebody in your power is somehow not challenging) or just because they think the evil twerp is stupid enough to be that evil, or even that they think the PCs are heroes and thus the twerp is safe...it leads to the PCs and their players feeling frustrated. So they escalate to try to set the proper tone of who, exactly, is in charge.

If the DM is whistling the "Torture doesn't work" tune to the point that he has the prisoner just keep escalating his defiance and mockery, it's not very realistic AND it provokes an escalating response until they find something that makes it STOP taunting.

While I'm sure not all DMs who have an issue with this at their table are guilty of this, it's something I feel needs to be brought up. Remember that your players respond to your actions through your NPCs. You can provoke certain responses.

Avoiding torture can be as easy as having the NPC give them what they want before it starts. It won't always be, especially for distrustful or sadistic (or both) PCs. But it can be.

[HappyDaze]

Very few attacks in D&D explicitly call for the removal of body parts, and very few players or DMs go out of their way to find sharpness weapons. PCs violently interrogating targets quickly go to describing the removal of body parts.


If you're not letting players describe that they are removing limbs as the result when they declare an attack with a greatsword, why would you allow them to describe they are removing limbs as the result when they declare they are using torture? Both attacks and torture should be equally abstracted. If there is a disconnect on this it's only because you want there to be one.

[col_impact]

It's all a blurry area in D&D.

For example, it is generally okay in game just to flat out murder an evil NPC with no holding back when oppurtunity arises. But, should you knock him unconscious, stabilize him, ask him some friendly questions, give him a cookie and THEN murder him, suddenly everyone is pulling their hair out in moral agony.

You are better off implementing good cop/ bad cop to divide captives against themselves than torture. Make sure one captive gets obvious special treatment and suddenly they are pitted against each other.

Torture is neither here nor there. It is more up to the DM's TV watching habits than anything else about whether that would work. In real life, persuasion is where it is at. Form a bond.

The best method I have found is Detect Thoughts spammed until their mind is an open book.

Either that or let them go and follow them with Locate Object on the Spidey shaped trinket you hid with Mending in their clothes. What a person does after a Catch and Release manuever can be very telling.

[BurgerBeast]

The target in this case was a hobgoblin. Like i said, in D&D there are more factors that make torture less likely to work than IRL, but i won't say its 100% impossible. I was the one who called for the interrogation in the first place.

And hobgoblins feel pain.


The point of interrogation is not to get true facts, you cannot be acting on the information from the target either way. But the method of interrogation is more important. Whether pain is a good way of getting information depends on the target and what information you ask. A frail grandmother might not be too hard to coax the password to her secret safe, but if you ask a man for the location of his daughter so that you can go and rape/kill her, you bet your ass he can endure all the pain in the world.

I don’t know where you got this idea from, but you are attributing powers to human beings that they simply do not have. History has taught that most men are capable of far worse under far less stress. I’m sure most men hope they can do what you’re claiming, but the reality is that it would be remarkable if they could.


Pain is not really a good way to make villains talk. When you apply pain, he can't talk because he's too busy screaming. When you stop, the pain subsides and he can get cocky again. Push too hard and he might go unconscious from all the pain or blood loss. He knows you won't kill him because the information will be gone with him.

And the flip side of that is that the anticipation of torture is far worse than the torture itself. It seems to me that you’re the one who has been influenced by movies wherein the protagonists an larger-than-life heroes and endure torture that no real person could.


You don't believe such target exists because you put yourself in the target's shoes. You think everyone is as soft as yourself. If you don't believe on the ineffectiveness of aggressive torture, you can google it up to learn about it. In D&D even more so, when there are non-human creatures who are usually stronger and tougher than humans, and probably affected by magic or some other mcguffin effect. Even in the real world, there are people so zealous and fanatic that they would rather die than give anything away.

No need to make it personal. There are countless examples from human history that suggest the exact opposite - that under pressure, it doesn’t take much at all to turn brother against brother.


Popular media is not a good way to learn about torture, they are usually far too humane and less gruesome that real life. The hero being tortured usually get to keep all their body parts and no lasting damage. Its silly.

Again, I’d say you’ve got it backward.

[False God]

Yes, torture happens, but for the most part, bad guys talk. They may not always know much, but since I rely on opposed checks to resolve these situations, the NPC usually fails. I do this precisely because I don't want my players to resort to every-increasingly detailed and gruesome interrogation tactics. I don't need the squick please and thank you.

So the bad guys talk. Eventually.

The average mook knows very little. "He keeps talking about The Tower!"
The average henchman knows a little more, and the checks are harder. "He says it's to the east! It'll give him great power! He just needs to convince it to fight for him!"
The average lieutenant has more detailed information, but the checks are very hard.

But the bad guys talk. Eventually. And the game moves forward.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I don't think we've gone for what would broadly be called torture, but some of the methods of interrogation that I used for one of my characters was pretty hard line.

I tend to play my characters fairly black and white, for good or bad, and they'd rather kill/release a captive than keep them held prisoner if information isn't coming quickly. It could be a consequence of my DM's playstyle - If it wasn't information given quickly (relative to table time, not necessarily in game time) there's not a whole lot you can do in game to get extra information.

Example: I once tried to interrogate a Duergar we had cornered for the location of his hideout and leaders on the floor of Undermountain that we found them. The interrogation, if you could call it that, was fairly "simple" in that the Duergar remained invisible while we had the doorway barricaded and the DM insisted that he was going to remain like that and we had to play cat and mouse with him in initiative still to capture him. Eventually I talked the DM down and he revealed himself, gave us no information and wished death on us. We killed him immediately, not wanting to risk him backstabbing us or alerting his leaders while invisible again, and I haven't really tried to "interrogate" NPC's for information since. I ask them questions, if they're not forthright I move on because pressing it seems not to accomplish much.

Kind of turned into a small rant about one of the very few things I heavily disagree with my DM on, point being: Interrogations happen at our table, torture never. In games I run it would depend entirely on the situation but I don't think I'm personally comfortable with it, so it would depend on how severe the player plans to be. My gut tells me that my usual group isn't looking for that kind of game.

[JakOfAllTirades]

I'm just gonna leave this here.

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

[HappyDaze]

I'm just gonna leave this here.

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

From the beginning, the author made no attempt to disguise his bias against torture working and then went full speed into making sure that it doesn't. Not everyone will approach the subject with such a bias, nor should they. Some people want to play a Jack Bauer-like character and some games might be set up to better allow for such an approach.

[MaxWilson]

I'm just gonna leave this here.

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

That's a terrible article. Take point #2: "People are terrible at spotting lies."

So what? The whole point of interrogation is to get verifiable, actionable information. You're not just going to take their word for it and let them go.

The real problem with "torture" in D&D is that doing it correctly is un-fun. Players who can't be bothered to even scout a location before an assault certainly can't be bothered to repeatedly interrogate a subject about the same matter from different angles, looking for discrepancies with prior versions and known facts, trying to terrify the subject into learned helplessness by giving the impression that the PCs already know everything and will punish the subject for any lies. It just isn't worth spending the table time on it--even if the punishments are relatively mild. It's boring as well as unpleasant. It's like roleplaying polishing your armor.

[HappyDaze]

That's a terrible article. Take point #2: "People are terrible at spotting lies."

So what? The whole point of interrogation is to get verifiable, actionable information. You're not just going to take their word for it and let them go.

The real problem with "torture" in D&D is that doing it correctly is un-fun. Players who can't be bothered to even scout a location before an assault certainly can't be bothered to repeatedly interrogate a subject about the same matter from different angles, looking for discrepancies with prior versions and known facts, trying to terrify the subject into learned helplessness by giving the impression that the PCs already know everything and will punish the subject for any lies. It just isn't worth spending the table time on it--even if the punishments are relatively mild. It's boring as well as unpleasant. It's like roleplaying polishing your armor.

Extended torture can be handled like most un-fun/boring aspects of the game: as a downtime activity.

[blackjack50]

I'm sure this scenario happens pretty often: The party defeats the orc/goblin gang, leaving one alive for questioning. Almost every time, I see people going full 'bad cop' on the target. Nobody ever plays the good cop. The aggression gets worse and worse, eventually it leads to torture, maiming, threats, knocking it unconscious and reviving it over and over, etc. But the target still refuses to talk. Or at least, refuses to say anything useful.

What people do not realize is that, torture does not really work as an interrogation method. When it becomes clear that the target does not care how many fingers it loses, how many eyeballs been poked out, its time to stop. Even if you can make the creature talk, you won't know if its the truth. You might think torture works on cowardly people, but they might just tell you things you want to hear, they might be misinformed, or brainwashed, or.... You get the idea.

Its very hard to convince people that torture does not work, when most popular media portray it has a badass way to obtain information.
I tried telling a party member, but he just said, "This is not real life". Well that actually makes it worse. There might be magic involved, weird creatures that you don't understand, all of which opens up a lot more reasons why it won't work.

Does torture happen often in your games?

I have read a lot of espionage books. Art of War. CIA assassination manual (yes it is real and starts out with a shady “we don’t engage in this but...”) and stuff like that. And I can tell you that these organizations would not use something that didn’t work. Torture works. It just has to be utilized effectively. It is best used to confirm things you already know. Or Clarity on things you know and can easily/quickly corroborate. And it is best used on someone not accustomed to pain. Or someone willing to sell out a group.

[Boci]

That's a terrible article. Take point #2: "People are terrible at spotting lies."

So what? The whole point of interrogation is to get verifiable, actionable information. You're not just going to take their word for it and let them go.

Also not so true in D&D, where lying will typically call for a deceoption check, and a lot of monsters will have a hard time beating the PC's insight checks. Sure a succubus or incubus could pull it off with their +9 deception, but an orch chieften has +3 and a regular orc +0. One of the PCs will likely catch it.