I am having a small issue in a game I'm running. I'm running Ironfang Invasion(No spoilers given here), and of course, the players have captured a hobgoblin to interrogate for details. I offered torture, as that's the usual method of obtaining information from an unwilling subject, but another player brought up a section in intimidate:
Influence Opponent’s Attitude
You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you for 1d6 × 10 minutes with a successful check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier.
Success: If successful, the opponent will:
…give you information you desire
…take actions that do not endanger it
…offer other limited assistance
After the intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities.
Fail: If you fail this check by 5 or more, the target attempts to deceive you or otherwise hinder your activities.
Action Using Intimidate to change an opponent’s attitude requires 1 minute of conversation.
Retry? You can attempt to intimidate an opponent again, but each additional check increases the DC by +5. This increase resets after one hour has passed.
Which I feel is a bit of a problem. Cause even LOW-level characters can hit Intimidate DC's of individual monster foes. Like right now, they are level 4, so an On-CR encounter for them including these hobgoblins, still means that they are CR 1 each. and with a not great Wis score, it's DC 12 Intimidate and 1 minute of conversation to make even the most loyal, devout, or "terrified of their own leadership" soldiers crumple and give the PC's all the information they know, with no saving throw or attempt to resist. While torture optional rules include heal checks to deal nonlethal damage or ability damage, and takes an hour, and still allows both a will save to resist, and the ability for them to try to lie about information, attempting bluff checks against the PC's Sense motive.
So I guess I'm asking that is it better to just shorthand interrogations to "I roll intimidate, that's a 15, So he tells me everything", or would it be better to use the more complex rules for torture? In this case, they plan on killing the hobgoblin anyway, no matter if they get info from him or not, if that matters at all. Just worried about setting an easy precedent for "I roll to intimidate the king, It works, so now he tells me how he's been sacrificing orphans for his secret cult!" kind of thing.
Perhaps a decent middle ground would be to allow Intimidate on "weaker" monsters, but more devout, harder-to-break foes would require torture? I don't know. ^^;
In any case, Thank you for your time and assistance!
I have never read Ironfang Invasion, so I don't know anything about the hobgoblins or what they know or what the PCs might be looking into.
First of all, a roll shouldn't make someone act unreasonably unless it says it does. It's not "I roll a 15 on Intimidate, he tells me everything." It's more like, he's treated as Friendly for purposes of what he'd be willing to share.
So, it comes down to what that specific hobgoblin actually knows or can share. Not every hobgoblin is 'in on it'. Now, if it's known that they just kill people anyway, it's probably going to be a penalty, or a definite attempt to delay or bluff just to save their lives. If they don't know the PCs kill prisoners, then maybe not. If the PCs have hinted or implied he might live if cooperating, then that's also a Bluff check if they knowingly are lying (hobgoblin's Sense Motive probably fails anyway).
Also, a person is not going to share information that will put them in trouble, even with a friend. Let's say you're the king, and you sacrifice orphan because you're in a secret cult. That doesn't mean that's something you share with your friends, even your best friend (unless they're also in the cult, but then, even someone you don't like who's in the secret cult probably already knows, and if they don't, you aren't telling them).
Again, I don't know what the hobgoblin knows, but he probably doesn't just start spilling the beans, they still need to ask him things, and he's only friendly for a short time, so if they leave it open-ended "Tell us everything." he may or may not get around to anything relevant.
If the PCs are using Intimidate (and passing their rolls), then that's just how it works. The fact the hobgoblin they captured has a low resistance is not really here not there. It comes down to what they ask, what the hobgoblin knows (including whether it will harm them), and whether you would tell a friend that you're in a secret cult that sacrifices children.
Intimidation is generally the first step to torture. Threat of torture alone is often enough to get a target to divulge desired information. The level of threat, combined with the type of target, often determines how much information is divulged nonviolently.
Intimidate technically covers the above in terms of who can be affected by it. Creatures that are weaker in general (Hit Dice) and/or weaker in will (Wisdom) will be more susceptible to Intimidate. Conversely, creatures that are stronger will be less susceptible.
Technically, Intimidate is clear enough in what you get out of a target: "... gives you the information you desire, ..." is pretty cut and dry. That said, you as a GM may decide this is too easy. You may require more than one check if, for example, the target is more desperate to retain some bits of information more so than others. You may decide that the rolls to Intimidate be secret, and/or encourage the Player to use Sense Motive to see if the information the PC is getting is true--even if the roll didn't fail by 5 or more.
The way I see it using intimidate this way is basically threatening to torture the hobgoblin.
You are also forgetting the fact that using intimidate this way does not cause the target to takes actions that will endanger it. A hobgoblin betraying their leader is usually an action that will endanger them. Most hobgoblin leaders are going to at minimum severely punish if not kill a minion who betrays them.
there are a couple of things going on in the orig post... but in general follow the 'spirit' of RAW but tweak as needed AND don't offer free info unless players are stuck. As a GM you can adjust DCs +/-5 due to circumstances. okay...
mechanically a hard challenge for (4) 4th lvl PCs, APL=4, is CR = APL+3, with a decently equipped group or good builds probably APL+4.
Only 66-75% of challenges should be martial. With intimidate you are now in a Skill challenge. I've seen various published guides but hard should be about DC = 15 +1.5*APL. For you that's DC 21 so 16-17 would be average.
Intimidate... basically a social function that generates fear. Just pretend to be your sentient NPC that's frightened and give up one fact or related facts per scaling 5 points of success (like a knowledge check). Fear is going to color your response along with the perspective of what the NPC knows (he's not the all knowing GM). It is up to the PCs to seperate fact from fiction and fear inspired info that's likely unreliable. Evil NPCs are a lot more used to intimidate within a command chain... it's how Evils operate.
ACT! Blubber if you need to, cry, wail, plead... don't just describe it unless this is not an important challenge. You are the director in a play and the Players are actors.
Morality & Ethics... you are the arbiter of Alignment and Good/Evil Acts. If the PCs want to inflict lethal damage and torture some NPC then Consequences are your thing and source of drama. Give them a roll to know if what they are about to do is morally wrong.
There is a difference between plans/intent and acts/facts/what is done. The first is a bit nebulous, the latter can't be undone.
Considering the culture and mindset of hobgoblins (militaristic, LE, and generally indoctrinated into considering themselves superior), a good way to impersonate him will be to pattern his behavior on a WWII Japanese soldier.
A hard nut to crack, with some modifier to that secret die roll.
The die roll should always be a secret one.
- * -
With both torture and intimidation, RL or in game, "... gives you the information you desire, ..." doesn't automatically mean that the target gives you true information. He gives you the information s/he thinks you want to hear. "Yes, I am a witch and consort with demons" has often been the reply extorted by the Inquisition from innocent victims through torture.
Even under the relatively benign third degree interrogation (i.e. repeated use of intimidation), people have admitted to being guilty of crimes they hadn't committed.
Weak and weak-willed people will generally spill the beans, but if the interrogator appears unhappy, they will add fancy details to appease him.
At a minimum, a Sense motive check will be necessary to assess the veracity of the replies.
Both the Intimidation and Sense motive rolls should be kept secret, so that the players are unaware of the results.
Then remember that social skills effects are modified by who the target is and what you are doing. Diplomacy will not make a sworn enemy your friend, regardless of what you roll. Buff alone will not convince the king that the 7' high male barbarian is his 5' daughter.
Hobgoblins are militaristic, LE, and often indoctrinated in a sense of superiority. Generally, they are a harder nut to crack than the average creature.
All the above notwithstanding, generally, the skill should work. We are speaking of a standard footsoldier. Elite character will live and die by the character description.
I think that based off the feedback given. That I'll stick to, "They might be afraid, but an intimidate check will only give you info from them that wouldnt endanger them in return." In this case, they might give up their leaders name, and maybe the rough number of troops, but not the base locations, patrol routes, etc. Unless tortured further to drag the info from them. Which draws up will saves and bluff/sense motive. Though I do like the gaining additional bits of info per 5 the DC is exceeded, since that both encourages people who build into the skill, and matches most of the other checks that have a matching 5+ over scaling.
I know one of the bigger problems I have is finding a middle ground of RAW and reasonable reality. So I greatly appreciate everyone's replies in how it should be handled!
|
