I have somebody I need to make talk, and he's being difficult, so I plan to apply a bit of... persuasion. However, I would like to know precisely how that will effect my intimidate checks.
Well, for the sake of the mods I won't say precisely what I plan to do to the guy, but I will say to think of Man on Fire. Specifically, the car scene. If you haven't seen it, and aren't comfortable watching torture, don't watch the movie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As GM, I would give you a circumstance bonus depending on the type and extent of torture. As with the others, I wouldn't need a detailed description, just a general idea.
As GM, I would also keep in mind that torture has an amazing tendency to produce false confessions, so I'd make the NPC particularly likely to say anything (even if he doesn't know the answer to your question) just to make the torture end.
As GM, I would also take a close look at your Alignment. If the second word isn't "Evil," I would mentally nudge it a few solid steps in that direction--maybe not irredeemably so, but it would definitely impact your "karma," if you will.
The character doing this is an evil NPC. I'm the GM, and I'm trying to figure out how to do the intimidate check to see if an NPC cracks and puts the PCs in danger by giving up critical information to the BBEG.
|
Successful torture is all about environment. You think hot pokers are effective, but convincing the subject that they are alone, helpless and without allies is much better. When they believe that you are actually losing interest, they will be more inclined to give up information. Misinformation, confusion, and isolation are much better than pain.
Successful torture is all about environment. You think hot pokers are effective, but convincing the subject that they are alone, helpless and without allies is much better. When they believe that you are actually losing interest, they will be more inclined to give up information. Misinformation, confusion, and isolation are much better than pain.
If you really want to break someone, a combination of isolation, misinformation, sensory deprivation, and good cop/bad cop style interrogation works wonders (or so I hear), but the BBEG is in a hurry, so there's no time for that.
If you're serious about not wanting to be a neutral character, then you should give up on this torture idea. As soon as you step over that line, you cease being Good.
You can do anything short of torture and still be good. Make him stand up while you question him for 20 hours straight, no sleep, bread and water, nothing says you have to be nice to him. But when you start getting out the pliars and gasoline and bamboo shoots, you've crossed the line right out of good.
|
I once DMed a scene just like that. As the player was inclined to gain a numerical bonus rather than roleplaying it - and it was OK, instead of just going into graphical detail - I had him roll alternate Str and Cha checks against Con and Wis checks by the victim.
Each success gave him a +2 bonus to the final Intimidate roll (breaking the subject resolve), while each failure by at least 5 points a -2.
Even if I was winging it, the system seemed to work fine.
|
|
Maybe I have a stronger stomach, but I have noticed a number of players on the boards prefer a pg-13 game, which seems odd to me. With witches eating children and ogres raping villagers, it seems a hard thing to pull off. The Dark Ages were brutal, and though a fantasy, there are a lot of elements of that time period within the game. I don't know, YMMV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I have a stronger stomach, but I have noticed a number of players on the boards prefer a pg-13 game, which seems odd to me. With witches eating children and ogres raping villagers, it seems a hard thing to pull off. The Dark Ages were brutal, and though a fantasy, there are a lot of elements of that time period within the game. I don't know, YMMV.
Part of it has to do with the fact that many people play this game to be heroic. In many comics, the hero might make a threat or intimidate someone into talking. The BBEG usually has magic to make things go faster in that regard.
My current group uses questioning and detect thoughts to quickly gain information. There is one PC who tends to fall into bad cop mode, but it has all been talk such as pointing out we have limited time and saying hurry things up. Bad people tend to assume the worst about others intentions and we use that to our advantage.
There is another side to this, though. The players at the table might have gone through something similar in the past, so they don't view such things as entertainment. I've gamed with people who have been sexually assaulted before, so threats of that nature would not be welcome in any game. I also have relatives who have been sexually assaulted. A businessman I knew as a teenager was tortured and killed by thieves who wanted access to the small business safe.
I've talked to other gamers about this and many of them know victims of horrible crime either personally or indirectly. It can be something as simple as the kidnapping and murder of the college class president to make something like this very real to players.
Also, most people I know don't role play in a Dark Ages setting. Usually things are more advanced, especially since the default is that all PCs and NPCs read and write at least one language, possibly more.
|
The character doing this is an evil NPC. I'm the GM, and I'm trying to figure out how to do the intimidate check to see if an NPC cracks and puts the PCs in danger by giving up critical information to the BBEG.
Has the BBEG tried Charm Person and spells like that? Much more likely to get results before torture. Especially mixed with suggestion and things like that.
If he must do physical torture then here are some points to keep in mind:
1) If the NPC lies can the BBEG check that out?
2) How much of the truth does the BBEG know. Could the NPC tell him half truths to still mislead him?
3) If the NPC has no overriding reason to be loyal (gold is not a reason--unless he is greedy). Then I think the BBEG gets the info and quickly.
4) If the BBEG can not tell if the NPC is lying and the NPC has a good reason to hold out then I think the BBEG will bite on some false info.
5) If the BBEG can tell if the NPC is lying and the NPC has a strong reason to not give up the PCs then time is on the NPC's side. He only has to hold out until giving up the information does not help the BBEG. With a definitive timeframe in mind he can more easily hold out. When his information is worthless the torture will probably stop (and maybe end with death) but the pain will stop.
|
|
There is another side to this, though. The players at the table might have gone through something similar in the past, so they don't view such things as entertainment. I've gamed with people who have been sexually assaulted before, so threats of that nature would not be welcome in any game. I also have relatives who have been sexually assaulted. A businessman I knew as a teenager was tortured and killed by thieves who wanted access to the small business safe.I've talked to other gamers about this and many of them know victims of horrible crime either personally or indirectly. It can be something as simple as the kidnapping and murder of the college class president to make something like this very real to players.
Please tell me where you live so I never ever move there.
Please tell me where you live so I never ever move there.
I live in the United States. The events I mentioned took place in different states, so I cannot list one place to avoid. Sorry about that.
Mainly, I just wanted to make the point that game tables usually play around PG 13 as a default (in my experience) and those that play different ratings often mention such things before they come into play. I know I've seen some PBP GMs say they plan to run "R" rated Rise of the Runelords games just so players have some idea of what will come up during play.
Perhaps this example will make a bit more sense to others. I was playing a module in Pathfinder Society that involved sneaking into a manor house. One of the encounters was a pack of guard dogs. The same PCs who had attacked town guards, shapeshifters and spiders with no problem suddenly ground to a halt. Why? Because no one at the table wanted to hurt the dogs. Some were animal lovers and others just didn't like the idea of killing a creature that was just defending its home.
We used intimidate, Speak with Animals and Diplomacy checks to get them to back down and everyone was happy.
|
|
Ahhhh, I live in the United States too. Oh, no. Better check all the locks. Load my guns. Whew. Ok all better.
I have always played PG-13 games with my groups. At conventions you sometimes get the weirdos who go way over the line. It is one of the reasons why I stopped going to gaming conventions.
I didn't make it clear before but I gave the options I did because I don't think that NPC on NPC violence needs rolls. Especially when it is off stage. I might roll will saves against a set DC to see how many hours or days the PCs get before the BBEG gets his information and can act on it. But otherwise I just figure out how it would play out based upon the personalities involved.
As others have said, there are many better, more efficient and reliable ways to gain information. As I noted, torture has a well-documented history of yielding false information, because it reaches a point where the victim will tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear just to make it stop--even if he doesn't know the answer to your questions. So, I'd say torture has a very marginal reliability rate.
But, maybe your BBEG prefers it over more reliable methods just because he or she enjoys harming other people. As I said, I would probably give a circumstance bonus, +2 at least, possibly more, to an intimidate check, but I'd also consider having the torture yield some false answers.
However, given that all this apparently takes place "off screen," I'd decide that the BBEG learns whatever information would make the story most interesting. Or if I think it would be more interesting for him or her to gain some false information, that's how it would go in that case. I certainly wouldn't leave something up to the dice if it happens off screen--not in this case anyway. Perhaps the victim gives false info out of fear and lack of actual knowledge and then dies from the torture. Maybe the villain's preferred method of torture accidentally destroyed the mouth and jaw, so speak with the dead is not an option and the BBEG is left with whatever she gleaned before the victim died. (BTW, finding the mangled corpse of the victim can be a powerful motivator for Good characters to want to lay the smack down on the BBEG).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way that torture works is the players describe the torture in graphic detail until the DM can't take it anymore and tells them everything.
|
Me like ta scare enemies into tellin stuff. But usually not have ta hurt em too much. But one time, me really hurt one guy to make him talk.
He piss me off. Pretended to be one of us, helpin' some refugees. We made camp for night, and he took first watch with me friend, Lore. Tried to kill Lore, but Lore shouted, and we all came ta help. We capture da guy, and me tell him dat I cut off a limb if he don't say what me need ta know. But me flub intimidate roll. He no talk, so me chop off his foot. That way, he no run away later. Then he talk.
So masterwork greataxe count as masterwork tool ta help intimidate?
***
Out of character: Mash is a Chaotic Neutral barbarian, but I was actually thinking of moving his alignment in the general direction of Neutral Good before this incident, because I'd been playing him more tame and helpful than originally intended. This balanced against that nicely to prove that CN is the right alignment for him.
But it's also not like he did this to some random stranger - this was a guy who betrayed the group and ambushed one of his friends. Which is why I'd say this didn't cross the line into evil, though it did shift the karma balance away from the good that he'd been leaning towards before this, and back towards neutral.
I once DMed a scene just like that. As the player was inclined to gain a numerical bonus rather than roleplaying it - and it was OK, instead of just going into graphical detail - I had him roll alternate Str and Cha checks against Con and Wis checks by the victim.
Each success gave him a +2 bonus to the final Intimidate roll (breaking the subject resolve), while each failure by at least 5 points a -2.Even if I was winging it, the system seemed to work fine.
I was in a game where the PC party was captured by a villain and were tortured, and something similar was done. Basicly the PCs had to make fort and will saves to not spill the beans. The PCs were allowed to make a skill check to give themselves a bonus to their saves, some that were used were intimidate, bluff and my character (cleric) used kn. religion a few times.
You could also throw in some con. damage as well, just to spice things up.
I have somebody I need to make talk, and he's being difficult, so I plan to apply a bit of... persuasion. However, I would like to know precisely how that will effect my intimidate checks.
It depends, however consider this whatever you find out on this forum for this question is metagaming.
Take a look at the Pathfinder SRD : Heal. There you will find some rules for torturing.
Take a look at the Pathfinder SRD : Heal. There you will find some rules for torturing.
Very interesting, I like this approach.
Having torture grant a +2 to the intimidate check seems really too low. Before reading the link above I would have suggested to grant the +2 (possibly even more) and let the torturer take 20 on the check, always keeping in mind the possibility to let the tortured guy bluff for answers he didn't know.