How to handle characters torturing NPC?


Advice

51 to 90 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

This sounds familiar to my group composition and mindset on the subject. I have played evil characters too...one was way into epic level territory. Do the characters in game actions make me evil? That's pretty strong and says something about the person making the assumption.


Dragonamedrake wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Conundrum wrote:
Anyway being this is a game thread on a game forum who is to say torture should be unacceptable in every game? I have in games: tortured, pillage, desecrated, violated npcs, guess what? So did the rest of the players. In a home game among peers that are cool with it, most any theme can be fun. Cause its not real. Yeah I have said it a lot but some folks seem to have trouble accepting this point of view as not only valid in certain games but that as it is in fact a game and not real who cares?

It's not the doing it that really bothers me. As a GM, I've had NPCs do some nasty stuff. As a player I've run characters who've crossed the line as well. Generally with much provocation or what they considered very good reasons. I didn't enjoy it. It was in character and they would have done it again, but I didn't enjoy playing it out. I didn't like thinking like that. I didn't like living in that head.

What bothers me about some of the comments in this thread is not so much whether it's ok to torture in game or not. You're right. No one is actually getting hurt.
It's the glee some seem to take in it. Is it wrong to be a little wary of those who get into acting like psychopaths? Sure, it's not real. No one is actually getting hurt. But why enjoy imagining it so much?

I enjoyed playing Cop's and Robers as a kid. Never once had the urge to steal in real life.

Sometimes its fun to play something completely opposite of who you are. I think of myself as a generally good guy. I am a faithful Husband of 10 years. I serve in the Military. I volunteer and I have faith. But I had a blast playing a LE wizard a few years back. He was EVIL to the core. I dont feel that reflects on me personally. I was RPing. I cant throw lightning bolts in real life either come to think of it.

Cops & Robbers, IIRC, was far more about chasing each other around yelling than about actually stealing stuff. Nor is stealing viscerally wrong in the same way actually physically hurting other people is. (Still wrong of course, but not on the same level. Much easier to pretend you're not really hurting anyone, if nothing else. Distancing.)

This would be more like playing Cops & Rapists or Cops & Serial Killers, with a good deal of gleeful focus on the details of the rape or the slow torture of the victims. And frankly, any kid I found doing that would be in counseling in a heartbeat, if I had anything to say about it.

I can play evil characters, though it's not my favorite thing, but it's a grandiose kind of evil. Characters with goals and few compunctions. Innocents may be killed, people may get tortured, but always in pursuit of the ends. Not as a end in itself. And I'd rather fade to black for the really nasty bits, because they don't interest me.

But the evil characters either see themselves as serving a greater good or I wind up distancing myself from them. I generally play for immersion. If I can't think like the character, I lose interest. And I really don't like thinking like a sociopath. I feel dirty afterwards.


Conundrum wrote:
This sounds familiar to my group composition and mindset on the subject. I have played evil characters too...one was way into epic level territory. Do the characters in game actions make me evil? That's pretty strong and says something about the person making the assumption.

No. Obviously what your characters do in game doesn't make you evil. Anymore than playing a paladin makes you good.

OTOH, there's a difference between "My character tortures the villager until he gives up the gold" and a 15 minute detailed description of exactly how he goes about it. In the game world, both are evil. The same things happen, one is just more abstract.

I am going to wonder just why the second player is so into the torture. That's all.


thejeff wrote:

I can play evil characters, though it's not my favorite thing, but it's a grandiose kind of evil. Characters with goals and few compunctions. Innocents may be killed, people may get tortured, but always in pursuit of the ends. Not as a end in itself. And I'd rather fade to black for the really nasty bits, because they don't interest me.

But the evil characters either see themselves as serving a greater good or I wind up distancing myself from them. I generally play for immersion. If I can't think like the character, I lose interest. And I really don't like thinking like a sociopath. I feel dirty afterwards.

Well I can totally understand this. But I wouldn't pass judgement on others that CAN distance themselves and simply like to really REVEL in the evil that is their character. I had a player in one game that was the most evil, crazy character I have ever seen... and out of game she baked cupcakes for us ever game... sweetest person I have ever met. I think I gained like 10 pounds during that game.


Well this is the web and short of writing a ten page campaign summary which I will not, nay sayers will have to be satisfied with a) my stomach is stronger doesn't make me a sociopath.
b) without all the facts on how I played my evil wizard you are making assumptions that could be damaging and if you are as sensitive as few of you claim then that too should make you feel dirty.
c) I in turn will have to assume that if many here assume someone carries desires with them between the game and real world and someone who plays evil characters is a dangerous psychopapath not to be trusted, then said assumpter
Is an incompetent delusional in need of therapy to differentiate between pf and reality and stop projecting their short comings on people whose express opinions differ from their own.


Conundrum wrote:

Well this is the web and short of writing a ten page campaign summary which I will not, nay sayers will have to be satisfied with a) my stomach is stronger doesn't make me a sociopath.

b) without all the facts on how I played my evil wizard you are making assumptions that could be damaging and if you are as sensitive as few of you claim then that too should make you feel dirty.
c) I in turn will have to assume that if many here assume someone carries desires with them between the game and real world and someone who plays evil characters is a dangerous psychopapath not to be trusted, then said assumpter
Is an incompetent delusional in need of therapy to differentiate between pf and reality and stop projecting their short comings on people whose express opinions differ from their own.

Would this also apply to who writes long personal fantasies about torturing people? Anyone who thinks that might be a warning sign is delusional and needs therapy, right?

Again, I am making no assumptions about how you played your character. I said explicitly that playing evil characters doesn't make you evil.

I said that taking too much enjoyment in the details of acts of torture or rape will make me wonder. That's all.

So enlighten me. What's so great about describing in detail how you slowly dismember a victim?


why are we worried about the repercussions of torture in a game where the protagonists are little more than glorified bandits?

look at what 90% of fantasy heroes have in common with bandits


  • they will slaughter legions of intelligent creatures to make a few extra bucks from their corpses
  • they always loot everything they can milk out of whatever they kill, from the scales of the dragon itself, to the eyes of the darn beholder
  • they carry highly damaging weapons designed to not give foes a chance to scream or call for help, as if they were assassins
  • they group up in squads from as few as 4 members to as many as 15. like a squad of bandits does
  • no matter their personality, it falls to their greed
  • they eat the cheapest things on the menu because they are stingy
  • they abandoned their families to fulfill their greed and their bloodlust
  • death by torture rack, hanging, or iron maiden, is really not much different than having your head cleaved off by a barbarian
  • they care more about improving their capacity to kill, to kill bigger foes, get bigger hauls and improve some more in an endless cycle.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:

why are we worried about the repercussions of torture in a game where the protagonists are little more than glorified bandits?

look at what 90% of fantasy heroes have in common with bandits

    OK I will bite

    Quote:
  • they will slaughter legions of intelligent creatures to make a few extra bucks from their corpses
  • Because

    A. They are trying to stop them from doing some evil
    B. Contracted Bounty Hunters
    C. Attacked by said intelligent creatures

    Quote:
  • they always loot everything they can milk out of whatever they kill, from the scales of the dragon itself, to the eyes of the darn beholder
  • Those are beast and monsters. Its equivalent to having a Dear head on your wall. You don't usually see a party harvesting HUMANOID creatures which is in itself probably evil. The occasional barbarian who collects ears is the exception and usually looked down on by the rest of the party.

    Quote:
  • they carry highly damaging weapons designed to not give foes a chance to scream or call for help, as if they were assassins
  • They are adventures. Weapons are the tools of their trade. What are they supposed to carry? Girl Scout Cookies? Even the lowly farmer has a spear or bow for protection in a fantasy world.

    Quote:
  • they group up in squads from as few as 4 members to as many as 15. like a squad of bandits does
  • Well its a party game. I don't see your point. I don't go to the club or the movies by myself either... does that make me a thug?

    Quote:
  • no matter their personality, it falls to their greed
  • I don't find it greedy to want to be paid for work rendered.

    Quote:
  • they eat the cheapest things on the menu because they are stingy
  • Maybe at first level when your income is little better then an expert. But at higher levels I see a lot more splurging when it comes to food and drink.

    Quote:
  • they abandoned their families to fulfill their greed and their bloodlust
  • Wow. Thats a bleak look. Could it be they where orphans, or their tribe sent them away to fulfill a task, or they send gold back to the family, or they where raised by a cult, or a thousand other reasons why you would become an adventurer. Did every cleric/wizard/soldier NPC in your game abandon someone to go do what they do?

    Quote:
  • death by torture rack, hanging, or iron maiden, is really not much different than having your head cleaved off by a barbarian
  • Well one is use of tools and techniques to bring as much pain as possible while also delaying death till as much agony is achieved... while the other is a quick painless death. One is used after the target is helpless and the other is while he is usually actively trying to do the same to you. One is used to gain information or for personal perversion and the other can be in self defense or in honorable combat. Yeah totally the same thing.

    Quote:
  • they care more about improving their capacity to kill, to kill bigger foes, get bigger hauls and improve some more in an endless cycle.
  • I don't know about you, but I usually try to get better tools to make my job easier. I am in the military. Give me better guns and better body armor... not cause I want to kill better. But because at the end of the day It might save my life. So yeah. Bring on the loot/gear cycle.

    In conclusion Heroes =/= Bandits

    Grand Lodge

    Kolokotroni wrote:
    Toture is ineffective in a world with limits and the rule of law. In terms of seeking out information as part of an investigation its a crap shoot at best, because if the person DOESNT know the information, they will blurt out whatever they think will stop the pain. However if someone DOES know what the people torturing them are asking, it is fairly effective. The unreliability of torture comes from the fact that A the person has a reason to expect eventual release, and B the torturers are not sure if the person has the information they want.

    Torture is ineffective in a world of human biology. The only time torture is reliable is if you are in a book/movie where the author can move the plot forward when the correct answer is given, or if your goal is to extract a political "confession" where you don't care about the facts, just the outcome.

    A List of Problems:

    1. If you don't already know the answer to the questions you're asking, then you're not going to know what the true answer is, even if the person blurts it out. Which means the torture will carry on even after they've told the truth (assuming they ever do) and the truth can easily be buried, since the victim will then start looking for other answers to satisfy the person torturing them.

    2. Since the victim is under stress and pain, you aren't going to reliably get the visual/body language cues you'd normally get when someone lies (you'd get them all the time, even during true statements). So you end up looking for cues, and that opens you up to all sorts of observer error fallacies.

    3. Inflicting pain on someone generally makes them angry and less willing to cooperate, so even if they don't know anything they may appear to from your perspective since they are aggressively fighting back. It's also possible that pain can make the person less aggressive and cause them to shut down. Different people react to stress and pain differently and there's no correlation between how they respond and what they know. Since you can't read a person's thoughts, you don't know the motivation for their reaction.

    4. It's incredibly, incredibly easy to mess with a person's memories. Especially if you put them in the state of mind that torture does. People routinely confess to things they didn't do and honestly believe they did them after a bout of torture.

    5. You don't even have to inflict pain on a person to get faulty information. People routinely confess to crimes they didn't commit during non-violent police confessions. Stress, by itself, is sufficient to mess with people's minds and make them say/do stuff they normally wouldn't. Often times those confessions contain detail "the suspect couldn't know unless they were the murderer" ... because the cops working the interrogation dropped cues that the suspect picked up on.

    6. Yes, it may be hard to deliberately think up a complicated lie while in pain off the top of your head. It's also hard to deliberately think up facts you know while in pain or under stress. Think of how easy it is to win at Jeopardy when you're sitting on your couch at home. Now try sitting in the studio under the lights. All those easy questions suddenly become a LOT harder to answer.

    7. As I mentioned in #5, it's very easy for the person performing the torture to give away the answer they want by asking leading questions or reacting to certain answers. The person being tortured will be hyper-aware of the torturer's body language/tone of voice, sort of like how an abuse victim becomes hyper-aware of the movements of their abuser. That means the torturer will subconsciously lead the interrogation to a desired outcome.

    Science!
    http://www.livescience.com/4651-torture-long-history-working.html

    http://www.livescience.com/337-innocent-suspects-confess-pressure.html

    ...and recent, unfortunate, history.
    http://www.salon.com/2009/04/24/jpra_memo/

    Digital Products Assistant

    Removed some back and forth posts. Please keep insults/hostility out of the conversation.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Simple: “Hey guys, this is not mature behavior. Stop it or I end the game.”

    Liberty's Edge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    EWHM wrote:

    Here's a thought experiment for you.

    Imagine a group of thugs, perhaps from a three letter agency bust down your door and demand the password to one of your encrypted computer systems. They're prepared to use 'rubber hose cryptanalysis' in order to get it. Assuming you've not set up anything like a duress key that opens a mildly embarrassing partition on your drive, which I doubt any of you have, what do you think the probability is that you'll cough up the key after the thumbscrews are applied? Remember that the statements you make under torture can often be easily verified by the torturing party and lies can be severely punished. I know it's a common trope that 'torture only gets you what the tortured thinks you want to hear, but it's a lot more messy and complicated than that. There's a reason it has been used historically an awful lot, and that reason isn't 'because it doesn't work'.

    We are talking about the culinary institute of america right


    cmastah wrote:
    I'm NOT (I'd like to repeat NOT) asking about repercussions or whether or not they're evil, what I AM asking is, how do I handle this interrogation?

    When people start torturing you you start talking.

    It's beyond skill checks. Basically an intimidate check is about getting him to believe you will do bad things to him, torture is proof positive of it ... anything which can be accomplished by an intimidate check is immediately accomplished by torture.

    An especially strong person might play for time, but only an especially stupid person would try to resist torture.

    What you could do is the guy trying to send them on a wild goose chase, giving the other gollum's time call in some favours (scroll of planar ally to call some angels perhaps) to bust the guy out and punish the wicked (ie. your players). A bluff vs. sense motive check could prevent this.

    PS. torture is useless to get evidence, but "good" to get verifiable information ... if information is not easily verified after it becoming known to you torture is indeed pretty useless.

    PPS. I think torture of the nature they used automatically qualifies them all for a single step alignment change on the good/evil axis.


    blackbloodtroll wrote:

    Torture is not really effective.

    Eventually, they just admit to anything, whether it is true or not.

    The victim may even try to commit suicide after awhile.

    Basically, mechanically, it's just a bonus to intimidate.

    Yeah, pretty much this. Torture doesn't work.

    Grand Lodge

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Chris Lambertz wrote:
    Removed some back and forth posts. Please keep insults/hostility out of the conversation.

    I think one of mine got swept up in that somehow. No biggie. To recap:

    If the OP is still paying attention to the thread, you should just point out to your players that torturing NPCs for information is totally unnecessary. If they succeed on an Intimidate check then they can get all the accurate information they need. They won't make any friends that way (if they want to, they should try Diplomacy), but information gathering is specifically listed as one of the things that happens when you intimidate someone into being friendly toward you.

    Nothing about the intimidate skill implies pain or torture (it is based on Charisma and doesn't require you to touch anyone). The DCs aren't that high as a general rule (unless the person is noticeably higher level than you, in which case you should probably try intimidating the minions and not the boss). Plus, unless you fail the check by 5 or more then you're guaranteed accurate or no information.

    If you start giving bonuses to intimidate for torture you'll just encourage your PCs to do that to every enemy they meet, which doesn't seem to be what you want at your table. If you start trying to work out rules for torture then there are about a hundred different ways you can do it, none particularly better or worse than any other, since it isn't something easily covered by the rules (you're getting into a mixture of skill checks and damage and morale checks and a bunch of other stuff). In the end, rules for torture end up being an overly complicated Intimidate skill check.

    And, of course, you could always just talk to your players and tell them to chill out on the torture stuff. In the end, if it leads to an argument, then this isn't so much a rules issues as it is a table politeness issue.

    The Exchange

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Aberrant Templar makes a good point that rather escaped me - if you grant so much as a +1, you're encouraging repetition... something which most GMs don't want to have to deal with. (Just because I can provide flavor text full of cracking cartilage and rags of flesh doesn't mean that I wouldn't rather be doing something else.)

    If - if! - you want to actively discourage torture, aside from the 'misinformation' angle I already mentioned, you as the GM can ensure that any eyewitnesses spread the story. People cross the street not to be near the PCs, prices inexplicably go up ("My brother-in-law was tortured once - no soup for you!") and so forth. A little of that goes a long way, since some PCs are only one rude NPC away from a bloodbath anyhow, but it's a point to consider.


    blackbloodtroll wrote:

    Torture is not really effective.

    Eventually, they just admit to anything, whether it is true or not.

    The victim may even try to commit suicide after awhile.

    Basically, mechanically, it's just a bonus to intimidate.

    I would note this act as a mark, and after a few marks, I would begin an alignment shift, one step, towards evil.

    Torture is effective when the information can be verified. Because in that case saying something false won't stop the torture.


    cmastah wrote:

    I wanted to run a heroic campaign (set in a dark world, I personally am interested in heroic characters in dark settings)

    From a players perspective, playing a heroic character in a dark setting typically sucks. It might be fun for a story teller, but as a player you are basically a masochist, fighting enemies with a big handicap.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
    johnlocke90 wrote:
    blackbloodtroll wrote:

    Torture is not really effective.

    Eventually, they just admit to anything, whether it is true or not.

    The victim may even try to commit suicide after awhile.

    Basically, mechanically, it's just a bonus to intimidate.

    I would note this act as a mark, and after a few marks, I would begin an alignment shift, one step, towards evil.

    Torture is effective when the information can be verified. Because in that case saying something false won't stop the torture.

    But at some point the torturer must ask the victim something that he doesn't already know the answer to, if he is torturing somebody for information. If the torturer aleady knows the answers to all of the questions he asks, then he is just being a sadistic jerk. Otherwise, his only clue as to the torture victim's reliability in answering the key question is how many lies he has already caught him in.

    One possibility to consider, if the torture is brutal enough, is that the torturer might actually manage to kill the victim before he says anything useful. The torturer and his associates can take a severe hit to their reputations if that happens often enough.

    I would encourage more mental than physical means of intimidation if possible. One of my favorites is to have a summoner's eidolon mention that it has not eaten in several days, with the implication that it is thinking of eating the prisoner being questioned (when the real reason is that the eidolon is an outsider with no physical need for food).


    David knott 242 wrote:
    johnlocke90 wrote:
    blackbloodtroll wrote:

    Torture is not really effective.

    Eventually, they just admit to anything, whether it is true or not.

    The victim may even try to commit suicide after awhile.

    Basically, mechanically, it's just a bonus to intimidate.

    I would note this act as a mark, and after a few marks, I would begin an alignment shift, one step, towards evil.

    Torture is effective when the information can be verified. Because in that case saying something false won't stop the torture.
    But at some point the torturer must ask the victim something that he doesn't already know the answer to, if he is torturing somebody for information. If the torturer aleady knows the answers to all of the questions he asks, then he is just being a sadistic jerk. Otherwise, his only clue as to the torture victim's reliability in answering the key question is how many lies he has already caught him in.

    Easily verified as in "What is the combination to the safe?"

    Works pretty well.

    The Exchange

    For those of you interested in the utility (as opposed to morality) of torture vs. standard interrogation tactics, I recommend The Black Banners, a book which one of the very, very few FBI agents fluent in Arabic wrote shortly after 9/11 (and then had to sit on for 10 years until the references in the book 'cooled' enough for an only-slightly-censored version to be released.)

    No point to make; just recommending that folks on either side of the torture debate read a book written by a professional interrogator. Not a comfortable read, but educational.


    johnlocke90 wrote:
    cmastah wrote:

    I wanted to run a heroic campaign (set in a dark world, I personally am interested in heroic characters in dark settings)

    From a players perspective, playing a heroic character in a dark setting typically sucks. It might be fun for a story teller, but as a player you are basically a masochist, fighting enemies with a big handicap.

    The truth is, I offered to run them an evil campaign and I certainly would be excited to run them something you'd expect out of the book of vile darkness, but only on the condition that they are either all evil, or neutral but willing to stoop to committing evil. I was asked by the same guy (committing the torture) on why I couldn't do a group that was half evil and half good and replied that the good members wouldn't take on tasks by evil employers or wouldn't commit evil acts, the EVIL members would pretty much refuse to bother themselves with helping people (which has happened), would take extreme measures with simple tasks (like killing/attacking/threatening problem makers even for basic issues simply because it's easier), would blow simple or frustrating (in a case I'm about to mention, extremely frustrating) problem out of proportion and would solve issues of tact with brute force.

    The guy who committed the torture, in one previous incident:

    Was told by a high official, that letters were there for the entire party and that he was going to hold on to them until they did him a favor. He wanted the party to go to a woman whose life they'd saved (her and many others) to woo her for him and to put in a good word for him, since they would most likely hold much sway with her. The player (and consequently the character), was so incensed that the guy was holding on to property that belong to them in return for a favor that he left with....and I'd like to mention the entire party was stunned...the intention of finding that woman and scarring her face. When confronted about it, he claimed that it's logical: 'it's like if a bratty kid wants a game and he's being really offensive about it, you get the game, scratch up the disk and give it to him to ruin the thing he wants most'. There is NO part of me that believes he'd treat another human being like this in the real world (this guy was once chatting with another friend when they other guy brought up that he missed the taste of mountain dew, the guy (evil fighter) immediately left his house to pick up a mountain dew and brought it over to him. He really is an honestly considerate guy in the real world), but I'd more readily accept evil (even BoVD evil) characters so long as the campaign heads in that direction.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I think I'll just take Aberrant Templar's advice and turn it into a simple intimidate check and make it clear that I'm not interested in exploring this avenue of gameplay, not with the direction of this campaign.

    Grand Lodge

    thejeff wrote:

    Easily verified as in "What is the combination to the safe?"

    Works pretty well.

    Maybe.

    First you have to be certain that the person knows the combination. If you torture someone who doesn't know they'll probably say they don't know. Since you have no way of knowing if they're telling the truth, you'll continue to torture them. At that point they may continue saying they don't know, or they'll make up numbers. If they keep saying they don't know then you'll either have to continue torturing them, or believe them (without knowing for sure you should) and stop. If they make up numbers then those numbers probably won't work, which will probably lead you to believe they are lying (since they apparently lied earlier about not knowing) which leads to another cycle of torture, possible made up numbers, etc. All this assumes the person doesn't go into shock, die, or otherwise pass out before you get an answer.

    If they DO know the answer they'll probably still lead with "I don't know". They could also give false combinations, which drags out the torture and increases the likelihood that they'll pass out/die before they can tell you. And even if they do know and do want to tell you, by inflicting pain and stress on them you make it less likely they'll accurately be able to remember the combination. Stress and pain stimulate parts of the brain that are more concerned with survival than memory, and our memories are not perfect video footage that we can recall with perfect unaltered clarity. Our brains get screwed up pretty easily. So every time they give you a mistaken combination, the stress and pain amp up and it makes it less likely they'll remember the next time around.

    Honestly, if you want something in a safe and you find someone who cares more about their own life than what is in that safe, you are better off bribing that person than torturing them. Profit and rapport are much, MUCH more powerful motivators. Better information, more accuracy, less time, less noise, less cleanup, and fewer people chasing you after.

    Besides, a reputation as a bad person in a fantasy world normally ends with adventurers breaking into your home over and over and over....

    Either way, good luck to you cmastah. I hope it all works out.


    David knott 242 wrote:
    johnlocke90 wrote:
    blackbloodtroll wrote:

    Torture is not really effective.

    Eventually, they just admit to anything, whether it is true or not.

    The victim may even try to commit suicide after awhile.

    Basically, mechanically, it's just a bonus to intimidate.

    I would note this act as a mark, and after a few marks, I would begin an alignment shift, one step, towards evil.

    Torture is effective when the information can be verified. Because in that case saying something false won't stop the torture.

    But at some point the torturer must ask the victim something that he doesn't already know the answer to, if he is torturing somebody for information. If the torturer aleady knows the answers to all of the questions he asks, then he is just being a sadistic jerk. Otherwise, his only clue as to the torture victim's reliability in answering the key question is how many lies he has already caught him in.

    One possibility to consider, if the torture is brutal enough, is that the torturer might actually manage to kill the victim before he says anything useful. The torturer and his associates can take a severe hit to their reputations if that happens often enough.

    I would encourage more mental than physical means of intimidation if possible. One of my favorites is to have a summoner's eidolon mention that it has not eaten in several days, with the implication that it is thinking of eating the prisoner being questioned (when the real reason is that the eidolon is an outsider with no physical need for food).

    Could you please show me a proof for this? You would make al ot of money if you could show than P=NP.

    51 to 90 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / How to handle characters torturing NPC? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.