So why do you feel this kind of character would be bad to allow?
I have never seen things like torture, even if resolved as 'fade to black', make a better game.
Agree. And this hopefully goes without saying, but if you are allowing torture in your game, it's wise to ensure everyone at the table is comfortable with it. Not only that, it's good to check in with players privately afterward, because they may not realize beforehand that they find certain subject matter disturbing until they see it referenced in-game.
To add to the potential red flag discussion about this character, I often find that these types of characters are not well-suited to a collaborative game unless every other character at the table really buys into it. If the rest of the party is more chill and you have one PC with sadistic tendencies, the tension & disharmony amongst the party starts to grow when players 1-4 want to handle things one way and player 5 always goes full Guantanamo Bay on an NPC. Every once in a while is manageable, but if it becomes a habit, it can form a wedge between the players that causes things to be unfun. This is a cooperative game, and some characters aren't really suited to being team players. Be on the lookout for signs that the PC isn't gelling.
as with every style of play, it really just comes down to how the player does it. So far the torture hasn't been an issue. That said it's only come up once so far (NPC tried to call the players "bluff", learned that it wasn't a bluff... and is now sans the finger nail of their right index finger)
the fact that you started your reply with a broad strokes opinion, does not really give me much hope that you are going to offer much in the way of helpful advice.
Also noticing that basically everything you point to seems to come off as less "evil doesn't work in a group" and more "chaotic murder hobo doesn't work for group settings (where everyone isn't a chaotic murder hobo"
In the end it doesn't feel like you actually bothered to answer the question posed. Consequences don't fix the here and now problem of "Player rolled a 4 (that's with advantage).... now try to explain why the NPC, who they are currently literally flaying alive, doesn't just tell them the answer to their question." Sure you can set up a problem (consequences for flaying someone alive) down the line, but again that doesn't fix the problem at hand.
read it the way you want... but i feel like i totally answered the question. but meh, think what you want and blame others all you want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
4. Torture is the NPCs kink. It's going to get weird real quick when your LE PC is whipping them and they just say "harder daddy".
did this once, was so funny !!! thats actually a great way of doing things, just not for every single NPC.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
So all comments aside I feel that somthing like torture isn't a intimidation check at all. To me intimidation is not physical. It's the stare down.
I think once you decided to start taking finger nails, and then fingers, it becomes time for the person being tortured to start makig con saves to not start talking, followed by insight checks from the torturer to find the truth.
The big issue is: you do intimidation (threat of violence); they fail the roll (thus no info); welp time to make good on the threat (maybe another roll here, with advantage?); dang your rolls are BAD today (didn't roll above a nat 5).... so now what? Immersion breaks if they can just keep trying till they succeed.. Immersion breaks if the NPC doesn't react to having something done to them.... I break if every NPC's response is "Harder DADDY!!"
The big issue is: you do intimidation (threat of violence); they fail the roll (thus no info); welp time to make good on the threat (maybe another roll here, with advantage?); dang your rolls are BAD today (didn't roll above a nat 5).... so now what?
The way I would interpret that is that they already failed at intimidation, and are now resorting to combat (potentially against a restrained and helpless opponent?). If they haven't already succeeded on the appropriate skillchecks to restrain the NPC, then they need to roll those (grapple? straight attack? spell saving throw? depends what they're doing). If the NPC is restrained already then there's no need to roll, just narrate results as you see fit for that NPC.
I think the mistake is using an intimidation check for a torture scenario.
When people are tortured, they talk. They wil lsay every name they ever heard, and if that doesn't stop the torture, they will make up more. They will implicate anyone and everyone they ever knew to make the pain stop. Or, they will be able to take it, and would rather die than talk, or they will say things to make it stop without telling the truth.
So, once the DM has decided if this person wil lclam up, blather, or lie, then they need to decide what the players will need to do:
If they clam up, then more torture won't work. Threats of violence won't work. If they insist on torture, then they will need to find something else they hold dear, more dear than their own life, and twist that instead. Further torture will just kill the victim.
If they blather, it's an Insight check to work out what they are saying, and if any of it is actually useful.
If they lie, then they can take it as truth or they can insight against a high DC.
Once you start torturing, intimidation is long since defenestrated.
I think the mistake is using an intimidation check for a torture scenario.
When people are tortured, they talk. They wil lsay every name they ever heard, and if that doesn't stop the torture, they will make up more. They will implicate anyone and everyone they ever knew to make the pain stop. Or, they will be able to take it, and would rather die than talk, or they will say things to make it stop without telling the truth.
So, once the DM has decided if this person wil lclam up, blather, or lie, then they need to decide what the players will need to do:
If they clam up, then more torture won't work. Threats of violence won't work. If they insist on torture, then they will need to find something else they hold dear, more dear than their own life, and twist that instead. Further torture will just kill the victim.
If they blather, it's an Insight check to work out what they are saying, and if any of it is actually useful.
If they lie, then they can take it as truth or they can insight against a high DC.
Once you start torturing, intimidation is long since defenestrated.
I think intimidation works before the torture. and still works after the first bit. "I will continue to torture you" feels like it holds little weight if you have been at it for a while. But feels like it still holds plenty of weight as a "Look at what you just made me do. Please don't make me have to continue..."
Sam Spade: If you kill me, how are you going get the bird? And if I know you can't afford to kill me, how are you going to scare me into giving it to you?
Kasper Gutman: Well, sir, there are other means of persuasion besides killing and threatening to kill.
Sam Spade: Yes, that's... That's true. But, there're none of them any good unless the threat of death is behind them. You see what I mean? If you start something, I'll make it a matter of your having to kill me or call it off.
Kasper Gutman: That's an attitude, sir, that calls for the most delicate judgment on both sides. Because, as you know, sir, in the heat of action men are likely to forget where their best interests lie and let their emotions carry them away.
Sam Spade: Then the trick from my angle is to make my play strong enough to tie you up, but not make you mad enough to bump me off against your better judgment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Where are the tortures being done, that the screams aren’t being heard by random NPCs/neighbors/hood aligned people to where they call the city guard, or put in requests for adventurers to investigate and end “ghastly screams of torment at all hours of the night/day…” or etc.?
is the entire world just cool with torture being a go to? What’s the other alignments of the characters? Do they realize they are slowly becoming the baddies and just helping the rise of a different BBEG? What’s the end game for the story look like? Is that what everyone is aiming for?
If it became well known that an adventurer tortured people for information and such, at a certain point NPCs that thought they may end up in that scenario would start to keep DnD cyanide pills ready for their suicide to avoid torture.
overall, this is a pretty dark sounding campaign. Some people, even when strapped down and tortured, still aren’t afraid of the tortured. I’ll specifically point out a lot of barbarians are immune to frightened condition. Or people under a “heroism” spell, etc etc.
is the torturer LE PC doing anything to prevent his victims from biting off their tongues? To me there’s a ton more variables going on for the scenario to even happen. To me, it seems like you are just kinda giving the player what they want.
🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️
so you have some outs, but none of your outs are like, people reporting no the screams. Routine patrols. Other people being uncomfortable. Divination magic watching it. Glyphs of warding that are activated, etc. you have a whole wide variety of options to do.
that all said as well…
what’s the DC you set for the intimidation? Cause it can be anywhere from *5-30* or whatever you really want. Could be they just ARE or just AREN’T. And if you deem it so, the player just has to accept it.
but at a certain point the LE characters actions and such would effect the party’s reputation. Especially if they aren’t being discreet.
Where are the tortures being done, that the screams aren’t being heard by random NPCs/neighbors/hood aligned people to where they call the city guard, or put in requests for adventurers to investigate and end “ghastly screams of torment at all hours of the night/day…” or etc.?
is the entire world just cool with torture being a go to? What’s the other alignments of the characters? Do they realize they are slowly becoming the baddies and just helping the rise of a different BBEG? What’s the end game for the story look like? Is that what everyone is aiming for?
If it became well known that an adventurer tortured people for information and such, at a certain point NPCs that thought they may end up in that scenario would start to keep DnD cyanide pills ready for their suicide to avoid torture.
overall, this is a pretty dark sounding campaign. Some people, even when strapped down and tortured, still aren’t afraid of the tortured. I’ll specifically point out a lot of barbarians are immune to frightened condition. Or people under a “heroism” spell, etc etc.
is the torturer LE PC doing anything to prevent his victims from biting off their tongues? To me there’s a ton more variables going on for the scenario to even happen. To me, it seems like you are just kinda giving the player what they want.
🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️
so you have some outs, but none of your outs are like, people reporting no the screams. Routine patrols. Other people being uncomfortable. Divination magic watching it. Glyphs of warding that are activated, etc. you have a whole wide variety of options to do.
that all said as well…
what’s the DC you set for the intimidation? Cause it can be anywhere from *5-30* or whatever you really want. Could be they just ARE or just AREN’T. And if you deem it so, the player just has to accept it.
but at a certain point the LE characters actions and such would effect the party’s reputation.
So in order of what you asked.
The sewers/ an "abandoned" city block/ some random cave in the "middle of nowhere"/ basically anywhere and everywhere you as a DM might stage an encounter with a larger-ish group of important enemy NPCs.
Torture is looked down upon in much the same way it is looked down upon in the real world.
Smattering of Good to Neutral alignment characters.
I don't see how they are "becoming the baddies"/ helping give rise to a BBEG
End game is up to the players, but the character in question; is aimming to cement his rule as the head of the criminal underground within the kingdom.
Not sure if i agree with your take. Pretty sure most random people/things you kill don't really think that far ahead. Maybe it's a risk for some specific high ranking enemies, but even then.... Who really expects a group of 3-5 people to slaughter their way through dozens of henchmen before finally confronting you in some dramatic fight... after defeating you in which, one of them decides to torture you (instead of just murdering you outright) for highly specific information about (the VERY FEW people above you in power).
Sure sometimes torture doesn't work. Then it becomes a question of "Do you just kill the person? or do you f*** them up good and proper and let others (those they have wronged) decide their fate?"
Of course the PC is covering their bases. It wouldn't do to have the individual off themselves before any information could be extracted. Or in other words "I've done this shit before, i'm not going to make rookie mistakes." Sure things could still go wrong, but they aren't flying by the seat of their pants.
DC depends on the individual. Like of course it's going to be easier to intimidate some random street urchin (without actual violence), then it would be to intimidate the leader of a Hellraiser cult (with actual violence). Heck torture doesn't seem like it would work at all against Cenobites.
Would it? And i'm being serious here. Like how many people/things does the average group usually murder its way through in a campaign? Feels like that number is high, and most of the time the party is either ignored or praised for their violence. So why would this be different? Much less, how would the average person know? I know i wouldn't go around talking smack after that, much less risk having to admit WHY that person/people did what they did to me.
The big issue is: you do intimidation (threat of violence); they fail the roll (thus no info); welp time to make good on the threat (maybe another roll here, with advantage?); dang your rolls are BAD today (didn't roll above a nat 5).... so now what?
There's where you made your mistake. Rerolls for intimidation don't work any differently from other rerolls, and thus are typically disallowed (if I allowed it at all, it would be with disadvantage, not advantage).
Guess the abandoned city block is 100% abandoned. No homeless people, no shady criminals, no people hiding from the law, no urchins, etc. because sewers tend to echo too.
what are the good characters justification for allowing the torture, ie. Being accessory to it?
LE character is aiming to cement his rule as head of the criminal underground, is it safe to say some of the NPCs and victims and such would have been competitors or dissenters to his rule? That’s how the other PCs are helping…
if in your world most people/things don’t think that far ahead then that’s how it is in your world. I tend to run and play in ones where things have intelligence higher than 3.
none of your cult groups, rebel armies, people waging war to be an heir to throne, etc etc etc. none of them follow quest boards and what happens around them? At all? It’s your world. That’s weird to me, like Strahd not knowing a single thing going on in Barovia.
The key word here is “murder”. There’s killing in self defense. There is disposing of fiends/undead s/etc. and then there’s torturing and murdering someone who is unarmed, not fighting back. Just saying.
”how would the average person know?” Your world. Maybe some NPCs cast detect thoughts on the PC. Maybe BBEGs have divination magic watching them and then spread the stories. Maybe someone spreads the rumor without realizing it’s true? Maybe your characters aren’t casting prestidigitation or washing their clothes afterwards? Maybe someone watched them go in, and watched them come out.
It’s your world. I guess most of the time you have played or DM’s there weren’t NPC reactions to your heroics, or lack there of. But it is a thing, more often than you would believe.
Guess the abandoned city block is 100% abandoned. No homeless people, no shady criminals, no people hiding from the law, no urchins, etc. because sewers tend to echo too.
what are the good characters justification for allowing the torture, ie. Being accessory to it?
LE character is aiming to cement his rule as head of the criminal underground, is it safe to say some of the NPCs and victims and such would have been competitors or dissenters to his rule? That’s how the other PCs are helping…
if in your world most people/things don’t think that far ahead then that’s how it is in your world. I tend to run and play in ones where things have intelligence higher than 3.
none of your cult groups, rebel armies, people waging war to be an heir to throne, etc etc etc. none of them follow quest boards and what happens around them? At all? It’s your world. That’s weird to me, like Strahd not knowing a single thing going on in Barovia.
The key word here is “murder”. There’s killing in self defense. There is disposing of fiends/undead s/etc. and then there’s torturing and murdering someone who is unarmed, not fighting back. Just saying.
”how would the average person know?” Your world. Maybe some NPCs cast detect thoughts on the PC. Maybe BBEGs have divination magic watching them and then spread the stories. Maybe someone spreads the rumor without realizing it’s true? Maybe your characters aren’t casting prestidigitation or washing their clothes afterwards? Maybe someone watched them go in, and watched them come out.
It’s your world. I guess most of the time you have played or DM’s there weren’t NPC reactions to your heroics, or lack there of. But it is a thing, more often than you would believe.
but all in all. It’s your world.
and yet these are common locations players tend to find individuals or groups who wish to avoid the eyes of the law. Or do you run your games where enemies ONLY attack in broad daylight, while in the middle of the street? I'm just very confused why people seem to default to "Oh the villains who operated out of this place, never drew attention with all the F***'d up stuff they did... but for some reason, similar or less terrible things done by a player's is going to draw everyone's attention".
"It was the only way" IE: "We had a limited amount of time to do *thing* and needed the information from (torture subject)". Turns out most cults/coups aren't prone to wait while the party spends weeks gathering information (and usually buggering off to do some side quests).
i mean of course. Can't say i've heard many stories where crime bosses happily give up control of their domain, especially to some upstart from outside the organization.
Clearly you are attempting to be rude here. But fine, let's play that game. In the Real World there is always a chance someone could kidnap you. Do you personally have cyanide pills or other ways to quickly unalive yourself in for those situations? my guess is no. So by your own logic you would have an intelligence score below 3. Normal people don't really plan for abnormal situations.
No more or less then you would find in any other game. Do you tend to keep detailed notes of EVERY thing your characters have killed? Do you build plot threads where some third cousin, twice removed, seeks vengeance because a player DARED to stand up against a group of corrupt guards/ a group of bandits?
It is very interesting what one can call "self defense". Are you defending yourself, or are you putting yourself in danger so you can justify your murders? A lot of games (if told from a different perspective) are just the character(s) breaking into people's homes and threatening them, then murdering them when the people (rightfully) fight back. Let's be honest 99.9% of the time, those fiends/undead/etc where no threat to you or anyone you care about. But you're still going to track them down and murder them.
I'm handwaving a lot of your points because if you take out the torture angle, most of what you are complaining about is just "adventurers being adventurers" suspension of disbelief. OR perhaps another way to put it "You wouldn't have made your players jump through these hoops if their actions better fit into your moral framework". Honestly i don't believe for a second that you would have wandering mind reading NPCs, Divination voyeur BBEGs, negative rumor mill NPCs, or people commenting on the state of the parties attire; if your party was acting "heroic" (even if they had a much higher body count then a non heroic group). If you are going to be combative with your players making "evil" choices, then it's only fair that you be combative with players making "good" choices... and then the whole things falls apart because you (as the DM) are playing against your party.
The big issue is: you do intimidation (threat of violence); they fail the roll (thus no info); welp time to make good on the threat (maybe another roll here, with advantage?); dang your rolls are BAD today (didn't roll above a nat 5).... so now what?
There's where you made your mistake. Rerolls for intimidation don't work any differently from other rerolls, and thus are typically disallowed (if I allowed it at all, it would be with disadvantage, not advantage).
If it was a straight reroll, then i would agree. You should only allow a "reroll" if something has changed between attempts. Personally, i feel like massive amounts of pain = something having changed.
The big issue is: you do intimidation (threat of violence); they fail the roll (thus no info); welp time to make good on the threat (maybe another roll here, with advantage?); dang your rolls are BAD today (didn't roll above a nat 5).... so now what?
There's where you made your mistake. Rerolls for intimidation don't work any differently from other rerolls, and thus are typically disallowed (if I allowed it at all, it would be with disadvantage, not advantage).
If it was a straight reroll, then i would agree. You should only allow a "reroll" if something has changed between attempts. Personally, i feel like massive amounts of pain = something having changed.
However, you should also consider if the check itself is changing, or even necessary.
EG: You try to jump over a wall, fail the athletics check, and fall down. You then build a ladder and climb it - is it still an athletics check? Is it even a roll?
As a rule, you should never ask for a roll if failure is not an option. Someone being tortured will either talk or they won't, regardless of how intimidating the torturer is! If anything, you want to make them rol la Medicine check, to establish whether they know how to keep them alive long enough to talk. An idiotic torturer might start by cutting off a hand, and then watch as the victim goes into shock, passes out, and dies, all without talking.
So how I would play it would be:
1: character threatens to turture them. They flub the roll, and the NPC is not intimidated.
2: Character actually tortures them, rolls medicine, and rolls around 11-12. The NPC talks, then dies, and they have advantage on further intimidation checks on others who saw this go down. They also may suffer changes to their alignment (which could affect divine sense and item interactions, as well as views from their deities or patrons). However, no further roll for this NPC is needed - and unles they say "I want to work out if he's lying", then no insight. It's on them if they take him at his word. If they had rolled higher, they could have saved the NPC. If they rolled lower, the NPC dies without saying anything.
The big issue is: you do intimidation (threat of violence); they fail the roll (thus no info); welp time to make good on the threat (maybe another roll here, with advantage?); dang your rolls are BAD today (didn't roll above a nat 5).... so now what?
There's where you made your mistake. Rerolls for intimidation don't work any differently from other rerolls, and thus are typically disallowed (if I allowed it at all, it would be with disadvantage, not advantage).
If it was a straight reroll, then i would agree. You should only allow a "reroll" if something has changed between attempts. Personally, i feel like massive amounts of pain = something having changed.
However, you should also consider if the check itself is changing, or even necessary.
EG: You try to jump over a wall, fail the athletics check, and fall down. You then build a ladder and climb it - is it still an athletics check? Is it even a roll?
As a rule, you should never ask for a roll if failure is not an option. Someone being tortured will either talk or they won't, regardless of how intimidating the torturer is! If anything, you want to make them rol la Medicine check, to establish whether they know how to keep them alive long enough to talk. An idiotic torturer might start by cutting off a hand, and then watch as the victim goes into shock, passes out, and dies, all without talking.
So how I would play it would be:
1: character threatens to turture them. They flub the roll, and the NPC is not intimidated.
2: Character actually tortures them, rolls medicine, and rolls around 11-12. The NPC talks, then dies, and they have advantage on further intimidation checks on others who saw this go down. They also may suffer changes to their alignment (which could affect divine sense and item interactions, as well as views from their deities or patrons). However, no further roll for this NPC is needed - and unles they say "I want to work out if he's lying", then no insight. It's on them if they take him at his word. If they had rolled higher, they could have saved the NPC. If they rolled lower, the NPC dies without saying anything.
Ok this is fine. I basically agree.
Not 100% why the NPC died... but i guess it would depend on the NPC and the method used to extract information.
based on what everyone said up to this point... i'd say to the player, make an insight check versus the NPC. i don't use rolls for NPCs, i use the table for NPC reactions on intimidation or persuasion checks and the likes... so depending on their numbers, the DC i set for information, i will simply react to that...
aka, the NPC is hostile because he's being tortured... so it takes a 20 for it to cooperate. just to avoid the risk... a 15 might get you some information but might not 100% reliable or usefull. a 10 might get you some useless info. aka the person is lying to you for it to stop.
of course, here i have asked insight, so i might or might not give the right info to the player. if he gets over a 10, i'll be giving him info about the NPC behavior or tendency. but if he rolls under a 10, i might say, he's serious about this john to whom you should ask. when in reality he just blatantly created the name. its all about insighting the behavior of the tortured, because even in real life, torture isn't as much about the pain you inflict then it is about reading th eperson you are torturing. this is why torture is much less frequent now, because our techniques to get the info by observing the person behaviour has become much better then in the past. so thats why torture is much less then a thing in our day and age. but when it comes to D&D, insight is the skill you are seeking, because you wanna know if the guy is bullshitting you or saying the truth. thats literally the job of insight checks.
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
as with every style of play, it really just comes down to how the player does it. So far the torture hasn't been an issue. That said it's only come up once so far (NPC tried to call the players "bluff", learned that it wasn't a bluff... and is now sans the finger nail of their right index finger)
read it the way you want... but i feel like i totally answered the question.
but meh, think what you want and blame others all you want.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
did this once, was so funny !!!
thats actually a great way of doing things, just not for every single NPC.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
So all comments aside I feel that somthing like torture isn't a intimidation check at all. To me intimidation is not physical. It's the stare down.
I think once you decided to start taking finger nails, and then fingers, it becomes time for the person being tortured to start makig con saves to not start talking, followed by insight checks from the torturer to find the truth.
Torture itself is not intimidation, but the threat of it is. The basic distinction I make is
The big issue is: you do intimidation (threat of violence); they fail the roll (thus no info); welp time to make good on the threat (maybe another roll here, with advantage?); dang your rolls are BAD today (didn't roll above a nat 5).... so now what? Immersion breaks if they can just keep trying till they succeed.. Immersion breaks if the NPC doesn't react to having something done to them.... I break if every NPC's response is "Harder DADDY!!"
The way I would interpret that is that they already failed at intimidation, and are now resorting to combat (potentially against a restrained and helpless opponent?). If they haven't already succeeded on the appropriate skillchecks to restrain the NPC, then they need to roll those (grapple? straight attack? spell saving throw? depends what they're doing). If the NPC is restrained already then there's no need to roll, just narrate results as you see fit for that NPC.
I think the mistake is using an intimidation check for a torture scenario.
When people are tortured, they talk. They wil lsay every name they ever heard, and if that doesn't stop the torture, they will make up more. They will implicate anyone and everyone they ever knew to make the pain stop. Or, they will be able to take it, and would rather die than talk, or they will say things to make it stop without telling the truth.
So, once the DM has decided if this person wil lclam up, blather, or lie, then they need to decide what the players will need to do:
Once you start torturing, intimidation is long since defenestrated.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I think intimidation works before the torture. and still works after the first bit. "I will continue to torture you" feels like it holds little weight if you have been at it for a while. But feels like it still holds plenty of weight as a "Look at what you just made me do. Please don't make me have to continue..."
Sam Spade: If you kill me, how are you going get the bird? And if I know you can't afford to kill me, how are you going to scare me into giving it to you?
Kasper Gutman: Well, sir, there are other means of persuasion besides killing and threatening to kill.
Sam Spade: Yes, that's... That's true. But, there're none of them any good unless the threat of death is behind them. You see what I mean? If you start something, I'll make it a matter of your having to kill me or call it off.
Kasper Gutman: That's an attitude, sir, that calls for the most delicate judgment on both sides. Because, as you know, sir, in the heat of action men are likely to forget where their best interests lie and let their emotions carry them away.
Sam Spade: Then the trick from my angle is to make my play strong enough to tie you up, but not make you mad enough to bump me off against your better judgment.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Where are the tortures being done, that the screams aren’t being heard by random NPCs/neighbors/hood aligned people to where they call the city guard, or put in requests for adventurers to investigate and end “ghastly screams of torment at all hours of the night/day…” or etc.?
is the entire world just cool with torture being a go to? What’s the other alignments of the characters? Do they realize they are slowly becoming the baddies and just helping the rise of a different BBEG? What’s the end game for the story look like? Is that what everyone is aiming for?
If it became well known that an adventurer tortured people for information and such, at a certain point NPCs that thought they may end up in that scenario would start to keep DnD cyanide pills ready for their suicide to avoid torture.
overall, this is a pretty dark sounding campaign. Some people, even when strapped down and tortured, still aren’t afraid of the tortured. I’ll specifically point out a lot of barbarians are immune to frightened condition. Or people under a “heroism” spell, etc etc.
is the torturer LE PC doing anything to prevent his victims from biting off their tongues? To me there’s a ton more variables going on for the scenario to even happen. To me, it seems like you are just kinda giving the player what they want.
🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️
so you have some outs, but none of your outs are like, people reporting no the screams. Routine patrols. Other people being uncomfortable. Divination magic watching it. Glyphs of warding that are activated, etc. you have a whole wide variety of options to do.
that all said as well…
what’s the DC you set for the intimidation? Cause it can be anywhere from *5-30* or whatever you really want. Could be they just ARE or just AREN’T. And if you deem it so, the player just has to accept it.
but at a certain point the LE characters actions and such would effect the party’s reputation. Especially if they aren’t being discreet.
Blank
So in order of what you asked.
The sewers/ an "abandoned" city block/ some random cave in the "middle of nowhere"/ basically anywhere and everywhere you as a DM might stage an encounter with a larger-ish group of important enemy NPCs.
Torture is looked down upon in much the same way it is looked down upon in the real world.
Smattering of Good to Neutral alignment characters.
I don't see how they are "becoming the baddies"/ helping give rise to a BBEG
End game is up to the players, but the character in question; is aimming to cement his rule as the head of the criminal underground within the kingdom.
Not sure if i agree with your take. Pretty sure most random people/things you kill don't really think that far ahead. Maybe it's a risk for some specific high ranking enemies, but even then.... Who really expects a group of 3-5 people to slaughter their way through dozens of henchmen before finally confronting you in some dramatic fight... after defeating you in which, one of them decides to torture you (instead of just murdering you outright) for highly specific information about (the VERY FEW people above you in power).
Sure sometimes torture doesn't work. Then it becomes a question of "Do you just kill the person? or do you f*** them up good and proper and let others (those they have wronged) decide their fate?"
Of course the PC is covering their bases. It wouldn't do to have the individual off themselves before any information could be extracted. Or in other words "I've done this shit before, i'm not going to make rookie mistakes." Sure things could still go wrong, but they aren't flying by the seat of their pants.
DC depends on the individual. Like of course it's going to be easier to intimidate some random street urchin (without actual violence), then it would be to intimidate the leader of a Hellraiser cult (with actual violence). Heck torture doesn't seem like it would work at all against Cenobites.
Would it? And i'm being serious here. Like how many people/things does the average group usually murder its way through in a campaign? Feels like that number is high, and most of the time the party is either ignored or praised for their violence. So why would this be different? Much less, how would the average person know? I know i wouldn't go around talking smack after that, much less risk having to admit WHY that person/people did what they did to me.
There's where you made your mistake. Rerolls for intimidation don't work any differently from other rerolls, and thus are typically disallowed (if I allowed it at all, it would be with disadvantage, not advantage).
Guess the abandoned city block is 100% abandoned. No homeless people, no shady criminals, no people hiding from the law, no urchins, etc. because sewers tend to echo too.
what are the good characters justification for allowing the torture, ie. Being accessory to it?
LE character is aiming to cement his rule as head of the criminal underground, is it safe to say some of the NPCs and victims and such would have been competitors or dissenters to his rule? That’s how the other PCs are helping…
if in your world most people/things don’t think that far ahead then that’s how it is in your world. I tend to run and play in ones where things have intelligence higher than 3.
none of your cult groups, rebel armies, people waging war to be an heir to throne, etc etc etc. none of them follow quest boards and what happens around them? At all? It’s your world. That’s weird to me, like Strahd not knowing a single thing going on in Barovia.
The key word here is “murder”. There’s killing in self defense. There is disposing of fiends/undead s/etc. and then there’s torturing and murdering someone who is unarmed, not fighting back. Just saying.
”how would the average person know?” Your world. Maybe some NPCs cast detect thoughts on the PC. Maybe BBEGs have divination magic watching them and then spread the stories. Maybe someone spreads the rumor without realizing it’s true? Maybe your characters aren’t casting prestidigitation or washing their clothes afterwards? Maybe someone watched them go in, and watched them come out.
It’s your world. I guess most of the time you have played or DM’s there weren’t NPC reactions to your heroics, or lack there of. But it is a thing, more often than you would believe.
but all in all. It’s your world.
Blank
and yet these are common locations players tend to find individuals or groups who wish to avoid the eyes of the law. Or do you run your games where enemies ONLY attack in broad daylight, while in the middle of the street? I'm just very confused why people seem to default to "Oh the villains who operated out of this place, never drew attention with all the F***'d up stuff they did... but for some reason, similar or less terrible things done by a player's is going to draw everyone's attention".
"It was the only way" IE: "We had a limited amount of time to do *thing* and needed the information from (torture subject)". Turns out most cults/coups aren't prone to wait while the party spends weeks gathering information (and usually buggering off to do some side quests).
i mean of course. Can't say i've heard many stories where crime bosses happily give up control of their domain, especially to some upstart from outside the organization.
Clearly you are attempting to be rude here. But fine, let's play that game. In the Real World there is always a chance someone could kidnap you. Do you personally have cyanide pills or other ways to quickly unalive yourself in for those situations? my guess is no. So by your own logic you would have an intelligence score below 3. Normal people don't really plan for abnormal situations.
No more or less then you would find in any other game. Do you tend to keep detailed notes of EVERY thing your characters have killed? Do you build plot threads where some third cousin, twice removed, seeks vengeance because a player DARED to stand up against a group of corrupt guards/ a group of bandits?
It is very interesting what one can call "self defense". Are you defending yourself, or are you putting yourself in danger so you can justify your murders? A lot of games (if told from a different perspective) are just the character(s) breaking into people's homes and threatening them, then murdering them when the people (rightfully) fight back. Let's be honest 99.9% of the time, those fiends/undead/etc where no threat to you or anyone you care about. But you're still going to track them down and murder them.
I'm handwaving a lot of your points because if you take out the torture angle, most of what you are complaining about is just "adventurers being adventurers" suspension of disbelief. OR perhaps another way to put it "You wouldn't have made your players jump through these hoops if their actions better fit into your moral framework". Honestly i don't believe for a second that you would have wandering mind reading NPCs, Divination voyeur BBEGs, negative rumor mill NPCs, or people commenting on the state of the parties attire; if your party was acting "heroic" (even if they had a much higher body count then a non heroic group). If you are going to be combative with your players making "evil" choices, then it's only fair that you be combative with players making "good" choices... and then the whole things falls apart because you (as the DM) are playing against your party.
If it was a straight reroll, then i would agree. You should only allow a "reroll" if something has changed between attempts. Personally, i feel like massive amounts of pain = something having changed.
However, you should also consider if the check itself is changing, or even necessary.
EG: You try to jump over a wall, fail the athletics check, and fall down. You then build a ladder and climb it - is it still an athletics check? Is it even a roll?
As a rule, you should never ask for a roll if failure is not an option. Someone being tortured will either talk or they won't, regardless of how intimidating the torturer is! If anything, you want to make them rol la Medicine check, to establish whether they know how to keep them alive long enough to talk. An idiotic torturer might start by cutting off a hand, and then watch as the victim goes into shock, passes out, and dies, all without talking.
So how I would play it would be:
1: character threatens to turture them. They flub the roll, and the NPC is not intimidated.
2: Character actually tortures them, rolls medicine, and rolls around 11-12. The NPC talks, then dies, and they have advantage on further intimidation checks on others who saw this go down. They also may suffer changes to their alignment (which could affect divine sense and item interactions, as well as views from their deities or patrons). However, no further roll for this NPC is needed - and unles they say "I want to work out if he's lying", then no insight. It's on them if they take him at his word. If they had rolled higher, they could have saved the NPC. If they rolled lower, the NPC dies without saying anything.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Ok this is fine. I basically agree.
Not 100% why the NPC died... but i guess it would depend on the NPC and the method used to extract information.
based on what everyone said up to this point...
i'd say to the player, make an insight check versus the NPC.
i don't use rolls for NPCs, i use the table for NPC reactions on intimidation or persuasion checks and the likes...
so depending on their numbers, the DC i set for information, i will simply react to that...
aka, the NPC is hostile because he's being tortured...
so it takes a 20 for it to cooperate. just to avoid the risk...
a 15 might get you some information but might not 100% reliable or usefull.
a 10 might get you some useless info. aka the person is lying to you for it to stop.
of course, here i have asked insight, so i might or might not give the right info to the player.
if he gets over a 10, i'll be giving him info about the NPC behavior or tendency. but if he rolls under a 10, i might say, he's serious about this john to whom you should ask. when in reality he just blatantly created the name. its all about insighting the behavior of the tortured, because even in real life, torture isn't as much about the pain you inflict then it is about reading th eperson you are torturing. this is why torture is much less frequent now, because our techniques to get the info by observing the person behaviour has become much better then in the past. so thats why torture is much less then a thing in our day and age. but when it comes to D&D, insight is the skill you are seeking, because you wanna know if the guy is bullshitting you or saying the truth. thats literally the job of insight checks.
as for NPC reactions...
you can use this as a refference... (in DMG, running the game section, social interaction)
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#ConversationReaction
and alternatively you can use loyalty optionnal rules to determine if they speak or not...
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/creating-nonplayer-characters#OptionalRuleLoyalty
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)