The intimidation thread inspired me to think about torture in Pendragon, and its ramifications on a PK's personality and reputation. How should torture be treated? Is it an acceptable method to interrogate and/or punish enemies and criminals?

Possible solutions:
- While harsh, torture was certainly a part of reality in the Middle Ages. It may warrant a Cruel check, and possibly other negative trait checks, but no reduction to Honor.
- Torture is wrong, simply put. This seems to be the point in BotM, where simply owning a torture chamber gives the lord an annual penalty to Honor. Negative trait checks would also be applicable while engaging in iron maidening, racking and other amusing activities as well.
- Depends on the victim's social class and background. Torturing nobles is evil, wrong and utterly unknightly. Torturing commoners, brigands and (enemy) Saxons? Oh well...
- Depends on the era. In Uther's time and Anarchy, only negative trait checks, if even those. During Arthur's reign, Honor penalties as well.
- Depends on the situation. A proven murderer may certainly be chopped slowly to pieces for his crimes, and the assassin mentioned in the intimidation thread (who is clearly guilty) may be squeezed for information without negative checks. If the culprit's guilt is in doubt, negative checks and Honor penalties are applicable.
- "The gentleman's way". Hire a torturer and build a little amusement park for his particular activities. Never visit the place, never attend his professional sessions, simply ask for the results of interrogation afterwards. "Why, what the filthy commoner does in his gaol is no business of mine. I do not watch after my cooks and cleaners either, do I?" A hypocrisy check perhaps :P?
- A combination of some or all of the above.

My take on it:

1) Torturing is Cruel. Get a check.
2) Torturing nobles is Wrong. Penalty to Honor.
3) Torturing for giggles is Wrong (at least in the Arthurian Period). Penalty to Honor. (Also why having your own torture chamber gives a Honor penalty, as why would you build one unless you seek to use it...)
4) Torturing a commoner criminal (assassin, bandit, kidnapper) to find out his accomplices / save the victims is Cruel necessity but accepted socially. Check Cruel, no penalty to Honor. Note: Since the bandits know that they might get tortured and hanged, they often try to cut a deal, selling out their comrades to save their own skins. No honor amongst thieves! (Exceptions may include Saxon freedom fighters and such.)
5) Torturing a prisoner of war for information about enemy plans: see 4. Note: This does not apply if the enemy has surrendered honorably or is a noble. Torturing the surrendees is a violation of Honor.
6) Cruel but just punishment is obeying the law. No Honor penalty nor Cruel checks for sentencing a traitor to be hanged, drawn and quartered.

Arthur, being the paragon of Just and Merciful that he is, does not resort to torture. Famously Merciful people would object to torturing people as well.

Good points.

Other possible trait and Passion checks:
Arbitrary: Resorting to torture without knowledge of guilt, a possible source of information, or anything other relevant. "This random Anglish peasant might know something about those rebels. To the rack with him!"
Vengeful: Torturing a personal enemy or out of spite. "You dirty wench! How dare you cheat on me with my squire? To the thumb screw with both of you!"
Hate: Pretty self-explanatory. "You... you Saxon! To the maiden with you!"
Suspicious: "Hmph. My wife and my squire seem a bit too close. To the grill with her all-knowing servant girl!"

I guess the torture gear could also be used to gain Lustful checks, but let's not veer into that territory...

Yeah, definitely Arbitrary to start torturing random peasants on the off-chance that they'd know something. As for your other points (Vengeful, Hate, Suspicious, Lustful), torture is bit incidental to the check itself: those would be worthy of checks even without torture: taking revenge is Vengeful, whether it is dismissing the squire from your service and badmouthing him to other knights, or torturing him (the latter, of course, might be bad if the squire is another knight's son, not so bad if he is just a commoner).