D&D 5E How lawyery do you get with Zone of Truth?

[delericho]

In your game, would you let Jim get away with responding to a different question than the one the interrogator thought he asked?

No. I would rule that the character has the choice to remain silent, but if he does speak then what he says will be true, regardless of his intent - he is, after all, being compelled to truth. So he might well have wanted to answer "no" as in "no, I refuse", but the word that would actually come out would be "yes", as in "yes, I killed him".

It may also be worth noting, though, that IMC such spells have no (or very little) legal standing - most nations don't have any concept of due process at all anyway, some of those that do have official interrogators who themselves may or may not be corrupt (and who are emphatically not the PCs), and those other nations that do have a mostly-impartial justice system also have lawyers who have worked very hard to render inadmissible any evidence gained as a result of mental compulsion.

 

[Thyrwyn]

This is a really neat spell.

The description specifically states that the subject(s) can avoid answering questions if they so choose and can be evasive. It also says that they are aware of the spell, but not that the subject knows that the caster knows whether or not they have succeeded on their save. Obviously, some well informed or educated subjects might know that from previous education/experience.

How evasive a creature chooses to be (or is mentally capable of being) would depend on who (and how important) they thought the caster was, how important they thought hiding the truth was, and how much they cared about hiding the truth. The subject is not compelled to tell the truth - they are compelled to not lie. There is a big difference - even in highly litigious societies.

The spell appears on the Bard, Paladin, and Cleric lists. Whether or not the "evidence" so acquired has any value to interested third parties, would depend on the culture and society involved. In a society with a strong central church, the evidence so gathered by Church Inquisitor would probably be all that would be required to pass judgement. In some societies (or courts - kingly or judicial), the word of the Court Jester might carry more weight than an army of Paladins.

But there is so much fun to be had with this spell. If your players take this spell, let them use it. It is a great way to move the story forward or set up some clever sparring. But most of the time it should work for the players - if they do their homework and think it through. Be sure to set a timer for 10 minutes when they cast the spell...

 

[iserith]

My experience with most DMs is that they make even their innkeepers cagey as flumph for generally no good reason, so I'd expect that zone of truth with its backdoor "you can be evasive" option to give the DM an excuse to make them even more cagey. So I wouldn't use this spell as a player unless I knew the DM wasn't going to mess around.

As a DM, I'd go with the intent of the player when it comes to deciding what the NPC will say and the spell will always make it easier to get to the truth than a social interaction without the spell.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Always? Even if the NPC might have been willing to share the truth but feels offended or threatened that the PC chose to go this route? Or maybe the NPC realizes the truth has value, and wants to profit... Always is rather extreme, don't you think?

 

[iserith]

Always? Even if the NPC might have been willing to share the truth but feels offended or threatened that the PC chose to go this route? Or maybe the NPC realizes the truth has value, and wants to profit... Always is rather extreme, don't you think?

Nah. Cagey NPC out of the zone becomes truthful NPC in the zone. It keeps it simple, makes the spell useful, and moves the scene forward at the cost of a resource.

 

[Bawylie]

If I were a player and took this spell, I would be very disappointed if I didn't get anything out of using it. Similarly, I'd feel ill-used by a DM who deliberately undercut me by using the rules against me.

Because I personally would feel that way, I am ignoring the part of the spell that says the target knows it's in a zone of truth (unless cast in a way that's deliberate or obvious) & I won't make my NPCs cagey or withholding. IMO this spell, properly used, is an excellent tool for setting up the next bit of the adventure. As are many divination spells.

 

[Thyrwyn]

If I were a player and took this spell, I would be very disappointed if I didn't get anything out of using it. Similarly, I'd feel ill-used by a DM who deliberately undercut me by using the rules against me.

I would, too. But I would also be disappointed if, as a player, it were used against me (see below). A 2nd level spell that makes it impossible to be clever, cunning, or outright deceitful is a big detriment to a wide variety of character types. There are skills in the game that become practically useless if this spell is concealable and foolproof. Several background features and class traits, too.

Because I personally would feel that way, I am ignoring the part of the spell that says the target knows it's in a zone of truth (unless cast in a way that's deliberate or obvious) & I won't make my NPCs cagey or withholding. IMO this spell, properly used, is an excellent tool for setting up the next bit of the adventure. As are many divination spells.

I agree that they are useful. But this is a 2nd level spell - if you ignore the "subject is aware" part, it becomes a crutch. PCs will cast it all the time, in every encounter or negotiation that they can reasonably get away with doing so. More importantly, how will your players react when you put them in a situation where this spell is used against them? Since you don't tell them they are aware of the spell how will you deal with their inability to lie? You can't tell them "you cannot lie", because that will give the spell away...

 

[aramis erak]

Jim is in a Zone of Truth.


Bob: Did you kill Tom?

Jim: Why would you think that?

Bob: Tell me the truth. Did you kill him?

Jim: I've known Tom my whole life. I wouldn't want to hurt him.

Bob: Give me a yes or no answer. If you do not answer yes or no I will throttle you.

Jim: . . . No.


So, if Jim actually did kill Tom, and is in a Zone of Truth . . . but he killed him by accident (i.e., he didn't want to hurt Tom; it just happened), is that final 'No' answer okay? I know it's a very lawyery reading of the interaction, but Bob just said 'give me a yes or no answer.'

In that last line, I'd say to Jim, "as you try to say 'No', you find the words do not come out, as your lips refuse to form the word..." I'd allow him a Wis save to avoid saying "yes", but he's not going to say "no"... unless he is unaware that he was the proximate or direct cause.

 

[RangerWickett]

So in my game the past two weeks, the party has interrogated four people with the spell. Three were prisoners they intended to execute after they got information, one was an ally they were suspicious of. The prisoners had been involved in poisoning a town.

One of the prisoners managed to save herself by being straightforward and honest, explaining that she was forced to work against her will by a geas. That seems like a ridiculous lie, but she was in a zone of truth so they believed her. (I'm setting up an enchanter villain who tortures his enemies by compelling them to undertake horrific acts.) She gets to live.

Another prisoner was asked his loyalties, and he realized they wanted information about his mission, so he clammed up. They explained that if he was also being geased they might let him live. He said he didn't think he deserved to die for following orders. They asked straight up, did you have any qualms about poisoning the town? He was quiet for a moment, struggling, but then shrugged and smiled and said, no. He was glad to do it. Execution time!

Third prisoner, seeing what's happened, says that he's killed lots of people for his country, and while he didn't feel it was right to murder people outside of combat, he knew he had to follow orders or he'd be killed. They asked if he would help them instead of the person who gave him orders, and he said yes, and that he'd rather betray his master than die right now. They ask him a few more questions about whether he intends or is thinking of betraying the PCs, and he says no. His life is spared, for now.


Then there's the suspicious ally. That ally has been giving the PCs advice on their missions because she has lots of magical knowledge of events in the wider world, and they're suspicious of how she knows all those things. The ally controls a library with tons of obscure knowledge, and she has magic that lets her enter books and see events in the book as if she were there. (The party has abused this by storing prisoners in books.) So a PC gets her into a zone of truth and straight up asks her, are we in a book?

The answer is, well, yeah. For reasons that are complicated*, the party consists of people in a history book, and the NPC is trying to get them to do things differently so that she can learn how to deal with a threat in the present day. But she figures if the PCs know they're not real, they'll not be useful anymore because what motivation would they have to do anything? So, since she's a master of language, she verves and redirects and selectively interprets their questions to basically tell the PC an answer that she can justify as being "not false," even though it is totally deceptive.

One of my players clued into that, but figured his 8 Intelligence PC wouldn't realize he'd been tricked. After the game he told me he was totally pissed that I'd cheated. Hence this thread.

*Reasons:
[sblock]A demon lord gets loose and destroys most of civilization. A handful of survivors who hope to defeat the demon lord include this NPC, who is a librarian and wizard, and who knows a spell that lets you hop into a book. But normally the book is just static; it's more like "use a book as a focus to create a pocket dimension based on whatever is on that particular page." However, the survivors found the First Book, written by the creator god himself, which starts with the words, "We create the world."

With some magic shenanigans they managed to splice a history book into the First Book, so now that history book is basically alive, not static. The NPC librarian goes into the book and nudges some events to try to find critical information from the time before the demon lord is released. Her intention is to find this information then get out of the book, which would strand the PCs in a sort of fake reality that would eventually be destroyed by the book's version of the demon lord.

Yes, it's sort of Inception-y.

What I have planned, though, is for the party to find a way to drive away the demon lord for a time -- but that method won't work in the real world. So the NPC librarian will stick with the party, trying to find a more permanent solution. Eventually they'll come upon a mage who actually can create physical objects out of words, which would allow the PCs to at least get out of the book they're in, and into the real (demon-lord-apocalypse) world. Then if they can find the original creator god and get his help, they can have him make the reality from the book they came from be the Real Reality. They can save their world and be real.[/sblock]

 

[iserith]

I would, too. But I would also be disappointed if, as a player, it were used against me (see below). A 2nd level spell that makes it impossible to be clever, cunning, or outright deceitful is a big detriment to a wide variety of character types. There are skills in the game that become practically useless if this spell is concealable and foolproof. Several background features and class traits, too.

I agree that they are useful. But this is a 2nd level spell - if you ignore the "subject is aware" part, it becomes a crutch. PCs will cast it all the time, in every encounter or negotiation that they can reasonably get away with doing so. More importantly, how will your players react when you put them in a situation where this spell is used against them? Since you don't tell them they are aware of the spell how will you deal with their inability to lie? You can't tell them "you cannot lie", because that will give the spell away...

At the heart of each of your objections is a concern that somebody - either DM or player - is going to abuse the spell in a way that negatively impacts everyone's fun and potentially causes the group to fail to achieve a goal of play.

I see the abuse as the problem, not the spell itself (or bawylie's house rule). This is thus a DM or player problem, not a rules problem. No system will protect you from people who are willing to abuse game mechanics in a way that negatively impacts the game experience.