D&D 5E Protection from Zone of Truth

[Oofta]

Suggestion, also a 2nd level spell, seems superior in so many ways. "I suggest you answer my questions immediately and truthfully with yes or no." Though only the Bard can take either spell.

If answering truthfully will lead to immediate execution, this may not work depending on your definition of "immediate harm". YMMV.

 

[Harzel]

Out of curiosity [-]my BBEG[/-] - asking for a friend - would like to know what you think is the most easily available protection from this pesky Zone of Truth spell the opposing cleric prepares tomorrow...

(It would be swell if it were available on short notice... I do not have much time to prepare. They are already on my doorstep!)

Don't say anything. Nothing about the spell forces you to speak.

Slightly off topic, but if ZoT is defeated this easily (and from the spell description, it looks like it is), what is it actually good for? It seems like it has to be accompanied by some circumstance (e.g. coercion) that forces the target to emit an actual answer to the question(s) of interest.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Slightly off topic, but if ZoT is defeated this easily (and from the spell description, it looks like it is), what is it actually good for?

It's good for confirming someone is giving honest testimony, at the very least.

That all you have to do is not speak to avoid speaking the truth doesn't actually help the person not speaking though - usually a zone of truth is used in a context that refusal to answer a question can be interpreted as a clear answer in itself, i.e. "Did you murder the inn keep?" being followed by silence is just as good to the people asking as if you had said "Yes," because there is literally no reason not to say "No," if it is the truth. Or, to phrase that differently, defeating the mechanics of the spell easily is not the same as defeating the use of the spell easily.

 

[flametitan]

How high level is the BBEG? At a high enough level game, simply being a mastermind rogue allows you to circumvent the spell.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

Uhh...kill the cleric?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Relate a story to answer the first question that takes longer than 10 minutes, allowing the spell to expire.

I don't know why but this entertained me highly.

 

[Shiroiken]

I don't know why but this entertained me highly.

I watch The Blacklist with James Spader, and his character does this a lot (despite no Zone of Truth in the show). If you lead the questions off in the wrong direction, you can answer things they really weren't looking for while hiding things you want secret.

 

[Shiroiken]

It's good for confirming someone is giving honest testimony, at the very least.

That all you have to do is not speak to avoid speaking the truth doesn't actually help the person not speaking though - usually a zone of truth is used in a context that refusal to answer a question can be interpreted as a clear answer in itself, i.e. "Did you murder the inn keep?" being followed by silence is just as good to the people asking as if you had said "Yes," because there is literally no reason not to say "No," if it is the truth. Or, to phrase that differently, defeating the mechanics of the spell easily is not the same as defeating the use of the spell easily.

Silence is probably the weakest answer (because it implies guilt), but less than intelligent/charismatic foes shouldn't be able to utilize the other methods I proposed.

The big question becomes what this the result of the spell from the context in play. If all it does is reveal information to the PCs, then the spell really isn't that much of an issue, and probably becomes a tool to provide clues. If the spell is being used in court to determine guilt or innocence, there is a problem IMO.

This is why in my games magic cannot be used as the sole arbiter of a court case in any free land (despots don't actually need courts anyway). Since magic can be countered by magic AND other magic can be used to coerce testimony, magic is generally not used in this way.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Uhh...kill the cleric?

I admit, this made me laugh.

*knock knock*

"Duke, we have some questions regarding the spies we've found in the palace and the hobgoblin army marching on the city, will you submit to magical questioning."

"Sure, I have nothing to hide, one moment." *Stabs cleric repeatedly* "Now, what are your questions?"

 

[Sword of Spirit]

This is why in my games magic cannot be used as the sole arbiter of a court case in any free land (despots don't actually need courts anyway). Since magic can be countered by magic AND other magic can be used to coerce testimony, magic is generally not used in this way.

Good points, and good world consequences. I think I'm going to use this idea.