Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 6876693" data-attributes="member: 23751">The narration runs contrary to the mechanics, and the narration is her lying under the effects of a Zone of Truth.No.  She could not say either one of those things as both are lies.  The only thing she can say is the truth.  The truth is that she knows the answer.  Even though she is wrong, she must say the answer that she knows.Why would we be happy with her telling yet more lies?This is true.  The mechanics don't change if she lies.  They consistently require her to tell the truth that she is not telling, despite being forced to by the mechanics.  The player is cheating if she does that.100% wrong.  During this entire debate, my position regarding the mechanics of the int check have not changed.  They simply are irrelevant to whether or not Eloelle gives an answer.No.  I'm saying that your action narration violates the mechanics that require her to tell the truth.  Her state of mind only matters in that it determined that she knows the truth (though it is incorrect).  That state of mind subjects her to the mechanics of the spell and doesn't allow her the narrated response that you are trying to use.You are misstating the rule.  The players do not narrate what they want to do.  The players describe what they want to do.  There's a huge difference.  The rule is saying to the DM what you would like to happen.  The DM then narrates what really happens.And then the DM says that the mechanics don't allow you to do that and narrates that she answers the question with the incorrect truth that she knows.First, it doesn't matter what I detect.  It matters what the mechanics say and detect, and they detect her lie.  So you are cheating.  Second, the game changes drastically based on the changed reaction of the NPC to her lie, rather than the reaction that should have been given had she told the truth.  Even if I can't detect that, it's wrong for you to force the game down different paths in order to not break a concept that has no right not to be broken.Concepts are not inviolate.  If they were, charm person, dominate and other spells that force PCs to do actions that they would not do would not exist.  Each and every time a PC is forced to do something they would not do, their concept has been broken.  Eloelle is no exception.This has nothing to do with whether or not I enjoy your character.  I like the concept.  It's just that your concept doesn't get to trump the rules when it runs headfirst into one that temporarily overrides it.  You set your concept up such that your PC will ALWAYS have a truthful answer to Zone of Truth.  A failed int check results in a truth that is incorrect, and a successful int check results in a truth that is correct.  In all cases you have a truth to answer and without a house rule to allow her to lie, you the player are cheating with the answer you are giving here.I'm curious.  How do you rationalize away that a different response from the evil bad guy doesn't alter the game?  The NPC would not react the same way to an I won't tell you as he would to being told the wrong, but truthful answer.  The entire campaign can swing in a radically different direction based on her lie.</blockquote>

Verification