Hot to circumvent Discern Lies

[Pielorinho]

Q: Did you strangle her?
A1: No. (I used a garotte.)
A2: I never touched her. (I wore gloves.)

Q: Did you kill her?
A1: No. (I broke her windpipe, asphyxiation killed her.)

No way would I allow either of your A1 answers. Otherwise, no PC in my game has ever killed anyone (it was blood loss/cranial leakage/internal hemorrhaging/third-degree burns/etc. that killed them), and the fighters have never chopped someone into little bits (it was the sword that did the chopping). That just becomes silly.

However, a potion of glibness combined with the misdirection spell is incredibly difficult to detect. If the murderer is prepared for questioning, thye can bear up under strong magical observation.

And nobles shouldn't submit to questioning by the guard unless the evidence is overwhelming. They should adopt a "do you know who I am? I'll have your head for your impertinence, you cad!" response if the PCs cop an attitude. Of course, the innocent nobles should have the same response as the guilty noble has.

Daniel

 

[Xarlen]

I distinctly recall a fantasy novel with a murder investigation in it. After the author had gone to a great deal of trouble to set up a locked-room mystery that magic couldn't easily break - "Did someone teleport in? No. Could someone have walked through the walls? No. etc." - the detective fell for one of the classic blunders.

"Did you kill victims A and B?" "No." "The spell says he's telling the truth."

Of course, he'd only killed victim A. Someone else killed B. In the world of logic, if A is True and B is False, A+B is False.

As it turns out, the victim was killed outside of the place, his corpse animated, and walked into the room, followed by creating the crime scene.

Which, I'd have to wonder how he pulled off letting an animated corpse walk into a deadmagic zone and keep on goin'.

 

[Psychotic Jim]

The murderer could turn these spells to his advantage. Just have a Bard cast Modify Memory on himself, of not committing the murder. Now he isn't lying if he tells that he didn't do it.

Easy as that.

And while you are at it, it would be even more devious if the the murderer had the bard cast the spell on another (innocnet) suspect to make the innocent think that he or she commited the murder.

 

[Malin Genie]

I'm a fan of using skills, with appropriately high DCs, to achieve difficult or unusual tasks.

Using the Search/Disable Device template of DC 25 + spell level

Bluff check DC 27 to beat Detect Thoughts (Bluff includes controlling your surface thoughts so as not to inadvertently betray yourself by a movement or reaction.)

Bluff check DC 29 effectively circumvent Detect Lies (whatever internal inconsistency it is that triggers the spell, you have learnt to control it.)

Or you could substitute Innuendo checks (with the rationale that Innuendo allows you to embed meanings in otherwise innocent communication. If you embed the truth deeply in a lie, the spell will pick up that your ''meaning" is the truth, despite the fact that what you are saying is, on face value, a lie. Great skill is needed to walk the tightrope of providing enough 'truth' to satisfy the spell but hiding it well enough to prevent others figuring it out! This approach also rewards interrogators with good Innuendo skills, who can make checks to pry out the inner meaning of the apparently innocent statement.)

The DCs are high enough not to make it a sure thing (unless you are a high-level, specialised Rogue - in which case you deserve some reward!)

It also means a high-level caster could get some value out of Heightening these spells...

 

[Geoff Watson]

I'm a fan of using skills, with appropriately high DCs, to achieve difficult or unusual tasks.

Using the Search/Disable Device template of DC 25 + spell level

Bluff check DC 27 to beat Detect Thoughts (Bluff includes controlling your surface thoughts so as not to inadvertently betray yourself by a movement or reaction.)

This sort of skill use is in the Epic rules, though the DCs are much higher.

Geoff.

 

[Pielorinho]

I'm a fan of using skills, with appropriately high DCs, to achieve difficult or unusual tasks.

Very cool idea, Malin! I much like this.

Daniel

 

[Psion]

Q: Did you kill her?
A1: No. (I broke her windpipe, asphyxiation killed her.)

I'd have to call that one a lie. The means by which you killed her does not change the fact that your intentful act resulted in her demise.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm a fan of using skills, with appropriately high DCs, to achieve difficult or unusual tasks.

Basically what I said, but putting some useful numbers to it

I like the approach of setting the DC using the same principle as skills vs magic traps, and I'll use that. Also, like you said, it gives a good reason for heightening those spells.

Personally I go for innuendo rather than bluff because bluff is pretty much an uber-skill with multiple uses and synergies (along the lines of tumble) whereas innuendo could do with a bit of boost.

Cheers.