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

[RangerWickett]

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.'

Bob could have said, "Answer the following question 'yes' or 'no' or else I'll throttle you. Did you kill Tom?"

And then Jim could not possibly answer 'No.' In fact, Bob basically intended to ask that question, and Jim knows that's the question Bob wants answered. But the last thing Bob said was, 'give me a yes or no answer.' So Jim did.

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

 

[GlobeOfDankness]

i just pretend the spell isn't.

 

[Marius Delphus]

The key language in the spell is "can't speak a deliberate lie" and "evasive ... within the boundaries of the truth." The spell is an enchantment, so it's affecting Jim's mind. Jim can be evasive, but he can't be misleading -- I'd rule he'd be lying if he intentionally left Bob with the impression that he hadn't killed Tom. So what happens is Jim says no ... but the look on his face is so smug that Bob would have to be an idiot not to realize Jim isn't answering the question Bob wants answered. Maybe call for an Insight roll from Bob.

More generally, Jim can say anything he likes that (he believes) happens to be true, and he still won't violate the wording of the spell, as demonstrated in the OP — the only reason he has to directly answer Bob's question in the first place is the threat of harm. So the spell would allow him to say things like, "Go ahead and hurt me, it won't change anything," or "The only answer you'll accept is yes, so why should I bother denying it," or "I like salad."

 

[Paraxis]

I wouldn't get to lawyery with it, unless both the DM and the player have fun with deception/debate in real life. Roleplay it out sure but if the creature doesn't want to answer questions they don't have to, just have them not speak for the duration of the spell.

It depends on what kind of information you want them to get to move the story forward, I would either let them have the truth or silence depending and if silence they can infer what they want from that.

 

[miniaturehoarder]

Getting lawyer-y with this spell is the whole point of that spell. It is in NO way a compulsion to tell the whole truth, it merely prevents lies.

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

Jim: . . . No."

No lie there. in that sentence Bob is just demanding a reply of the word "yes" or the word "no".

 

[GSHamster]

Well, it depends on how your players react. It's kind of like Wishes. If your players are the type to react to a Wish by creating an iron-clad contract multiple pages long, then it's probably best to go with "intent" over "lawyering".

If it's only a little bit of lawyering, then that's probably a bit more fun.

 

[MarkB]

Bob could have said, "Answer the following question 'yes' or 'no' or else I'll throttle you. Did you kill Tom?"

And then Jim could not possibly answer 'No.' In fact, Bob basically intended to ask that question, and Jim knows that's the question Bob wants answered. But the last thing Bob said was, 'give me a yes or no answer.' So Jim did.

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

I don't see the distinction. If you're giving an answer - as opposed to simply a reply - then you're responding to a question. And the last question Jim was asked was whether or not he killed Tom. There is no other question to which he can be responding.

 

[PnPgamer]

To me the spell seems worthless. All the questionee needs to do is stay silent and the caster just wasted a spell slot.

 

[was]

Get all kinds of lawyery, have Jim go on the offensive:

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

Jim: I did not murder Tom and, quite honestly, I'm offended by your accusation that I would intentionally kill my friend. How about you? Did you kill him? Your own words suggest that you're quick to commit acts of violence.

...Note that asking an open-ended question is not making a false statement.

...Jim's evasiveness is no more cheating than Bob's reliance upon magic, and threats of violence, to coerce/force people to answer his questions.

...Jim is not obligated to answer any questions. Whereas, assaulting/killing someone for refusing to answer a question would probably be considered a crime for most characters.

 

[RangerWickett]

All this legalese. I blame Better Call Saul.