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

[iserith]

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.

This might be something to read and consider: Interrogation. (Not my blog.) The author goes into why he thinks these "interrogate the prisoners" scenes arise so commonly in RPGs and how to turn things around so that the players get the information they need to carry on, but doesn't get into interrogation or torture scenes. It's a good read and very insightful, I think.

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.

I think that's a really interesting premise for a campaign. Based on what you said, the way you had the NPC behave does have the appearance of trying to protect a Big Reveal that you intend on having later on in the game. Is that the case? Because I think I'd have just had the Big Reveal right then and there. "Yes, you're in a history book. And I need your help to change things or else the world is doomed." Or whatever.

 

[RangerWickett]

I might be defending myself after the fact, but in my head I was just roleplaying the NPC. The NPC was scared of failure if she was found out, and she saw a chance to not have to reveal her secret. But if the PC had just said, "Just in case you're trying to twist my words around, are we in a book?", I would have had to have her admit the truth by not answering.

 

[iserith]

I might be defending myself after the fact, but in my head I was just roleplaying the NPC. The NPC was scared of failure if she was found out, and she saw a chance to not have to reveal her secret. But if the PC had just said, "Just in case you're trying to twist my words around, are we in a book?", I would have had to have her admit the truth by not answering.

I think the way to tell is whether or not you had it in mind to do the Big Reveal at some point later when you were planning your campaign. I obviously don't have all the context, but the player seems like he got wise to something and jumped the gun, forcing you to choose to reveal your hand early or get cagey. You chose the latter. I try to keep in mind the goals of play above all things even when trying to roleplay the NPC I imagine him or her. In this case, the NPC's silence might have spoken volumes and been a very dramatic reveal. But hindsight and all that, right?

In any case, I think if we stick to the intent of the players with regard to spells like this, we can't go far wrong.

 

[Thyrwyn]

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.

Woah, there Nellie, that's not my concern at all. I was addressing the problems created by Bawylie's house rule, and the reasons he felt they were necessary. Your contention that "if everyone agrees not to abuse the spell, then we don't have a problem" could just as easily apply to Bawylie's post - he was the one concerned that the DM would "use the rules against him" or that a player could take the spell "and get nothing out of it."

Your argument is basically to say "Hey guys, this adventure is going to be a mystery/investigation scenario, so don't use Zone of Truth because my house rules have made it an Ironclad truth serum, and the adventure won't work if you do".

If you leave the spell as is, there is no need to say that, interesting and dynamic play opportunities arise, and the everyone gets to have fun - that was my point. As written, there is nothing to abuse. The requisite social skills continue to apply, etc... Insight, Deception, Performance, Intimidation, etc... continue to be useful and valuable tools

 

[iserith]

Woah, there Nellie, that's not my concern at all. I was addressing the problems created by Bawylie's house rule, and the reasons he felt they were necessary. Your contention that "if everyone agrees not to abuse the spell, then we don't have a problem" could just as easily apply to Bawylie's post - he was the one concerned that the DM would "use the rules against him" or that a player could take the spell "and get nothing out of it."

Okay.

Your argument is basically to say "Hey guys, this adventure is going to be a mystery/investigation scenario, so don't use Zone of Truth because my house rules have made it an Ironclad truth serum, and the adventure won't work if you do".

If you leave the spell as is, there is no need to say that, interesting and dynamic play opportunities arise, and the everyone gets to have fun - that was my point. As written, there is nothing to abuse. The requisite social skills continue to apply, etc... Insight, Deception, Performance, Intimidation, etc... continue to be useful and valuable tools

I would never make the argument to tell players not to use zone of truth in a mystery/investigation scenario though (because I happen to know how to run those scenarios well and going out of my way to hide information from players isn't the way to go). My only expectation would be that they just not abuse it in a way that makes the game experience less fun, just like any other spell, class feature, or tactic.

 

[Thyrwyn]

I would never make the argument to tell players not to use zone of truth in a mystery/investigation scenario though (because I happen to know how to run those scenarios well...

So do a great many DMs. Regardless of how you would play it, that seems to be your advice - which you repeat in general form at the end of your post...

...and going out of my way to hide information from players isn't the way to go).

OK. What exactly does that have to do with our current conversation. I never stated my intent to do so. But the point in a mystery/investigation scenario is to make the pursuit of information a memorable story. No?

Having ZoT invalidate and render moot entire array of Social skills, does not make a memorable story. Especially since other players may have invested character resources in those skills, presumably because they enjoy using those skills and have fun doing so.

My only expectation would be that they just not abuse it in a way that makes the game experience less fun, just like any other spell, class feature, or tactic.

I really do appreciate your perspective and your contributions, so please understand that I am not trying to be confrontational - but that is terribly vague. Can you give an example of abuse/not abuse of the spell as written?

 

[Sunseeker]

As was posted earlier, I think the key is always "does the person in the zone actually believe they are telling the truth?" If the answer is yes then they could tell you the sky is blue and the ground is made of hotdogs until you got tired of asking them questions. Technically speaking, I believe the zone only magically compels them to answer as truthfully as they know, but does not actually compel them to answer at all.

 

[iserith]

So do a great many DMs. Regardless of how you would play it, that seems to be your advice - which you repeat in general form at the end of your post...

My advice is not to use the spell in such a way that it negatively impacts the game experience. I would say the same thing for any spell, class feature, or tactic. It's not enough to choose the most optimal thing to do - it must also be fun and help contribute to the creation of an exciting, memorable story.

OK. What exactly does that have to do with our current conversation. I never stated my intent to do so. But the point in a mystery/investigation scenario is to make the pursuit of information a memorable story. No?

Yes, that can be part of it. But is spamming zone of truth going to be fun and will it contribute to an exciting, memorable story? Probably not. Yet I don't have to make my NPCs cagey even within the bounds of magic to avoid the issue of abusing the spell. I just play with people who don't abuse things and who pass their decisions through the lens of the goals of play before deciding what to do.

Having ZoT invalidate and render moot entire array of Social skills, does not make a memorable story. Especially since other players may have invested character resources in those skills, presumably because they enjoy using those skills and have fun doing so.

I don't see my adjudication of the spell as rendering "moot entire array of Social skills." There is generally only one skill that applies to determining whether someone else is being truthful and that's Wisdom (Insight). So you expend a 2nd-level spell slot to remove the uncertainty from determining the truthfulness of the NPC. I see no issue with that. If the players would rather give the guy in the party with a high Insight bonus a chance to shine, then they'll let him take the lead instead of cast the spell.

I really do appreciate your perspective and your contributions, so please understand that I am not trying to be confrontational - but that is terribly vague. Can you give an example of abuse/not abuse of the spell as written?

Abuse could be the DM being frequently cagey with his NPCs to hide the Big Reveal or keep his plot on track rather than give the players what they've earned by getting the NPC of note into the zone and asking the right questions. Or players who see that the DM gives up the goods when NPCs are in the zone, then set about using the spell whenever they can to the point of making the game a repetitive exercise.

And really, that's true of any spell, class feature, or tactic, as I mentioned above.

 

[Bawylie]

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...

Well I don't care if they decide to use their spells however they please. It doesn't bother me if they cast fireball a bunch, or cure wounds - why should I police their use of zone of truth.

Second, I can tell them whatever I like. If I were to employ a zone of truth spell against the players, I would do so for the challenge it imposes on them. They would know it was cast because I would telegraph it - or outright tell them - you cannot lie.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

My players used this to good effect in LMoP. In Cragmaw Castle they had captured Vyerith (the adventure said she'd fight to the death rather than be captured...unfortunately there isn't any rule allowing her to disallow a PC to decide to knock her out rather than kill her...). Since she was unconscious they were interrogating Klarg and Lhupo (who they had also knocked out) about the Black Spider and such. They couldn't get much out of them (since they didn't know much). They waited till morning to interrogate "the drow." She spent plenty of time throughout the night reading the surface thoughts of whoever happened to be on guard, while feigning unconsciousness.

The next morning, she was well equipped with a basic understanding of what they were trying to accomplish. When they began interrogating her (no Zone of Truth yet), she expressed (real) fear that by telling them anything she'd be killed by the Black Spider. Her plan was to get them to pay her for a fabricated story, then run back the Black Spider and tell him all about it. After negotiating the price, she concocted a story about how the druid in Thundertree (they had stopped by there just long enough to talk to the druid before) was actually the Black Spider, how there wasn't any dragon, and how that was all a setup to get people captured and taken to his hidden lair (under the tower in Thundertree). It was a pretty good story. Unfortunately part of the agreement the players insisted on was that she submit to a Zone of Truth the next day (giving the cleric a chance to prepare it). She hoped to get an opportunity to escape before then, but none was forthcoming.

So the next day, they cast Zone of Truth and quizzed her about everything. She made a valiant attempt to be evasive, but since they asked things like, "Did you tell us anything untrue yesterday?" she was pretty much out of luck. After a brief struggle of evasiveness vs. good questions, she had totally spilled the beans. Some of the party members wanted to kill her, while the LN cleric insisted that she had fulfilled the term of their agreement, and therefore they were obligated to pay her and let her go. What may have saved her bacon is that, after getting all the info from her, they asked her what she would do if they let her go. She told them she'd probably head to Neverwinter and take a ship to the far south. Well now that was the truth, since she'd just given away almost all the info she knew about the Black Spider and she had to get out of the region. So "the drow" took off with about half of the gold she had tried to bargain for, and her life, and the party continued on their way to Wave Echo Cave. And a good time was had by all.