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

[Saeviomagy]

In fact, come to think of it, I think the save every round mechanic for ZoT might be broken. It takes more than six seconds to answer a given question, so what if someone saves in the middle of a sentence?

Better, I think, to save per question.

My reading is that once a creature enters the zone, it starts making saves. Once it fails one, it stops making saves and from that point onwards cannot lie while within the zone. I'ts not an on/off/on/off save - it's a "while you stay here, keep making saves until you fail, then be subject to the spell" which is one reason why the spell gives so much wiggle room.

Anyway, my point of view on the spell is that it's the mystical and accurate equivalent of making someone swear in a court of law. You don't use it for the interrogation itself - you use it to confirm the results of that interrogation.

 

[Mouseferatu]

My reading is that once a creature enters the zone, it starts making saves. Once it fails one, it stops making saves and from that point onwards cannot lie while within the zone. I'ts not an on/off/on/off save - it's a "while you stay here, keep making saves until you fail, then be subject to the spell" which is one reason why the spell gives so much wiggle room.

You know, I was all set to debate that, and then I looked at the spell again. It does say a creature that fails cannot like "while within the radius," not until it saves again. Not sure how I missed that.

OTOH, I still don't like the "save every round" requirement. It targets a weak save, and if it goes the full duration, that's 100 chances (one/round for ten minutes) to fail. Everyone's going to fail eventually.

Since we've established that a failure lasts as long as you're in the zone, maybe a success should too? Need to think about this one...

 

[furysmuse]

My reading is that once a creature enters the zone, it starts making saves. Once it fails one, it stops making saves and from that point onwards cannot lie while within the zone. I'ts not an on/off/on/off save - it's a "while you stay here, keep making saves until you fail, then be subject to the spell" which is one reason why the spell gives so much wiggle room.

This is how it reads to me too, so why even make the save? Why not instead do a die roll for how long the spell is effective for? Otherwise it could be a lot of boring die rolling. You would need to give some kind of bonus for high Charisma, but I would rather roll d10 at the beginning and subtract the charisma modifier to create a variable success rate, or simply take out the save knowing that eventually everyone is bound to fail (and more than likely in the first minute of the spell).

 

[Sword of Spirit]

When we used it, the agreement the characters had with the NPC target was that they would voluntarily submit to the spell (ie, automatically fail the save). Since the caster knows whether or not a creature makes their save, this seems like it would be a standard request if the intent is for the other party to prove they are being truthful (as opposed to you just tying them up, casting the spell, and holding a hot poker to their face).

 

[Kikuras]

I don't really see an NPC getting cute with his answers while his fingernails are being pulled out, or acid being sprinkled on his body...

 

[guachi]

Probably not. But while under torture it'd be plausible that a creature could believe anything he says was the truth just to stop the torture. On the other hand, if I had PCs engage in torture I would end the campaign right then and there so I wouldn't have to figure out how the NPC responded.

 

[Saeviomagy]

OTOH, I still don't like the "save every round" requirement. It targets a weak save, and if it goes the full duration, that's 100 chances (one/round for ten minutes) to fail. Everyone's going to fail eventually.

Since we've established that a failure lasts as long as you're in the zone, maybe a success should too? Need to think about this one...

Well, as is being argued in this thread, even if the target fails a save, the spell is no guarantee that you get answers. I see the repeat save as a way of ensuring that the spell at least affects the expected scenario - an interrogation - and has a chance of working outside of that. After all, anyone who isn't a prisoner can end the effect simply by walking out, in addition to simply not answering. You might find an edge case where you can chuck it at a political bbeg during a public appearance mid speech or something which is why it doesn't just automatically work.

 

[Blue]

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?

The spell doesn't care what you ask or what directions you give. It just says that they can't speak a lie.

Someone asked a question. There was additional instructions, but since they refered to the "answer", most people would not be able to self-delude themselves that it was completely separate and just asking for any yes/no answer. The spell is an enchantment and clearly states you can't lie, though you can evade. The other answers about knowning Tom and not wanting to hurt were evasions that are allowed, but if the subject comprehends that the "answer yes or no" still refers to killing Tom, then by the text of he spell they can't lie and must either remain silent, tell the truth, or put about another evasion - they can't say "no" if it's a lie.