Lies, Lies, Lies and Silent, Stilled, Eschewed Spells

[Thistleknot]

I want to say thank you to everyone who replied. I appreciated all your comments.

I have always stuck to the game rules while running this game. I don't fudge die rolls, and I don't tend to make the NPC's capable of anything more than the players are. And I would certianly want the players to possibly be able to figure out how how he did it. But since they are all around 8-9th level, I don't want it to be easy. I feel that I would lose credibility as a DM if I just rule 0'ed this, since many of my players are DM's as well and they don't break the rules for their villains. And since my plot involves another DM creation (the spell being disguised), having several of these sorts of "deus ex machina" devices for once character tends to lower plot credibility as well. The NPC's are from the same world as the players and should be subject to the same rules, right? And having a nice, in the rules way to explain how he did this makes it easier for the players to put it all together if they think about it enough, which should lead them deeper into this conspiracy.

The PC's are supposed to believe that this spell is a Zone of Truth, when in fact it is a spell from the God of Lies in my campaign(I would like those affected to voluntarily fail their saves). This spell causes people to lie to questions that are addressed directly to them by their name. The affected people know they are lying when they answer. I was planning on affecting only a few members of the party, and have them figure out why they were being framed. I felt this adventure should be accomplished with party resources only, and I couldn't credibly remove the clerics from the area, because they are in a large town with a large, prominent temple. So I came up with this plot hook.

I hope that clears things up. Thank you all for your time and well thought out comments. =)

 

[Andor of the Blade]

Pielorinho:

Real quick: that quote has everything to do with dice. Alea jacta est is Latin for "The die is cast," and is what Caesar said when crossing the Rubicon to make war on Rome. The expression means that a person has committed to a course of action and can no longer turn back.

You are correct on the background of when it was said, but the quote refers to casting a die as when making a sword. The die is the mould. Once the mould (die) is cast (i.e., made) the shape of the sword is determined.

Thistleknot:

It's a good question and a good scenario. I hope it goes well for you.

 

[Andor of the Blade]

duplicate post.

 

[Pielorinho]

Pielorinho:
You are correct on the background of when it was said, but the quote refers to casting a die as when making a sword. The die is the mould. Once the mould (die) is cast (i.e., made) the shape of the sword is determined.

Andor, check out the page I referenced above. "Alea" is Latin for "Dice," or, more literally, the game of dice. Unless "alea" in Latin is a homonym meaning both game of dice and the die in which a sword is cast, there's no way it could be referring to a sword.

This is, apparently, a common misunderstanding -- but I'd never heard it before. If you have some source that argues persuasively otherwise, I'd love to see it.

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

The PC's are supposed to believe that this spell is a Zone of Truth, when in fact it is a spell from the God of Lies in my campaign(I would like those affected to voluntarily fail their saves). This spell causes people to lie to questions that are addressed directly to them by their name. The affected people know they are lying when they answer.

Be careful with this, although it's a very cool idea. A spell like this really deserves a will save, similar to the one you get when you're in a zone of truth. And if the PCs make their save, his whole plan falls apart -- and the villain is sure to realize this. Furthermore, unless you phrase the spell's effects very carefully, the players should have an easy time getting out of it. "Yes, I killed the King: I turned into a purple giraffe and I did the hokey pokey on his grave, and you KNOW that I must be telling the truth, since I'm obviously in a zone of truth! My name is Bobo, by the way, and one plus one is five!"

A couple alternate ideas:
-The priest can cast dominate on a PC instead of zone of truth, and feed the necessary answers.
-Before the encounter, offscreen, someone else can cast dominate on the PCs; the priest then fake-casts zone of truth, and the dominated PC is fed the answers.
-Suggestion and charm monster can be used with similar effects.
-A spell can implant memories for a short while in the PCs' minds. Perhaps even a powerful post-hypnotic suggestion can cause these memories to surface when the proper keywords are spoken. Until the inquisitor asks the right questions, the PC is convinced of her innocence: but then he says, "Did you kill the most high master, the king?" and the PC "remembers" committing the murder and must answer truthfully, due to an actual zone of truth.

Daniel

 

[Bronn Spellforger]

Hi Tom,
When I'm DMing my children (ages 6 and 8), I fudge rolls all the time (all in their favour) . When I play/DM with my adult group, we have all agreed - "The die is cast."

Just an aside, I'm a player in Tom's group ... we all appreciate it that he makes most of his rolls in plain view of everyone. When something bad happens, no one blames him (at least not to his face).

Of course, since many of us have the maturity levels of 6 and 8 year olds, he probably should fudge a few dice rolls for us, don't you think?

 

[Andor of the Blade]

Pielorinho

This is, apparently, a common misunderstanding -- but I'd never heard it before. If you have some source that argues persuasively otherwise, I'd love to see it.

Your knowledge of Latin far exceeds mine. I just recall reading in a history book (more years ago than I care to remember) that Caesar was comparing his situation to that of forging a weapon and that the common misunderstanding was that it referred to dice. It made sense when I read it (Wouldn't the literal translation be "The dice have been cast?").

It appears that I have been wrong about this. I stand corrected.

Bronn Spellforger:

Of course, since many of us have the maturity levels of 6 and 8 year olds, he probably should fudge a few dice rolls for us, don't you think?

This is not a situation unique to your game.

 

[Pielorinho]

Andor, check out the cited page above. "Alea" is plural, whereas "est" is singular; according to the cited page, "alea" refers to the game of dice. A similar sentence in English might be "Checkers has been played."

But consider the verb "jacta": it means "cast" as in thrown, and English words come from this root, including "eject," "inject," "interjection," and "ejaculate." It's pretty clear that it's cast as in thrown, not cast as in molded.

 

[Andor of the Blade]

Pielorinho:

I have checked out the site you indicated. What can I say? I remember reading exactly the opposite. The explanation involving the root languages does make a more convincing argument than what I remember.

I will agree that the quote does refer to dice after all.

It's still a great quote.

 

[Nox753]

alea iacta est

Actually, not to be pedantic or to get off subject, but alea is in fact singular, alea aleae f. were it a neuter noun it would indeed be plural. Also it is greek where plural neuter nouns take singular verb forms, in latin they still have to have agree with their verb forms in number.
Meaningwise you are totally correct though. The game (of dice) has been thrown.
So back the real thread?