dave2008
Legend
What if an NPC use Deception or Stealth to be just out side the zone when it is talking to the investigator?
D&D 5E Mysteries, Zone of Truth, and Savvy Players?
A PC who dosen't set a chair or two squarely in the center of the area and have the subject sitting in the chair is kinda dumb...
TaranTheWanderer
Legend
I don't like Zone of Truth when I play as a player.
Here's why: if the DM has an investigation mission set up and doesn't want the players to learn the truth too quickly, they try to subvert the spell or trick the PCs in such a way that the spell is pretty much useless.
Not all DMs, but enough that it might be a waste of a 2nd level slot and if you have more adventuring to do in the day, that slot is too valuable to use. Better to save the frustration and get the info the DM is willing to give up with a social skill roll.
Why not just make the spell useful? Like, the guilty person realizes they are caught? Instead of just trying to get around the lie detector, they ask the PCs for a plea deal. They'll tell everything - even the things the PCs wouldn't think to ask.
I mean, sure, throw in some complications - someone tries to kill the witness before they sign their confession, or their confession is at odds with someone else's - but using player resources should be helpful and useful. The reason a player is using Zone of Truth is to use an ability that cuts to the root of the problem and save time and to make their character look awesome.
"For comparison, consider: A player picks the ranger class because they want the thrill of exploration. However, the Natural Explorer feature can actually detract from exploration by trivializing it – or rather, requires some clever thought, adaptation, and work-arounds to make it support an exploration heavy game or session. In other words, Natural Explorer works but it's doesn't "feel" right because it avoids the challenge, rather than engaging with it. "
The reason the Ranger takes Natural Explorer is so that he'll be so incredibly awesome that you can shine a light on that awesomeness when exploration is the focus. It isn't a time to find 'work arounds' so as to make their background choice useless, but a time to bring that choice to forefront. There are lots of complications that arise from exploration that can be used that don't neutralize a player's choices.
Here's why: if the DM has an investigation mission set up and doesn't want the players to learn the truth too quickly, they try to subvert the spell or trick the PCs in such a way that the spell is pretty much useless.
Not all DMs, but enough that it might be a waste of a 2nd level slot and if you have more adventuring to do in the day, that slot is too valuable to use. Better to save the frustration and get the info the DM is willing to give up with a social skill roll.
Why not just make the spell useful? Like, the guilty person realizes they are caught? Instead of just trying to get around the lie detector, they ask the PCs for a plea deal. They'll tell everything - even the things the PCs wouldn't think to ask.
I mean, sure, throw in some complications - someone tries to kill the witness before they sign their confession, or their confession is at odds with someone else's - but using player resources should be helpful and useful. The reason a player is using Zone of Truth is to use an ability that cuts to the root of the problem and save time and to make their character look awesome.
"For comparison, consider: A player picks the ranger class because they want the thrill of exploration. However, the Natural Explorer feature can actually detract from exploration by trivializing it – or rather, requires some clever thought, adaptation, and work-arounds to make it support an exploration heavy game or session. In other words, Natural Explorer works but it's doesn't "feel" right because it avoids the challenge, rather than engaging with it. "
The reason the Ranger takes Natural Explorer is so that he'll be so incredibly awesome that you can shine a light on that awesomeness when exploration is the focus. It isn't a time to find 'work arounds' so as to make their background choice useless, but a time to bring that choice to forefront. There are lots of complications that arise from exploration that can be used that don't neutralize a player's choices.
Last edited:
Hawk Diesel
Adventurer
Not sure that would work. Command is specifically limited to a single word command. Making the command, "Speak" will force the person to talk, but there's nothing saying they have to say anything related to the questions being asked. Additionally, Command only lasts a round, so you are forcing the person to talk, but they are only compelled to speak for 6 seconds. That's not very much time.
That's where the torture piece comes in. It is prolonged, and only stops when the subject actually says things related to what the torturer is interested in. This would really be clearly evil, and would only be relevant to mature games, but it seems like an effective combination.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
This is a pretty good read: Interrogation: How About We Don't Make a Game of Torture?
Bawylie
A very OK person
For investigations, I believe solving the mystery is the mid-point (or the end of act 2) and that what the party does about the answer is the rest of the adventure. So I don’t see a problem with players using their resources and cleverness to overcome obstacles. The cleverer, the better!
But you asked what to do about clever questioning or how you might handle tricky semantics, so there’s a couple things we might establish.
The spell specifies that the affected creature cannot speak a deliberate lie. So we can exclude all statements made with any other motivation from the spell’s effects.
For instance, a statement made under duress may not qualify as a deliberate lie, no matter how far from factual.
Likewise, “repeat after me” situations don’t qualify - the affected creature is not lying when quoting some statement given to them. It is accurately repeating the statement.
Misunderstandings, or not disabusing someone of their incorrect inferences, are also permitted. “If I arrest suspect X, will I arrest the murderer?” Sure, maybe you will. That doesn’t mean suspect X is the murderer. Maybe you’ll arrest both, but I don’t have to correct your assumptions. Or maybe you won’t. I can say Yes or No so long as I am not deliberately lying about it. I may earnestly feel you will never arrest Suspect X, and therefore will never arrest the murderer.
Inaccuracy is likewise permitted. I might have seen the suspect but not have a very accurate estimation of their age, height, weight, or remember in what order events happened. Or I might’ve seen things and yet not understood their meaning. In Much Ado About Nothing, there’s a whole big plot over seeing and hearing an extra-marital affair that never did happen. In My Cousin Vinny, the karate kid says “I shot the clerk?” as a question but it’s transcription in his confession is taken as a statement. So anyone who heard the karate kid say “I shot the clerk” can truthfully repeat that’s what they heard him say.
The spell also specifies that the affected creature cannot SPEAK a deliberate lie. It says nothing about nodding affirmatively or shaking the head negatively, and nothing about any other gestures or writing, either. (If we’re playing this as semantically nit picky as possible lol). When asked whodunnit, I can say “He did it” and point, gesture, or nod in any direction I please.
And how about an accidental or inadvertent lie? Sometimes I say something but use the wrong word. Or can’t think of the right words and end up saying something else. Or a homonym.
In truth, I don’t think I’d ever use these myself. This is needless parsing of spell verbiage, to me. I’d rather see the spell as a gate to the end of act 2 rather than look for attempts to tax it and draw the scene out any longer. With a single exception. If you’re doing a Clarice interviews Hannibal scene, that’s worth some extra time. Questioning disposable NPCs who will never recur and are just features of the obstacle is not worth the sparring.
But you asked what to do about clever questioning or how you might handle tricky semantics, so there’s a couple things we might establish.
The spell specifies that the affected creature cannot speak a deliberate lie. So we can exclude all statements made with any other motivation from the spell’s effects.
For instance, a statement made under duress may not qualify as a deliberate lie, no matter how far from factual.
Likewise, “repeat after me” situations don’t qualify - the affected creature is not lying when quoting some statement given to them. It is accurately repeating the statement.
Misunderstandings, or not disabusing someone of their incorrect inferences, are also permitted. “If I arrest suspect X, will I arrest the murderer?” Sure, maybe you will. That doesn’t mean suspect X is the murderer. Maybe you’ll arrest both, but I don’t have to correct your assumptions. Or maybe you won’t. I can say Yes or No so long as I am not deliberately lying about it. I may earnestly feel you will never arrest Suspect X, and therefore will never arrest the murderer.
Inaccuracy is likewise permitted. I might have seen the suspect but not have a very accurate estimation of their age, height, weight, or remember in what order events happened. Or I might’ve seen things and yet not understood their meaning. In Much Ado About Nothing, there’s a whole big plot over seeing and hearing an extra-marital affair that never did happen. In My Cousin Vinny, the karate kid says “I shot the clerk?” as a question but it’s transcription in his confession is taken as a statement. So anyone who heard the karate kid say “I shot the clerk” can truthfully repeat that’s what they heard him say.
The spell also specifies that the affected creature cannot SPEAK a deliberate lie. It says nothing about nodding affirmatively or shaking the head negatively, and nothing about any other gestures or writing, either. (If we’re playing this as semantically nit picky as possible lol). When asked whodunnit, I can say “He did it” and point, gesture, or nod in any direction I please.
And how about an accidental or inadvertent lie? Sometimes I say something but use the wrong word. Or can’t think of the right words and end up saying something else. Or a homonym.
In truth, I don’t think I’d ever use these myself. This is needless parsing of spell verbiage, to me. I’d rather see the spell as a gate to the end of act 2 rather than look for attempts to tax it and draw the scene out any longer. With a single exception. If you’re doing a Clarice interviews Hannibal scene, that’s worth some extra time. Questioning disposable NPCs who will never recur and are just features of the obstacle is not worth the sparring.
TheCosmicKid
Hero
Ask a question, command "answer". You only get a six-second answer, but that can be a lot of information if you choose the question right, it's a hell of a lot quicker and less morally objectionable than torture, and it works on creatures who may be inured to pain (I generally rule torture is just an ordinary Tuesday to an orc or such, to say nothing of a demon). If as a DM you want to interpret command in such a way as to discourage an alternative to a squicky scene... that's your call, I guess, but I'd recommend erring on the other side here.
Last edited:
The spell only lasts 10 minutes, and the speaker knows when it is happening. So, however much pain you inflict, they just have to be clever for those ten minutes. Note also that trauma can alter people's perception of events. If you have been torturing someone trying to get them to talk about X, they may well come to believe some things about X that the subject expects will get the inquisitor to stop, even if they aren't factually true.
So, this is a bad position for the PC and the auction leader. From the perspective of the other bidders, the aucion leader just happens to have a plant who claims they can do this thing. They all only have the PCs word for it whether any individual is lying, after all...
Why on Oerth should anyone in the room trust this arrangement? Aren't they all going expect this is some kind of setup?
Imaculata
Hero
While you could nit pick the spell description to death, that is probably not the way I would resolve this. The villain would probably be aware that he lives in a world where the spell Zone of Truth exists. So all he needs to do is to have a plan to deal with it.
Heck, if the villain is rich and powerful, he could probably pay someone to take the blame for him.
Similar Threads
