D&D 5E Mysteries, Zone of Truth, and Savvy Players?

[jgsugden]

I reiterate my original advice: Put yourself in the shoes of the deceptive NPCs. What resources do they have, what did they plan/would they have planned, and hw would the react to being found out. Then just run the organic adventure from there. If it is an easy mystery, so be it. The mystery can be the first few minutes followed by the fallout from the mystery.

 

[Quickleaf]

Sorry, but you said this was a black market auction? Why would any of the usual suspects at a black market auction cooperate with magical questioning? Further, it would seem that some might be rather powerful and would react very poorly to being questioned at all.

Yes, it's a black market auction.

The player's proposal is subjecting everyone there (~60 people) to a blanket zone of truth, then asking questions in an orderly fashion, one person at a time, limited to questions pertinent to the investigation only (i.e. nothing about politics, other crimes, personal life, etc).

The auction leader very much wants the item returned, and is willing to cooperate with the priest PC's zone of truth if can help identify the thief.

There's a question of "face" here. Anyone not willing to play ball would be viewed dubiously by the bidders and auction leader. In this extra-judicial setting, refusing the zone of truth – that the auction leader is agreeing to – would mean that all those shady types might decide to get the truth out of the refuser in a... less polite way. From that perspective, the zone of truth is actually the "lesser evil" in that it is less disruptive than wild accusations, a witch hunt, and vigilante justice.

However, it is a social minefield. Asking the wrong question during zone of truth could be met with silence, reduce overall confidence in the PCs / the priest as investigator(s), and even earn a long-term rival.

 

[Quickleaf]

And remember, everybody lies! The innocent lie because they're scared, the guilty lie because they have no choice. The challenge is to find out why they lied.

Indeed, that's terrific mystery writing advice in general.

However, under a zone of truth that someone either voluntarily submits to or fails the save of, they cannot speak a deliberate lie.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, it's a black market auction.

The player's proposal is subjecting everyone there (~60 people) to a blanket zone of truth, then asking questions in an orderly fashion, one person at a time, limited to questions pertinent to the investigation only (i.e. nothing about politics, other crimes, personal life, etc).

The auction leader very much wants the item returned, and is willing to cooperate with the priest PC's zone of truth if can help identify the thief.

There's a question of "face" here. Anyone not willing to play ball would be viewed dubiously by the bidders and auction leader. In this extra-judicial setting, refusing the zone of truth – that the auction leader is agreeing to – would mean that all those shady types might decide to get the truth out of the refuser in a... less polite way. From that perspective, the zone of truth is actually the "lesser evil" in that it is less disruptive than wild accusations, a witch hunt, and vigilante justice.

However, it is a social minefield. Asking the wrong question during zone of truth could be met with silence, reduce overall confidence in the PCs / the priest as investigator(s), and even earn a long-term rival.

Okay, but I see it odd that a bunch of less savory types are going to subject themselves both to questioning and to magical compulsion to save face -- that's not how I imagine criminals working because the risks are so high -- what happens if you're asked about something not related to the theft but that exposes some other interest of yours? Heck, what about questions on point but that might risk revealing information to rivals you do not want them to know? Criminals don't save face by subjecting themselves to questioning, usually, but by refusing to answer questions.

Further, even if I, a criminal person, were some way willing to submit to this indignity, you could be sure that I would hold a serious grudge against the person forcing me into this position or involved in that force at all. This seems a good way to earn powerful and dangerous enemies in a job lot, even if they, strangely, agree to the questioning.

I mean, it would appear that this solves your problem nicely -- criminals are not going to willingly submit to questioning, especially under magical compulsion, which renders the Zone of Truth approach moot because of the usual suspects. I'm not sure why you'd decide that these criminals view submission to questioning, in public, in front of their rivals, as somehow saving face just to preserve the dilemma. I'm starting to suspect that what you really want is to challenge the players on the grounds of their choosing and find a way to let them question with ZoT but still thwart it.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Yes, it's a black market auction.

The player's proposal is subjecting everyone there (~60 people) to a blanket zone of truth, then asking questions in an orderly fashion, one person at a time, limited to questions pertinent to the investigation only (i.e. nothing about politics, other crimes, personal life, etc).

The auction leader very much wants the item returned, and is willing to cooperate with the priest PC's zone of truth if can help identify the thief.

There's a question of "face" here. Anyone not willing to play ball would be viewed dubiously by the bidders and auction leader. In this extra-judicial setting, refusing the zone of truth – that the auction leader is agreeing to – would mean that all those shady types might decide to get the truth out of the refuser in a... less polite way. From that perspective, the zone of truth is actually the "lesser evil" in that it is less disruptive than wild accusations, a witch hunt, and vigilante justice.

However, it is a social minefield. Asking the wrong question during zone of truth could be met with silence, reduce overall confidence in the PCs / the priest as investigator(s), and even earn a long-term rival.

To me, the challenge isn't the finding the perpetrator. The challenge is convincing 60 people to cooperate and deal with the fallout. This seems like a great social challenge/adventure. To me, the Zone of Truth is just the backdrop to the adventure. The focus should be the navigating and dealing with the various personalities and factions involved.

I think getting someone (useful) to agree to a zone of Truth should be the victory condition. Not the actual Interview.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

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.

Honestly, I hadn't thought about that particular Command. That could work, but it is pretty resource intensive, especially since you need to get by multiple saves.

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.

In general, I'm thinking about the Zone of Truth - Torture combination from a World Building angle. So while the spell lasts for 10 minutes, and organization could attempt to commission a chair, circle, or whatever that is enchanted with a permanent Zone of Truth. This would extend that 10 minute time frame. But even without that, 10 minutes is a long time to experience torture. And if the person is a captive, it could be repeated once a day, if not more.

As for trauma affecting memory and perception, that absolutely is a thing. However, this then extends into what is considered Truth, and how the spell assesses it. Does it take a snapshot of your mind at the beginning of the spell and use that as a basis to determine the subject's truth, versus assessing and reassessing moment to moment? If a person is particularly good at compartmentalizing their brain, convincing themselves that something fake is real or vice versa, or if they suffer from multiple personalities (the fantasy kind, not real kind), could they beat or trick the spell similarly to those that can trick a lie detector? What if the fantasy world is based on objective and inalienable reality? Would that change the way the spell works, versus a fantasy world in which reality is subjective and unknowable? Is truth per the spell based on memory, understanding, or facts? Would someone under the effects of Zone of Truth be susceptible to a Modify Memory spell, and how would that interact with the Zone of Truth in vivo, rather than before or after the Zone of Truth casting?

And yes, as a clinical therapist I understand that trauma can affect memory. But even that may have a place in a game world where Zone of Truth is fairly common. For example, a church could torture someone until they "repent" or accept the church's god as real. The person being tortured would be unable to claim such a statement until the torture changed the person's brain to truly believe the statement. This would assure them that the subject is truthful in proclaiming their desired position, potentially ending the torture. It could also be used as a form of brainwashing, effectively ensuring that the subject is forced to eventually agree and believe in the viewpoint of the one subjecting them. In fact, this would be something that I imagine a particularly nasty villain might employ in a game. Their minions set against the PCs could be innocents that were subjected to really inhumane treatment, creating a moral dilemma regarding how to deal with the minions and if it would even be possible to save them.

 

[Quickleaf]

Ah now I get it what you have to do, it is a pretty mundane solution and only requires you to alter some of the NPCs agendas so slightly:

Make it, that if the NPC who got clues is questioned with zone of truth really gives out some info (the least info possible though) - but the caster of the zone of truth gets the indication the player is lying. Why so? Because he has got something to hide in connection with the missing item. Maybe he is involved its disappearance, maybe he has something else to hide. Maybe he did use the item without being allowed to, maybe he intended to steal it, maybe he intends to buy it from the thieves, maybe he knows something extreme about the item (e.g. the item is in fact a very powerful artifact or a doomsday device)

Yeah, multiple competing plans to steal the item – that's totally The Three Apples approach (from an Arabian Nights myth where the vizier questions all these people he thinks are guilty of stealing the king's apple, and each of them are guilty of awful crimes, but in the end he can't solve the case and is to be executed for his failure, when he hugs his daughter goodbye and discovers the apple on her person – given to her by the vizier's servant, who was the thief all along).

I was leaning that way as I was combing over my notes last night. Great minds think alike!

Here's an example! Again, spoilers, in case my players are on here...

Spoiler

The gnomish river merchant Sotheret is not the thief, but she paid off the guard Chairemon (offering to restore his position in a new gladiator school) in exchange for him bringing the McGuffin to her… in the event that she was losing the auction. With the recent theft, Sotheret believes that Chairemon acted prematurely, and hasn’t been able to have a private moment with him to confirm what actually happened.

However, if asked specifically about “stealing” under zone of truth, well, she doesn't believe she is a thief because the McGuffin doesn’t belong to the Auction Leader – it belongs to the gnoll tribe it was originally taken from.

 

[TheDelphian]

I understand the difficulties you are facing. I have often with my group. Basically good players are a challenge and they want to be challenged.

I am wishing other people answered in good faith assuming you are a good GM not assuming you are adversarial, trying to get players or don't know your job.

This is one of those spells , among many that make D&D challenges almost disappear.

To be honest I would take one of the most powerful underworld figures and simply announce the truth. If you ask me questions I will no longer deal with this auctioneer. If one person stands up to this and refuses then threatens the auctioneers business then the spell becomes useless. It seems realistic. As others have pointed out criminals be criminals and would not willingly submit. Strong ones would know this is a slippery slope. Weak ones would be afraid. Others would see it as losing face. Some would go along just to mimic and go along. There are a dozen motivations that all lead to refusal to submit.

I would then put forth the notion that if they want to ask specific individuals that they can show evidence for that may be OK. So don't stop the investigation just delay it and make the players work a bit to get there. Then they can use their resources and be rewarded appropriately while being challenged.

I go to Dresden and Marcone the Mob boss character and think like he would. That is what I think he would do.

 

[NotAYakk]

I understand the difficulties you are facing. I have often with my group. Basically good players are a challenge and they want to be challenged.

I am wishing other people answered in good faith assuming you are a good GM not assuming you are adversarial, trying to get players or don't know your job.

This is one of those spells , among many that make D&D challenges almost disappear.

To be honest I would take one of the most powerful underworld figures and simply announce the truth. If you ask me questions I will no longer deal with this auctioneer. If one person stands up to this and refuses then threatens the auctioneers business then the spell becomes useless. It seems realistic. As others have pointed out criminals be criminals and would not willingly submit. Strong ones would know this is a slippery slope. Weak ones would be afraid. Others would see it as losing face. Some would go along just to mimic and go along. There are a dozen motivations that all lead to refusal to submit.

I would then put forth the notion that if they want to ask specific individuals that they can show evidence for that may be OK. So don't stop the investigation just delay it and make the players work a bit to get there. Then they can use their resources and be rewarded appropriately while being challenged.

I go to Dresden and Marcone the Mob boss character and think like he would. That is what I think he would do.

Awesome! You get to ask one person who you think did it, and if you pick the wrong person, you get nixed.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, it's a black market auction.

Goodness. So, yeah, the PC and the auctioneer may e okay with this. But... a whole bunch of criminals at an auction are probably going to be highly suspicious of this. The auctioneer just happened to have a plant in the audience who just happens to be able to cast this spell on the night something gets stolen?

They all only have the PC's word on who made or failed the save. Why should anyone in this group trust that this isn't some sort of setup by the auctioneer to blame someone for something...

The player's proposal is subjecting everyone there (~60 people) to a blanket zone of truth, then asking questions in an orderly fashion, one person at a time, limited to questions pertinent to the investigation only (i.e. nothing about politics, other crimes, personal life, etc).

60 people, The spell lasts 10 minutes. That's 10 seconds per person per casting if they all fail the save - that is no time at all to think up new questions and consider follow-up questions. The PC will get one, maybe two, questions per person? There's exactly zero room there to probe around crafty answers.

How many castings does the PC get? Some people will make the save - they increase the time you cna use on other people, but if anyone makes the save on every casting (likely, in such a large group), then there's always room for doubt that the persons unaffected by the spell are the culprits.

So, what the PC is looking at is a significant likelihood of interviewing 60 members of the underworld... keeping then around for a half hour doing very little but questioning their honor... and it may not result in a clear answer?

The PC is about to make some enemies, I think...